natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De nævnte forordninger og fællesskabsrettens almindelige principper kan ikke fortolkes således, at forpagtere kan støtte ret direkte på dem som grundlag for erstatningskrav over for bortforpagtere."
Case C-40/92 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 24 March 1994 (Failure to fulfil obligations - Special rights of the Milk Marketing Boards -Skimmed and semiskimmed milk - Supervision of the Milk Marketing Boards by the Member State - Notification to the Commission) (Full Court)
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland Landbrug 24.3. 1994
By application lodged on 13 February 1992, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that:
"Traktatbrud - Milk Marketing Boards' særrettigheder - skummetmælk og let mælk - medlemsstatens kontrol af Milk Marketing Board - underretning af Kommissionen" (Domstolens plenum)
(a) by failing to ensure that the Milk Marketing Boards ('MMBs') do not exceed the exclusive rights granted to them only in relation to whole milk, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68;
Ved stævning indgivet den 13. februar 1992 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås,
(c) by failing to supervise the Boards, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1422/78; '
- såfremt Domstolen måtte komme til det resultat, at mælk med lavt fedtindhold er omfattet af MMB's enerettigheder - at producenter og/eller fremstillingsvirksomheder, der har støttet sig på den for tolkning af fællesskabsretten, som Det Forenede Kongerige accepterede, indtil det skiftede standpunkt i juni 1991, og som gik ud på, at mælk med lavt fedtindhold ikke er omfattet af de omhandlede Milk Marketing Schemes, har en berettiget forventning om i et rimeligt tidsrum og i hvert fald indtil domsafsigelsen fortsat at kunne handle med mælk med lavt fedtindhold uden for rammerne af den eneret til opkøb, der er indrømmet Milk Marketing Boards of England and Wales og Northern Ireland.
in the event of the Court holding that low-fat milk falls within the scope of the exclusive rights of the MMBs, the producers and/or processors who have relied upon the interpretation of Community law that was accepted by the United Kingdom until its change of position in June 1991, namely that low-fat milk falls outside the scope of the Milk Marketing Schemes concerned, enjoy a legitimate expectation to carry on trading in low-fat milk outside the exclusive purchasing rights of the MMBs of England and Wales and Northern Ireland for a reasonable period and at least up to the date of the judgment of the Court.
Sagens baggrund
Background to the dispute
Efter Det Forenede Kongeriges tiltrædelse af Fællesskabet er MMB-ordningen blevet integreret i den fælles markedsordning for mælk og mejeriprodukter, der blev indført ved Rådets forordning nr. 804/68.
Following the United Kingdom's accession to the Community, operation of the MMBs was integrated into the common organization of the market in milk and milk products, as established by Regulation No 804/68 of the Council.
Forordningens artikel 25 fastsætter visse betingelser for MMB's virksomhed og bestemmer, at disse organisationers eneret til at købe fra producenterne, der er etableret inden for deres område, omfatter mælk, som produceres og sælges i uforarbejdet stand.
Article 25 of that regulation made the activities of the MMBs subject to certain conditions and provided that the exclusive right of those bodies to buy from producers established in their area should relate to the milk which the latter produced and marketed without processing.
De almindelige regler om betingelserne for at udøve de særrettigheder, Det Forenede Kongerige har indrømmet MMB, er indeholdt i Rådets ovennævnte for ordning nr. 1422/78.
The general rules governing the conditions for exercise of the special rights granted by the United Kingdom to the MMBs were laid down by Council Regulation No 1422/78.
Forordningens artikel 10, stk. 1, pålægger Det Forenede Kongerige at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger med henblik på til stadighed at kontrollere, at MMB overholder Fællesskabets principper og bestemmelser samt de særlige betingelser, som bemyndigelsen er undergivet.
Article 10(1) of that regulation requires the United Kingdom to take the necessary measures for continuing supervision of compliance by the MMBs with Community principles and rules and with the special conditions governing the authorization.
Med hensyn til salg af skummet- og letmælk har der været divergerende praksis i de forskellige MMB i Det Forenede Kongerige.
The practice of the various MMBs of the United Kingdom regarding the marketing of skimmed and semiskimmed milk differed somewhat.
Ved skrivelse af 22. februar 1991 påpegede Kommissionen over for de britiske myndigheder, at Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales havde besluttet, at mælk, som producenterne solgte i flydende form, var omfattet af dens eneret til opkøb, uanset fedtindhold.
By letter of 22 February 1991, the Commission drew the attention of the United Kingdom authorities to the fact that the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales had decided that milk marketed by producers in liquid form came under its exclusive purchasing rights, irrespective of its fat content.
Ved skrivelse af 21. juni 1991 meddelte Det Forenede Kongeriges regering Kommissionen, at man efter fornyet gennemgang af den retlige situation var nået til den opfattelse, at "mælk, der produceres og sælges i uforarbejdet stand" - som i henhold til artikel 25, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 804/68 henhører under MMB's eneret - omfatter al mælk i flydende form, der anvendes til direkte forbrug, idet denne definition ifølge Det Forenede Kongerige omfatter skummet- og letmælk.
By letter of 21 June 1991, the United Kingdom informed the Commission that after a review of the legal position it had reached the conclusion that the phrase 'milk which [producers] produce and market without processing' , which was the subject of the MMBs' exclusive rights under Article 25(1) of Regulation No 804/68, covered all liquid milk intended for direct human consumption, a definition which, according to the United Kingdom, includes skimmed and semiskimmed milk.
Den principale påstand
The principal claim
Klagepunkterne 1. a), b), d) og e)
Complaints 1(a), (b), (d) and (e)
Til støtte for disse påstande gjorde Kommissionen gældende, at i henhold til bestemmelserne i artikel 25, stk. 1 og 3, i forordning nr. 804/68, gælder MMB's eneret til opkøb kun sødmælk og ikke skummet- og letmælk, dvs. mælk, hvorfra en større eller mindre del af fedtindholdet er fjernet.
In support of these heads of claim, the Commission argues that under Article 25(1) and (3) of Regulation No 804/68 the MMBs' exclusive purchasing rights relate only to whole milk and not to skimmed and semiskimmed milk, that is to say, milk from which most or part of the fat has been removed.
Mælketyper med lavt fedtindhold har i det væsentlige den samme kommercielle anvendelse som sødmælk, nemlig direkte forbrug.
The various types of low-fat milk have essentially the same intended commercial use as whole milk, that is to say, direct human consumption.
Skummet- og letmælk sælges ligesom sødmælk i de samme forretninger i kartoner eller på flasker i indbyrdes konkurrence og til de samme eller til næsten ens priser.
Skimmed milk, semiskimmed milk and whole milk are sold in the same retail outlets in cartons or bottles, in competition with each other and at prices which are identical or very similar.
Det tilføjedes, at en begrænsning af MBB's eneret til opkøb til kun at om fatte sødmælk ville indebære en risiko for gennemførelsen af målene med det pågældende markedsføringssystem, nemlig at stabilisere markederne og sikre landbrugsbefolkningen en rimelig levestandard.
The Court added that a restriction of the MMBs' exclusive purchasing rights to whole milk alone would jeopardize the attainment of the objectives of the marketing system in question, which are to stabilize markets and ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community in question.
Af ovenstående måtte følge, at Kommissionens påstande under pkt. 1. a), b), d) og e) i stævningen ikke kunne tages til følge.
It follows that heads of claim 1(a), (b), (d) and (e) in the Commission's application must be dismissed as unfounded.
Domstolen fremhævede, at det påhviler Det Forenede Kongerige nøje at over holde de forpligtelser, der pålægges det ved artikel 10 i forordning nr. 1422/78 netop som betingelse for at anerkende de markedsføringsordninger, sagen drejer sig om, så meget desto mere som disse udgør en fravigelse af den fælles markedsordning.
The Court emphasized that the United Kingdom is required to comply strictly with the obligations imposed on it by Article 10 of Regulation No 1422/78 as a specific condition of the recognition of the marketing schemes in question since they represent an exception from the common organization of the markets.
Den ordning, der fremgår af det samlede fællesskabsretlige regelsæt, som giver hjemmel for MMB's virksomhed, er nemlig ifølge Domstolen kendetegnet ved, at der skal føres et meget indgående tilsyn med disse organisationer.
The scheme underlying all the Community provisions authorizing the MMBs is based on the principle that their activities should be subject to very strict control.
I det foreliggende tilfælde var det ubestridt, at både retsstillingen og MMB's praksis i flere år ikke har været i overensstemmelse med kravet om ensartet anvendelse af den pågældende ordning.
In the present case, it was common ground that neither the legal situation nor the MMBs' practice has, over many years, been consistent with the requirement that the rules in question be uniformly applied.
Det var ubestridt, at Kommissionen ikke var blevet underrettet om ændringerne af de tre skotske Milk Marketing Schemes, hvorved de blev udvidet til også at omfatte skummet- og letmælk.
It was common ground that the Commission was not notified of the changes to the three Milk Marketing Schemes in Scotland which brought skimmed and semiskimmed milk within their scope.
Når henses til betydningen af de påtænkte ændringer, samt for at gøre det muligt for fællesskabsmyndighederne at undersøge disse foranstaltningers overensstemmelse med den gældende ordning, fandtes Det Forenede Kongeriges regering imidlertid at have haft pligt til at underrette Kommissionen om dem.
In view of the significance of the changes envisaged, and in order to allow the Community authorities to check that those measures were consistent with the applicable rules, the United Kingdom ought to have notified them to the Commission.
Den britiske regering gjorde gældende, at denne påstand ikke havde været gjort til genstand for den administrative procedure.
The United Kingdom submitted that this claim was not raised during the prelitigation procedure.
Dette argument måtte tages til følge, idet Kommissionen ikke havde rejst spørgsmålet om beskyttelse af princippet om den berettigede forventning hverken i åbningsskrivelsen eller i den begrundede udtalelse.
The Court accepted argument. No claim relating to the protection of the principle of legitimate expectations was made by the Commission in its letter of formal notice or in its reasoned opinion.
Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler det i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1422/78 af 20. juni 1978 om indrømmelse af visse særrettigheder til mælkeproducentorganisationer i Det Forenede Kongerige, ved at tillade, at Milk Marketing Boards har ført en uensartet politik vedrørende salg af skummet- og letmælk.
Declares that, by allowing the Milk Marketing Boards to pursue divergent policies on the marketing of skimmed and semiskimmed milk, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1422/78 of 20 June 1978 concerning the granting of certain special rights to milk producer organizations in the United Kingdom;
Det har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 5 ved ikke at underrette Kommissionen om de planlagte ændringer af de skotske Milk Marketing Schemes, der fandt sted i 1982 og 1984.
Declares that, in failing to notify the Commission of the proposals for the changes made in 1982 and 1984 to the Milk
Kommissionens øvrige principale påstand forkastes.
Dismisses the Commission's remaining principal claims as being unfounded;
Kommissionens subsidiære påstand afvises.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 14 September 1993.
Hver part bærer sine egne omkostninger, herunder omkostningerne i forbindelse med begæringen om foreløbige forholdsregler."
Rule that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland breached Article 10 of Council Regulation No 1422/78 through its failure to exercise correctly its powers of supervision and Article 5 of the EEC Treaty through its failure to notify the Commission of the changes made in 1982 and 1984 to the Milk Marketing Schemes applicable in Scotland;
Generaladvokat C. Gul mann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet for Domstolen (Plenum) den 14. september 1993.
For the rest, rule in favour of the United Kingdom in respect of the Commission's main submissions;
Generaladvokaten foreslog Domstolen
Declare the Commission's alternative submission inadmissible; and
Sag C-80/92: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Kongeriget Belgien
Case C-80/92 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Belgium
Frie varebevægelser 24.3.1994 "Traktatbrud - lovgivning om apparater til at sende eller modtage radiomeddelelser" (Domstolens plenum)
24 March 1994 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Legislation applicable to radiocommunications transmitters and receivers) (Full Court)
Ved stævning indleveret den 12. marts 1992 havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Belgien havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter EØF-traktatens artikel 30, 34 og 59, idet det havde vedtaget lov af 30. juli 1979 om radiokommunikation og de bekendtgørelser af 15. og 19. oktober 1979, som var udstedt til gennemførelse heraf.
By application lodged on 12 March 1992, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by adopting the Law of 30 July 1979 and the implementing Decrees of 15 October and 19 October 1979 relating to radiocommunications, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 34 and 59 of the EEC Treaty.
Klagepunktet om tilsidesættelsen af traktatens artikel 30 for så vidt angår modtagerapparater
The complaint concerning receivers, based on the infringement of Article 30 of the Treaty
Kommissionen gjorde gældende og støttedes heri af Pet Forenede Kongerige, at den godkendelsesprocedure for apparater til modtagelse af radiomeddelelser (bortset fra apparater, som udelukkende er bestemt til at modtage radio- eller tv-udsendelser), der er fastsat i den belgiske lovs artikel 7, samt den procedure for indhentning af ministeriel godkendelse til at råde over sådanne apparater, der er fastsat i samme lovs artikel 3, stk. 1,
According to the Commission, supported by the United Kingdom, the procedure for certifying radiocommunications receivers (with the exception of those
- 13 - stred mod traktatens artikel 30, for så vidt disse procedurer tillige om fattede modtagerapparater, som er lovligt fremstillet og bragt i omsætning i andre medlemsstater.
- 12 - intended exclusively for the reception of radio or television broadcasts), as provided for by Article 7 of the Belgian Law, and the procedure for ministerial authorization for the possession of such equipment, as provided for by Article 3(1) of that Law, are contrary to the requirements of Article 30 of the Treaty, in so far as they affect receivers lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States.
Domstolen fandt, at Kommissionens klagepunkt måtte forstås på den måde, at det vedrørte kravet om, at der skal indhentes godkendelse til samtlige modtagerapparater, bortset fra de apparater, som udelukkende er bestemt til modtagelse af radio- eller tv-udsendelser, og uanset om disse apparater er egnede til at fremkalde radioelektriske forstyrrelser, eller om de fremstillet eller godkendt i en anden medlemsstat.
The Commission's complaint was to be understood as relating to the requirement of certification for all receivers, with the exception of those intended exclusively for the reception of radio or television broadcasts, irrespective of whether the equipment was capable of causing interference or whether it has been manufactured or certified in another Member State.
Den belgiske regering bestred ikke Kommissionens klagepunkt, når dette af grænsedes på den angivne måde, men erkendte endog udtrykkeligt, at kravet om indhentning af godkendelse til alle former for modtagerapparater ud gjorde en hindring for den frie samhandel, som står i misforhold til det tilstræbte formål.
Far from challenging that complaint, the Belgian Government expressly acknowledged that the requirement that all receivers, of whatever kind, should be certified, constitutes an obstacle to intra-Community trade which is disproportionate to the aim pursued.
Den belgiske regering forsvarede sig imidlertid med, at sagen var uden genstand, dels på grund af det tilbud om at erstatte godkendelsesproceduren med en erklæringsordning, som regeringen havde fremsendt i besvarelsen af den begrundede udtalelse, dels under henvisning til at en sådan ordning var blevet gennemført efter instruktion herom til de pågældende tjenestegrene.
In its defence, however, the Belgian Government contended that the action was devoid of purpose, in view, first, of the offer in the reply to the reasoned opinion to replace the certification procedure simply with a declaration procedure and, secondly, of the fact that the appropriate departments were instructed to replace the former procedure with the latter.
Domstolen fandt det herefter tilstrækkeligt at fastslå, at der ikke var foretaget nogen lovgivningsændring inden udløbet af fristen i den begrundede udtalelse.
As to that, it was sufficient to find that no amendment of the legislation at issue was implemented before the expiry of the period set by the reasoned opinion.
I øvrigt ville en sådan ændring^under alle omstændigheder være uden relevans for afgørelsen af sagen.
In any event, such an amendment would be irrelevant for the purposes of giving judgment on the subject-matter of this action.
Anbringendet om tilsidesættelsen af traktatens artikel 34 for så vidt angår apparater til at sende eller sende/modtage og som er bestemt til eksport
The complaint concerning transmitters or transceivers intended for export, based on the infringement of Article 34 of the Treaty
Kommissionen bestred ikke, at den godkendelsesordning for apparater til at sende eller sende/modtage, som var indført ved den belgiske lovgivning, er en generel og forebyggende kontrolordning, som har til formål at sikre telekommunikationsnettets drift og brugernes sikkerhed, og at en sådan ordning er begrundet i objektive, legitime hensyn i almenhedens interesse.
The Commission did not dispute that the Belgian legislation establishes for transmitters or transceivers a general system of advance regulation through certification, which is intended to ensure the proper working of the telecommunications network and user safety, and which is justified by objective and legitimate requirements in the general interest.
Efter Kommissionens opfattelse var ordningen dog hverken nødvendig eller berettiget for apparater, som er bestemt til eksport, og derfor uforenelig med traktatens artikel 34.
However, the Commission's complaint related to the fact that, in the case of equipment intended for export, a certification procedure of that kind is neither necessary nor justified and is therefore incompatible with Article 34 of the Treaty.
Domstolen bemærkede, at den belgiske lovgivning om apparater til at sende og sende/modtage gælder såvel for produkter bestemt til det belgiske marked som produkter bestemt til eksport, bortset fra, at det kun er muligt at opnå dispensation fra godkendelseskravet for så vidt angår eksportprodukterne.
In that connection, the Belgian legislation relating to transmitters and transceivers applies both to products intended for the Belgian market and to those intended for export, while the latter alone qualify for exemption from certification.
Dette sidstnævnte forhold fandtes dog ikke at udgøre en forskelsbehandling mellem den interne handel og eksporthandelen, som havde til formål eller til følge særlig at hindre eksporthandelen.
That fact could not, however, be regarded as constituting a difference in treatment between domestic trade and export trade which has as its specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports.
- 14 - og i de bekendtgørelser om radiokommunikation, der er udstedt til gennemførelse heraf, og som gælder uden forskel for alle apparater, der udelukkende er apparater til modtagelse af radiomeddelelser, bortset fra apparater, der alene er bestemt til modtagelse af radioeller tv-udsendelser.
Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force a certification procedure applied without distinction to all radiocommunications equipment capable of reception only, with the sole exception of equipment intended exclusively for the reception of radio or television broadcasts, provided for by Article 7 of the Law of 30 July 1979 relating to radiocommunications and by the implementing decrees relating to radiocommunications, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty;
Intervenienten, Det Forenede Kongerige, betaler sine egne omkostnin ger."
Dismisses the remainder of the application; Orders the parties to bear their own costs; Orders the United Kingdom, as intervener, to bear its own costs."
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 12. januar 1994.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 12 January 1994.
Kongeriget Belgien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter traktatens artikel 30, idet det har vedtaget og opretholdt den ordning for god kendelse af apparater til modtagelse af radiomeddelelser, som er fastsat i artikel 7 i lov af 30. juli 1979, og de bekendtgørelser, som er udstedt til gennemførelse af denne lov.
By adopting and maintaining in force the certification system governing reception equipment for telecommunications provided for in Article 7 of the Law of 30 July 1979, and in the implementing decrees relating to that law, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty.
Intervenienten, Det Forenede Kongerige, betaler sine egne omkostnin ger."
The United Kingdom, intervener, shall bear its own costs."
3.1994 Præjudiciel "Lotterier" (Domstolens plenum) Ved kendelse af 3. april 1992, indgået til Domstolen den 18. juni s.a., havde High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen's Bench Division) forelagt Domstolen seks præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 30, 36, 56 og 59 med henblik på en afgørelse af, om en national lovgivning, der forbyder visse lotterier på en medlemsstats territorium, er forenelig med disse bestemmelser.
Gerhart and Jörg Schindler are independent agents of the 'Süddeutsche Klassenlotterie' (hereinafter ' SKL' ), a public body responsible for organizing what are known as 'Class' lotteries on behalf of four Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany. As such agents, they promote SKL lotteries and unquestionably sell tickets for those lotteries.