natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kontrollen hermed må imidlertid ikke gå ud over de grænser, som fællesskabsretten afstikker, her­under navnlig de gränser, der følger af retten til fri udveksling af tjeneste­ydelser, som ikke må undergraves, og hvis udøvelse ikke af myndighederne kan underlægges betingelser fastsat efter disses skøn.
Such checks must, however, observe the limits set by Community law and, in particular, the freedom to provide services which may not be rendered nugatory and the exercise of which may not be made subject to administrative discretion.
Afslutningsvis bemærkede Domstolen i anledning af det af den franske regering under sagen anførte, at fællesskabsretten ikke er til hinder for, at medlems­staterne lader deres lovgivning eller de kollektive overenskomster, der er indgået mellem parterne på arbejdsmarkedet, galde for alle, der udøver en lønnet beskæftigelse, herunder af midlertidig karakter, på deres områder, uanset den medlemsstat, hvori arbejdsgiveren er etableret.
Finally, in response to the preoccupations expressed on this point by the French Government, the Court held that Community law did not preclude Member States from extending their legislation or collective bargaining agreements concluded by labour and the employers, to any person carrying on salaried employment, even of a temporary nature, on their territory, whatever may be the country in which the employer is established.
Fællesskabsretten opstiller heller Ikke noget forbud mod, at medlemsstaterne træffer de fornødne foranstaltninger til at sikre en overholdelse af sådanne regler.
Community law did not prohibit Member States from requiring observance of these rules by appropriate means.
Domstolen besvarede herefter de forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Court ruled that:
"EØF­Traktatens artikler 59 og 60 og artiklerne 215 og 216 i Akten ved­rørende Kongeriget Spaniens og Republikken Portugals Tiltrædelse skal fortolkes således, at en virksomhed, der er etableret i Portugal, og som præsterer tjenesteydelser som led i offentlige bygge­ og anlægsar­bejder i en anden medlemsstat, i denne forbindelse kan medbringe sit eget personale fra Portugal, for så vidt angår den periode, hvori de pågældende arbejder udføres.
"Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 215 and 216 of the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking established in Portugal which provides services in the building and public works sector in another Member State may travel with its own staff which it brings with it from Portugal for the duration of the work.
I sådanne tilfælde kan myndighederne 1 den medlemsstat, på hvis område arbejderne skal udføres, ikke forlange, at den pågældende virksomhed, der præsterer tjenesteydelser, skal opfylde bestemte betingelser, for så vidt angår ansættelse af lokal arbejds­kraft eller opnåelse af arbejdstilladelse for det portugisiske personale."
In such a case, the authorities of the Member State on whose territory the work is to be carried out may not impose conditions on the provider of services as to the recruitment of workers on the spot or the obtaining of a work permit for Portuguese staff."
- 22 - eller personale i stillinger, der forudsatter et særligt tillidsforhold, eller hvis særlige kvalifikationer er afgørende for, at virksomheden kan præstere de pågældende tjenesteydelser, og som kun med store vanskeligheder kan skaffes på arbejdsmarkedet i de oprindelige medlemsstater, hvorved det er en betingelse, at disse arbejdstageres tilstedeværelse i den pågældende anden medlemsstat er en forudsætning for, at virksomheden effektivt kan udøve sine aktiviteter.
"Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 215 to 218 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, signed on 12 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that a provider of services established in a Member State of the Community may, in order to provide services in another Member State (the host Member State), be accompanied by Portuguese workers forming part of the management staff of the undertaking or members of staff with whom it has a specific relationship of trust, or members of staff who have special qualifications which are essential for the provision of the services In question, and who may be recruited on the employment market of the old Member States only with great difficulty, provided that the presence of such workers in the host Member State 1s required for the actual carrying on of the undertaking's activity as a provider of services.
Den pågældende anden medlemsstat skal uden videre udstede opholdstilladelse for sådanne arbejdstagere, jfr. artiklerne 3 og 6 i direktiv 68/360/EØF.
As far as such workers are concerned, the host Member State may not attach any conditions to the grant of a residence permit within the meaning of Article 3 and Article 6 of Directive 68/360/EEC.
Såfremt arbejdstageren eller arbejdsgiveren Ikke ansøger om en sådan tilladelse, må der hertil kun vare knyttet sanktioner svarende til dem, der galder indenlandske statsborgere, for så vidt angår mindre alvorlige lovovertrædelser, der kan sidestilles hermed.
A failure by the worker or the employer to apply for such a document may be sanctioned only by penalties whose severity is not greater than that of penalties imposed on nationals for similar minor offences.
Tilladelsen skal udstedes vederlagsfrit eller mod et vederlag, der ikke overstiger de gebyrer, der opkræves af indenlandske statsborgere, for så vidt angår udstedelse af identitetskort, jfr. artikel 9 direktiv 68/360/EØF.
In accordance with Article 9 of Directive 68/360/EEC the document must be issued free of charge or on payment of a sum not greater than the duties and taxes charges for the issue of Identity cards to nationals.
Hvad angår andre kategorier af portugisiske arbejdstagere, bevarer de andre medlemsstater indtil den 1. januar 1993 deres kompetence til at krave, at der skal foreligge en tilladelse, før der kan ske indrejse med henblik på udøvelse af en lønnet beskæftigelse, ligesom disse medlemsstater kan forlange, at virksomheder, der præsterer tjenesteydelser, og som beskæftiger sådanne arbejdstagere, skal overholde bestemmelser herom.
As regards other categories of Portuguese workers, the other Member States retain, until 1 January 1993, the power to lay down a requirement of prior authorization in the case of immigration in order to carry on a salaried activity and likewise to require the observance of similar rules by providers of services employing such workers.
Der kan til överträdelse af sådanne bestemmelser dog ikke vare knyttet en sanktion, som i den grad står i misforhold til overtrædelsens grovhed, at princippet om den fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser undergraves.
An infringement of those rules may not however be sanctioned by a penalty which Is disproportionate in relation to the seriousness of the offence to such an extent that It would jeopardize the freedom to provide services.
Udstedelse af tilladelser som omhandlet kan gøres betinget af, at de pågældende arbejdstageres arbejdsgiver betaler et gebyr, forudsat at dette er det samme, for så vidt angår både indenlandske arbejdsgivere og arbejdsgivere fra en anden medlemsstat, ligesom gebyret ikke må stå i et misforhold til det formål, det tjener."
The grant of such authorization may be made subject to the collection of a fee chargeable to the employer of such workers where such a charge 1s levied without distinction from national employers and employers who are nationals of another Member State and provided that the amount thereof is not disproportionately great in relation to its purpose."
Ved det første spørgsmål ønskede Finanzgericht Münster oplyst, om en skattepligtig ved en national retsinstans kan støtte ret på kapitaltiIfØrselsaf- giftsdirektivets artikel 4, stk. 2, litra b).
By order of 11 January 1988, received at the Court on 2 February 1988, the Finanzgericht [Finance Court] Münster referred for a preliminary ruling two questions concerning the Interpretation of Article 4 (2) (b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC concerning Indirect taxes on the raising of capital.
Domstolen bemærkede herom, at den nævnte bestemmelse Indeholder et forbud for medlemsstaterne mod at opkræve selskabsskat i tilfalde, hvor den ydelse, der præsteres over for det pågældende selskab, ikke indebærer nogen udvidelse af dettes selskabsformue.
The questions arose 1n the context of proceedings between Siegen GmbH and Finanzamt [Finance Office] Hagen regarding the collection of capital tax on the transfer of the Siegen's losses to a company called Ingersoll, which was its sole shareholder, pursuant to an agreement for the transfer of profits and losses.
Dette forbud er efter sin beskaffenhed præcist og ubetinget. En skattepligtig kan derfor ved en national retsinstans støtte ret på forbudet, såfremt de nationale myndigheder på trods af dette vil opkrave en selskabsskat på grundlag af en bestemmelse i national ret.
In support of Its action Siegen argued that the absorption of a company's losses by a shareholder did not Increase the assets of that company, and therefore that the national law under which the Finanzamt had requested it to pay capital duty of 1% on the level of those losses was contrary to the directive.
Ved det andet spørgsmål ønskede den nationale retsinstans oplyst, hvorvidt der sker en udvidelse af et selskabs selskabsformue i den i kapitaltiIfØrselsaf- giftsdirektivets artikel 4, stk. 2, litra b), forudsatte betydning, når tab hos selskabet som led i en resultatoverførselsaftale overtages af en selskabs deltager.
In its first question the Finanzgericht asked whether a taxable person might, in proceedings before his national court, rely on Article 4 (2) (b) of the directive on the raising of capital.
Domstolen bemærkede herom, at selskabsformuen omfatter alle de aktiver, som de pågældende selskaber har bragt sammen, herunder tilvækst.
In that regard the Court observed that the aforesaid provision of the directive prohibited Member States from claiming capital tax when the benefit enjoyed by the company did not increase Its assets.
Opnår et selskab en fortjeneste, og lader det denne indgå i sine reserver, sker der en udvidelse af dets selskabsformue.
By Its very nature, that prohibition was precise and unconditional.
Under disse omstændigheder måtte det lægges til grund, at såfremt et selskab lider tab, og en af selskabsdeltagerne indvilger i at overtage disse, prasterer selskabsdeltageren en ydelse, hvorved der sker en udvidelse af det pågaldende selskabs selskabsformue. Denne bringes således op på det niveau, der var gældende før tabenes indtræden.
In its second question the Finanzgericht sought to establish, in essence, whether the absorption of a company's losses by a shareholder pursuant to an agreement for the transfer of profits and losses Increases the assets of that company for the purposes of Article 4 (2) (b) of the directive on the raising of capital.
Noget andet gælder i tilfælde, hvor selskabs deltageren overtager tabene på grundlag af en forpligtelse, som vedkommende har påtaget sig før tabenes indtræden.
The Court pointed out that the assets of a company covered all the property which the shareholders had pooled, together with any accretions to that property.
En sådan forpligtelse indebarer, at de tab, som det pågældende selskab senere måtte lide, ikke medfører nogen ændring af selskabsformuens størrelse.
A company which realized profits and added them to its reserves was thereby increasing Its assets.
Domstolen besvarede herefter de forelagte spørgsmål således:
On the other hand, a company which incurred losses suffered a diminution of its assets.
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 12. december vær.
Such an undertaking meant that any losses which the company suffered subsequently would have no effect on the level of its assets.
Fra den 1. januar 1972 har skattepligtige i forhold til en medlemsstat ved de nationale retsinstanser kunnet støtte direkte ret på artikel 4 i Rådets direktiv 69/337 af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter.
A taxable person may, in proceedings before his national court, rely on Article 4 (2) (b) of the directive on the raising of capital;
Direktivets artikel 4, stk. 2, litra b), skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen indeholder et forbud mod national lovgivning, hvorefter der skal opkræves en selskabsskat ved overførsel af tab hos et kapitalselskab til en selskabsdeltager som led i en resultatoverførselsaftale, såfremt de pågældende tab er lidt efter aftalens indgåelse."
The absorption of a company's losses by a shareholder, pursuant to an agreement for the transfer of profits and losses [Ergebnisabführungsvertrag] which has been concluded prior to the discovery of those losses, does not increase the assets of that company for the purposes of Article 4 (2) (b) of the directive on the raising of capital."
Forenede sager C-206/88 og C-207/88: Anklagemyndigheden mod G. Vessoso og G. Zanetti
Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 12 December 1989.
(Præjudiciel) "Tilnærmelse af lovgivning - affald - begreb" (Første Afdeling)
Since 1 January 1972 Article 4 of Council Directive 69/335 of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital has been directly accessible to a taxable person, to be pleaded against a Member State in proceedings before a national court or tribunal;
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst under to straffesager mod driftslederne i nogle transportvirksomheder, som var tittalt for uden forudgående tilladelse at have transporteret affald for tredjemands regning i strid med dekret nr. 915 fra Den Italienske Republiks præsident, SOTS er vedtaget til gennemførelse af de to direktiver i national ret.
On a correct interpretation, Article 4 (2) (b) does not admit of any national legislation which requires capital duty to be raised on operations to transfer the losses of a capital company to a shareholder, pursuant to an agreement for the transfer of profits and losses, provided that those losses were incurred after the conclusion of the contract."
Det første led af Pretura di Asti's spørgsmål var, om begrebet "affald", således som dette begreb forstås sivet i artikel 1 i Rådets direktiv 75/442 som i artikel 1 i Rådets direktiv 78-/3T9, skal fortolkes således, at det ikke omfatter stoffer og genstande, som kan gøres til genstand for Økonomisk genbrug.
Criminal Proceedings against G. Vessoso and G. Zanetti - 28 March 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Approximation of laws - Waste - Concept) (First Chamber) By two orders of 18 December 1987, received at the Court on 28 July 1988, the Pretura di Asti referred a question for a preliminary ruling on Article 1 of Council Directives 75/442 and 78/319 on waste and toxic and dangerous waste respectively.
Herom bemærkede Domstolen, at det fremgår af direktivernes betragtninger og flere af de heri indeholdte bestemmelser, at et stof, som Indehaveren skiller sig af med, kan udgøre affald i direktivernes forstand, selv om det kan gøres til genstand for Økonomisk genbrug.
That question was raised in two sets of criminal proceedings brought against the owners of transport companies who were charged with having transported waste on behalf of third parties without having obtained prior authorization and consequently with having contravened Decree No. 915 of
Det andet led af Pretura di Asti's spørgsmål var, om det efter de nævnte artikler er en betingelse for at anse et stof eller en genstand for "affald", at indehaveren, som skiller sig af dermed, har til hensigt at udelukke, at andre genbruger stoffet eller genstanden Økonomisk.
The accused parties claimed in their defence that the substances which they had transported were not waste within the meaning of the Presidential Decree. Those substances could have been economically reutilized and had therefore neither been, nor Intended to be, abandoned.
Herom fremhævede Domstolen, at begge direktivers artikel 1 generelt omfatter ethvert stof og enhver genstand, som Indehaveren skiller sig af med, og Ikke etablerer nogen sondring, afhængig af hensigten hos indehaveren af tingen, som skiller sig af dermed.
In the first part of the question, the Pretura di Arti sought to ascertain whether the concept of waste, within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Directives 75/442 and 78/319, had to be understood as excluding substances and objects which were capable of economic reutilization.
Endvidere fremgår det af samme regler, at begrebet "affald" også omfatter de stoffer eller genstande, som indehaveren "er for pligtet til at skille sig af med 1 henhold til geldende nationale bestemmelser". Indehaveren af en ting kan således vare forpligtet efter en national bestemmelse til at skille sig af med den, uden 1 Øvrigt at have til hensigt at udelukke andre fra at genbruge tingen Økonomisk.
The Court noted in that regard that the recitals in the preambles to those directives, as well as several of the provisions therein, demonstrated clearly that a substance which the holder disposed of could constitute waste, even though capable of economic reutilization.
Domstolen tilføjede, at hovedformålet med direktiverne 75/442 og 78/319, som er at sikre beskyttelsen af menneskers sundhed og af miljøet, ville blive bragt i fare, såfremt anvendelsen af de to direktiver var betinget af, om indehaveren havde hensigt til at udelukke andre fra at gøre de stoffer eller genstande, som den pågaldende skiller sig af med til genstand for Økonomisk genbrug.
In the second part of Its question, the Pretura di Asti asked whether the concept of waste within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Directives 75/442 and 78/319 presupposed, on the part of the holder who disposed of a substance or object, the intention to exclude all economic re-ut1lization of that substance by others.
"Begrebet 'affald' i artikel 1 i Rådets direktiv 75/442 og artikel 1 i Rådets direktiv 78/319 skal ikke forstås således, at stoffer og genstande, som kan genbruges økonomisk, er udelukket fra bestemmelsernes anvendelsesområde.
The Court pointed out that Article 1 in each of the two abovementioned directives applied in general to any substance or object of which the holder disposed, Irrespective of the Intention of the person who disposed of the Hem.
Det er ingen betingelse for at anse et stof eller en genstand for 'affald', at indehaveren, som skiller sig af dermed, har til hensigt at udelukke andre fra økonomisk genbrug af stoffet eller genstanden."
Moreover, those provisions provided that substances and objects which the holder was "required to dispose of pursuant to the provisions of national law 1n force" also constituted waste.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 13. december vm:
A holder could be required by national law to dispose of an Item without nonetheless intending to exclude all economic reutilization whatever of that item by others.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare de spørgsmål, der var forelagt i de forenede sager C-206 og C-207/88 samt det første spørgsmål, der var forelagt i sag C-359/88, på følgende måde:
The fundamental objective of Directives 75/442 and 78/319, namely, the protection of human health and the environment, would have been frustrated If the application of the two directives had been made to depend on the holder's intention to exclude, or not to exclude, all economic reutilization by others of the substances or objects of which he had disposed.
En national ret i en medlemsstat er ikke forpligtet til at fortolke national lovgivning på baggrund af et direktivs ordlyd og formål, såfremt forpligtelsen hertil ville indebare på læggelse af strafansvar under omstændigheder, som ellers ikke ville give anledning hertil."
"The concept of waste within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reutilization.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare det andet spørgsmål, som var forelagt i sag C-359/88, på følgende måde:
The concept does not presume that the holder disposing of a substance or an object Intends to exclude all economic reutilization of the substance or the object by others."
Direktivet afskarer dog ikke medlemsstaterne fra at forlange en sådan forudgående tilladelse 1 det omhandlede tilfælde."
Mr Advocate General F. G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 13 December 1989
Generaladvokaten foreslog, at Domstolen, om nødvendigt, besvarer det tredje spørgsmål i sag C­359/88 på følgende måde:
He proposed that the Court should give the following answers to the questions referred 1n Joined Cases C-206 and C-207/88 and to the first question referred in Case C-359/88:
Følgelig må medlemsstaterne ikke med henblik på udførelsen af de opgaver, som er nævnt i artikel 5, opdele beføjelserne på en sådan måde, at det kan bringe opfyldelsen af direktivets mål i fare."
A court of a Member State is not required to interpret its national legislation in the light of the wording and purpose of a directive where the result would be to impose criminal liability in circumstances where such liability would not otherwise arise."
28.3.1990 (Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse fra Pretura di San Vito al Tagliamento ((Italien)) "Ti Inarme Ise af lovgivningerne ­ affald ­ begreb ­ tilladelse til og over­vågning af bortskaffelse af affald* (Første Afdeling)
"Article 10 of Directive 75/442 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not required to subject the transport on behalf of third parties of waste within the meaning of Article 1 (a) to prior authorization by the competent authority referred to 1n Article 5.
Ved kendelse afsagt den 14. juli 1988, Indgået til Domstolen den 13. december s.a., havde Pretura di San Vito al Tagliamento anmodet Domstolen om en pra­judi ciel afgørelse af tre spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direk­tiv 75/442 og 78/319 om henholdsvis affald og giftigt og farligt affald.
Member States are not, however, precluded by the directive from requiring prior authorization in such cases."
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en straffesag mod en række indehavere af transportvirksomheder, der stod tittalt for for andres regning at have transporteret kemiske affaldstoffer uden forudgående tilladelse, hvorved de havde overtrådt præsidentdekret nr. 9T5, som gennemførte de to direktiver i italiensk ret.
He proposed that the Court should, if necessary, answer the third question referred in Case C-359/88 as follows:
De tiltalte fremførte til deres forsvar for det første, at de stoffer, de havde transporteret ikke var affald i den i præsidentdekretet forudsatte betydning.
"In establishing or designating the competent authority or authorities within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 75/442, Member States are constrained only by the need to ensure respect for the aims of the directive, namely the protection of human health and the environment.
Stofferne kunne nemlig genbruges Økonomisk og var således ikke opgivet eller bestemt til ¡Λ btfv» opgivet.
Member States must not therefore divide responsibility for carrying out the duties listed in Article 5 to such an extend that the achievement of those aims is jeopardized".
De tiltalte anførte i Øvrigt, at der ikke ifølge præsidentdekretet kræves tilladelse til transport af giftigt og farligt affald i den i direktiv 78/319 forudsatte betydning.
Case C-359/88: Criminal Proceedings against E. Zanetti and Others - 28 March 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Approximation of laws - Waste - Concept - Authorization and supervision of the disposal of waste) (First Chamber)
På grundlag heraf gjorde de gældende, at såfremt de stoffer, de havde transporteret, antoges at vare affald i den i direktiv 75/442 forudsatte betydning,, havde det varet ufornødent at indhente tilladelse til transport af dem.
By order of the 14th July 1988, which arrived at the Court on 13th December 1988, the Pretura di San Vito al Tagllamento referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Council