natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sag C-8/92 General Milk Products GmbH mod Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat Marco Darmon Sag C-321/91 Tara Meat Packers Ltd mod Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat Claus Gulmann Forenede sager C-259/91, C-331/91 og C-332/91 P. Al lue m.fl. mod Università degli Studi di Venezia Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat Carl Otto Lenz Sag C-333/91 S.A. Sofi tarn mod Ministre chargé du Budget Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat W. Van Gerven
OPINIONS Case C-8/92 General Milk Products GmbH ν Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon Case C-321/91 Tara Meat Packers Ltd ν Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce Opinion of Mr Advocate General Gulman Joined Cases C-259/91, C-331/91 and C-332/91 P. Alluè and Others ν Università degli Studi di Venezia Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz Joined Cases C-333/91 Sofitam S.A. ν Minister responsible for the Budget Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven
19.1.1993 "Traktatbrud - gradvis tilpasning af monopoler - vilkår for Den Portugisiske Republiks tiltrædelse - overgangsforanstaltninger" (Domstolens plenum)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations -- Progressive adjustment of monopolies -- Conditions of accession of the Portuguese Republic Transitional measures) (Full Court)
Ved stævning indgivet den 10. december 1990 havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med henblik på at få fastslået, at Den Portugisiske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 208, stk. 1, i akten vedrørende Spaniens og Portugals tiltrædelse, idet Den Portugisiske Republik havde undladt gradvist at tilpasse monopolet på landbrugsethanol, på ethanol af ikke-landbrugsmæssig oprindelse samt monopolet på køb og afsætning af vinspiritus bestemt til frem stilling af portvin.
By application lodged on 10 December 1990 the Commission brought an application for a declaration that, by failing to adjust progressively the monopoly in ethyl alcohol of agricultural and non-agricultural origin and the monopoly in the acquisition and supply of wine spirits for use in the making of port wine, the Portuguese Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 208(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen, at den portugisiske regering inden det tidspunkt, der var fastsat i den begrundede udtalelse, havde indledt en gradvis tilpasning af de pågældende monopoler i overensstemmelse med den forpligtelse, der påhviler staten i henhold til tiltrædelsesaktens artikel 208, stk. 1.
The Court observed that by the date fixed in the reasoned opinion the Portuguese Government had begun to adjust the monopolies in question progressively in accordance with the obligation laid on it by Article 208(1) of the Act of accession.
Den omstændighed, at den portugisiske regering ikke på dette tidspunkt - for så vidt angik ethanol samt vinspiritus - havde åbnet kontingenter for indførsel og fri omsætning af importerede produkter i overensstemmelse med den tidsplan, der var anført i Kommissionens henstilling af 8. oktober 1987 til Den Portugisiske Republik, kunne ikke ændre dette resultat.
The fact that the Portuguese Government had not by that date opened quotas in respect of ethyl alcohol and wine spirits for the importation and unrestricted trade in imported products in accordance with the timetable set out in the recommendation which the Commission addressed to it on 8 October 1987 was not significant.
Domstolen bemærkede endvidere, at tiltrædelsesaktens artikel 208, stk. 1, ikke specielt angiver, hvilke midler, der skal anvendes ved den gradvise tilpasning af de omtvistede monopoler.
Article 208(1) did not specify the methods by which the contested monopolies were to be progressively adjusted.
Det overlades således til Den Portugisiske Republik selv at vælge disse midler.
Consequently, the choice of method was a matter for the Portuguese Republic.
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 22. september 1992.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Court on 22 September 1992.
Han foreslog Domstolen at træffe følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court should:
"Sagsøgte frifindes, og sagsøgeren betaler sagens omkostninger."
"dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the costs."
Ved dom afsagt den 14. februar 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 25. februar 1991 havde Supremo Tribunal Administrativo forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål ved rørende fortolkningen af Traktatens artikel 37 og artikel 208, i akten vedrørende Spaniens og Portugals tiltrædelse.
By an order of 14 February 1991, received at the Court on 25 February 1991, the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) referred three questions for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 37 of the EEC Treaty and Article 208 of the Act of accession of Spain and Portugal.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en tvist mellem ovennævnte parter i anledning af, at Ministro do Comércio havde meddelt afslag på CNC's ansøgning om tilladelse til at importere ren alkohol fra Frankrig.
The questions arose in proceedings between the abovementioned parties in connection with the decision of the Minister of Commerce to refuse CNC's request to import pure alcohol from France.
CNC gjorde gældende, at den portugisiske stat havde tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler den i medfør af tiltrædelsesakten, fælleserklæringen om af skaffelse af monopoler i de nye medlemsstater inden for landbrugsområdet samt Kommissionens henstilling til Den Portugisiske Republik om tilpasning af det statslige handelsmonopol på spiritus over for de øvrige medlemsstater, idet den ikke havde åbnet kontingenter for indførsel af ethanol pá det tidspunkt, hvor selskabets ansøgning blev afslået.
CNC claimed that by failing to open quotas for the importation of ethyl alcohol by the date of the decisions rejecting its request, Portugal had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act of accession, the Joint Declaration on the elimination of monopolies existing in the new Member States in the sphere of agriculture, and the Commission Recommendation addressed to the Portuguese Republic concerning the adjustment of the State monopoly of a commercial character in alcohol vis-à-vis the other Member States.
Domstolen bemærkede hertil, at der ifølge tiltrædelsesaktens artikel 208, stk. 1, tilkom Den Portugisiske Republik et vidt skøn med hensyn til valget af midler til en gradvis tilpasning af de pågældende monopoler, således at det senest ved overgangsperiodens udløb sikres, at enhver forskelsbehandling, som omhandlet i bestemmelsen, er udelukket.
The Court observed that under Article 208(1) of the Act of accession, the Portuguese Republic had a wide discretion as to the choice of methods for progressively adjusting the monopolies in question so as to ensure that by the end of the transition period at the latest all forms of discrimination referred to in that provision had been excluded.
Den kunne således træffe andre foranstaltninger end åbning af kontingenter for fri indførsel fra andre medlemsstater for at opfylde sine forpligtelser i overgangsperioden.
Therefore, in order to comply with its obligations during the transitional period, it could apply measures other than opening quotas for free importation from other Member States.
"Traktatens artikel 37, stk. 1, og artikel 208, stk. 1, i tiltrædelsesakten skal fortolkes således, at Den Portugisiske Republiks forpligtelse til gradvist at tilpasse monopolet på ethylalkohol ikke nødvendigvis indebærer, at der i løbet af overgangsperioden åbnes kontingenter for fri indførsel fra de øvrige medlemsstater af produkter, der er omfattet af dette monopol."
"Article 37(1) of the Treaty and Article 208(1) of the Act of accession must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on the Portuguese Republic to adjust the monopoly in ethyl alcohol progressively does not necessarily require the opening during the transitional period of quotas for free importation from other Member States of products covered by the monopoly."
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare de forelagte spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows:
Traktatens artikel 37, stk. 1, og tiltrædelsesaktens artikel 208, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at Den Portugisiske Republiks forpligtigelse til gradvist at tilpasse det statslige monopol på
Article 37(1) of the Treaty and Article 208(1) of the Act of accession must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on the Portuguese Republic to adjust the State monopoly in ethyl alcohol progressively does not automatically require the opening of quotas for free importation.
Shearson Lehnann Hutton Inc. mod TVB Treuhandgesellschaft für Vermögensverwaltung und Beteiligungen mbH 19.1.1993 "Bruxelles-konventionen - artikel 13, stk. 1 og 2 - kompetence i sager om for brugerkontrakter - begrebet forbruger - sag anlagt af et selskab som cessionar i en persons rettigheder"
(Brussels Convention -- Article 13, first and second paragraphs -- Consumer contracts -- Meaning of the term "consumer" -- Action brought by a company to which an individual's rights have been assigned)
Ved kendelse af 29. januar 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 11. marts 1991, havde Bundesgerichshof forelagt fire præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 13, stk. 1 og 2, i konventionen om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handel sager.
By an order of 29 January 1991, which was received by the Court on 11 March 1991, the Bundesgerichtshof referred for a preliminary ruling four questions on the interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 13 of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
Selskabet TVB, München, havde anlagt sag for de tyske domstole mod vekselerfirmaet Hutton Inc., New York, på grundlag af rettigheder, der var blevet overdraget det.
TVB, a company established in Munich, brought proceedings before the German courts against Hutton Inc., a firm of brokers whose registered office is in New York, on the basis of a right which had been assigned to it.
Cedenten, der var tysk statsborger, havde givet Hutton Inc. - der til bød sine ydelser i annoncer i tysk presse - i opdrag at udføre nogle valutaterminsforretninger på kommissionsbasis.
The assignor, a German national, had instructed Hutton Inc., which offered its services in advertisements appearing in the German press, to carry out currency futures transactions on a commission basis.
I denne anledning havde han indbetalt betydelige beløb, der næsten fuldstændig var gået tabt i forbindelse med forretningerne.
He paid considerable sums in that connection which were almost entirely lost as a result of the transactions.
TVB havde krævet godtgørelse for de beløb, cedenten havde mistet, med den begrundelse, at Hutton Inc. ikke i fornødent omfang havde oplyst cedenten om de risici, der var forbundet med terminsforretningerne.
TVB demanded repayment of the sums lost by the assignor on the ground that Hutton had not informed him sufficiently of the risks connected with futures transactions.
Oberlandesgericht fastslog, at de tyske retter havde kompetence til at påkende kravet, men denne afgørelse indbragte Hutton Inc. for Bundesgerichtshof til revision.
The Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court, Munich) decided that the German courts had jurisdiction to hear the case and Hutton appealed against that decision to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice).
Domstolen bemærkede, at den særlige ordning, der er indført ved konventionens artikel 13 ff., og som giver en forbruger som omhandlet i artikel 13 mulighed for at anlægge sag mod en sagsøgt for retterne i den kontraherende stat, på hvis område forbrugeren har bopæl, er begrundet i ønsket om at beskytte forbrugeren - som den økonomisk svageste og retligt set mindst erfarne af kontrakt eksperterne - hvorfor der ikke bør lægges denne hindringer i vejen for søgsmål, f.eks. i form af en pligt til at anlægge sag for retterne i den stat, på hvis område hans medkontrahent har bopæl.
The Court observed that the scheme established by Articles 13 et seq. of the Convention, whereby a consumer, as defined by Article 13, may sue the defendant in the courts of the Contracting State on whose territory the plaintiff has his domicile, derived from a concern to protect the consumer as the party to the contract who was considered to be economically weaker and less experienced in the law than his co-contractor, and who therefore should not be discouraged from pursuing his claim by being obliged to bring his action before the courts of the State on whose territory his co-contractor had his domicile.
"Artikel 13 i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, skal fortolkes således, at en sagsøger, der handler under udøvelse af sin erhvervsmæssige virksomhed og derfor ikke selv er en forbruger, der er part i en af de i artikel 13, stk. 1, nævnte kontrakter, ikke kan drage fordel af konventionens specielle kompetenceregler i sager om forbrugerkontrakter." ter."
"Article 13 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that a plaintiff who acts in the exercise of his profession and is therefore not himself the consumer who is a party to one of the contracts listed in the first paragraph of Article 13 cannot invoke the special rules on jurisdiction laid down in the Convention as regards consumer contracts."
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 27. oktober 1992.
Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Court on 27 October 1992.
En sagsøger, der ikke personligt er part i en af de i Bruxelles-kon-ventionens artikel 13, stk. 1, nævnte kontrakter, er ikke forbruger som omhandlet i konventionens artikel 13 og 14.
A party bringing civil proceedings who is not personally a party to one of the contracts listed in the first paragraph of Article 13 is not a consumer within the meaning of Articles 13 and 14 of the Brussels Convention.
Såfremt en filial af et selskab, der har hjemsted i en tredjestat, befinder sig i samme kontraherende stat som den, hvor forbrugeren har bopæl, finder konventionens artikel 13, stk. 2, ikke anvendelse som følge af manglende tilknytningsmomenter til udlandet.
When the branch of a company established in a non-Contracting State is situated on the territory of the same Contracting State as that in which the consumer is domiciled the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Convention does not apply, there being no extra-territorial factor.
En kommissionsaftale om udførelse af valuta-, værdipapir- og vareterminsforretninger er en kontrakt, hvis formål er levering af tjenesteydelser, jf. Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3.
A commission-based contract to carry out currency, security and commodity futures transactions is a contract for the supply of services within the meaning of sub-paragraph (3) of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Brussels Convention.
Begrebet 'sager om kontrakter', jf. artikel 13, stk. 1, omfatter krav, der støttes på tilsidesættelse af kontraktlige forpligtelser, tilsidesættelse af forpligtelser forud for kontraktens indgåelse samt
That provision does not require there to be proof of a causal link between the publicity and the conclusion of the contract.
19.1.1993 "Traktatbrud - undladelse af at opfylde en dom, der fastslår, at der er begået et traktatbrud"
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations -- Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court finding a failure to fulfil obligations)
Ved stævning indgivet den 27. marts 1991 havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med på stand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik havde undladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 171, idet den ikke havde truffet de foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for at opfylde Domstolens dom af 21. februar 1989, Kommissionen mod Italien (sag 203/87).
By an application lodged on 27 March 1991 the Commission brought proceedings for a declaration that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 February 1989 in Case 203/87 Commission ν Italy, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty.
Ved dommen i nævnte sag, der var en traktatbrudssag, udtalte og bestemte Dom stolen, at Den Italienske Republik havde tilsidesat artikel 2 i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388 af 17. maj 1977, idet den i perioden 1. januar 1984 - 31. de cember 1988 havde ydet momsfritagelse i form af tilbagebetaling af de i det foregående led erlagte afgifter hidrørende fra visse transaktioner til fordel for den jordskælvsramte befolkning i Campania- og Basilicata-provinserne.
In proceedings for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations, the Court declared in the abovementioned judgment that by granting for the period between 1 January 1984 and 31 December 1988 an exemption from value-added tax with reimbursement of the tax paid at the preceding stage in respect of certain transactions carried out for earthquake victims in Campania and Basilicata, the Italian Republic had infringed Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC).
De italienske myndigheder forlængede ikke desto mindre gentagne gange denne omtvistede fritagelsesordning frem til den 31. december 1992.
However, the Italian authorities extended the contested exemption arrangements on several occasions up to 31 December 1992.
Domstolen henviste i den forbindelse til sin faste praksis, hvorefter den interesse, der er forbundet med en øjeblikkelig og ensartet anvendelse af fælles skabsretten, selv om artikel 177 ikke fastsætter en frist for opfyldelse af en dom, hvori det fastslås, at en medlemsstat ikke har opfyldt sine forpligtelser, kræver, at opfyldelsen iværksættes med øjeblikkelig virkning og gennemføres hurtigst muligt.
The Court recalled, in that connection, that it had consistently held that even though Article 171 of the Treaty did not specify the period within which a judgment declaring that a Member State had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty must be implemented, the need for immediate and uniform application of Community law required that implementation must start immediately and must be completed within the shortest possible time.
Domstolen anførte desuden, at traktatbruddet i den foreliggende sag ikke blot bestod i en undladelse at træffe visse foranstaltninger for at opfylde en af Domstolen afsagt dom, men i en formelig vedtagelse af specielle foranstaltninger med henblik på at forlænge en afgiftsfritagelsesordning, der ved en af Dom stolen afsagt retskraftig dom var blevet erklæret for fællesskabsretstridig.
The Court also observed that the present failure to fulfil obligations lay not only in the failure to adopt certain measures to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice, but also in the adoption of specific measures extending a system of tax exemptions already declared contrary to Community law by a judgment of the Court having the status of res judicata.
En sådan adfærd udgjorde ifølge Domstolen en grov og utilladelig tilsidesættelse af medlemsstaternes forpligtelse ifølge Traktatens artikel 5, stk. 2, til at afholde sig fra træffe foranstaltninger, der er egnet til at bringe virkeliggørelsen af Traktatens målsætning i fare, og antaster dermed fællesskabsretsordenen i dens grundvold.
Such conduct represented a flagrant and unacceptable breach of the obligation of Member States under the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty to abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty, and thus went so far as to affect the essential foundations of the Community legal order.
Domstolen fastslog endelig, at en konstatering af, at en medlemsstat har und ladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i henhold til fællesskabsretten, under alle omstændigheder medfører, at såvel retsvæsenets som forvaltningens myndigheder i vedkommende medlemsstat retligt er totalt afskåret fra at anvende denne retsstridige afgiftsfritagelsesordning samt forpligtet til i enhver henseende at arbejde for, at fællesskabsretten gennemføres fuldt ud.
Lastly, the Court observed that in any event the finding that a Member State had failed to fulfil its Community obligations implied firstly that the judicial and administrative authorities of that State were automatically prohibited from applying the incompatible tax exemption, and secondly that they had an obligation to adopt all the measures necessary in order to implement Community law.
"Den Italienske Republik har undladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 171, idet den ikke har truffet de
"By failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 February 1989 in Case 203/87 Commission ν Italy the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty."
Generaladvokat Claus Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 28. oktober 1992.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Court on 28 October 1992.
"at tage Kommissionens påstand til følge og dømme Den Italienske Republik til at afholde sagens omkostninger."
"uphold the Commission's application and order the Italian Republic to bear the costs."
Forenede sager C-106/90, C-317/90 og C-129/91 Emerald Meats Ltd mod Kommissionen
Joined Cases C-106/90, C-317/90 and C-129/91: Emerald Meats Ltd ν Commission
20.1.1993 "Fællesskabstoldkontingenter for frosset kød af hornkvæg - Kommissionens forvaltning"
(Community tariff quotas for frozen beef -- Management by the Commission)
Ved stævninger indgivet henholdsvis den 18. april 1990, den 22. oktober 1990 og den 9. maj 1990 havde det irske selskab Emerald Meats Ltd dels nedlagt påstand om annullation af nogle retsakter, som Kommissionen i henhold til Rådets for ordning (EØF) nr. 3889/89 og nr. 3838/90 havde udstedt som led i forvaltningen af fællesskabstoldkontingenter for frosset kød af hornkvæg for årene 1990 og 1991, dels påstået Fællesskabet tilpligtet at betale erstatning for de tab, selskabets havde lidt eller ville lide som følge af, at Kommissionen ikke havde forvaltet og gennemført fordelingen af de pågældende toldkontingenter korrekt.
By applications lodged on 18 April 1990, 22 October 1990 and 9 May 1991 Emerald Meats Ltd, a company governed by Irish Law, brought an action, first, for the annulment of certain measures taken by the Commission in connection with the management of Community tariff quotas for frozen meat of bovine animals opened for 1990 and 1991 respectively by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3889/89 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3838/90, and secondly, for an order that the Community should compensate Emerald Meats for the loss which it had and would suffer as a result of the Commission's failure to administer and manage the relevant Community tariff quotas correctly.
Emerald Meats gjorde for det første gældende, at Kommissionen burde have kontrolleret de oplysninger, som de irske myndigheder havde meddelt, og som den vidste eller burde vide var ukorrekte, eller som var udslag af en ulovlig for tolkning af fællesskabsbestemmelserne, samt at disse oplysninger under ingen omstændigheder kunne danne et gyldigt grundlag for Kommissionens egne retsakter. akter.
Emerald Meats claimed first that the Commission should have verified the information provided by the Irish authorities, which it knew, or should reasonably have known, was incorrect or based on an unlawful interpretation of the Community legislation and could in no event constitute a valid basis for its own measures.