natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forenede sager C-433/92 og C-434/92 Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (BALM) mod henholdsvis Otto Frick GmbH & Co. KG og Vinzenz Murr GmbH Landbrug 28.4.1994 Præjudiciel "Oksekød - støtte til privat oplagring - tidspunktet for indlagringen -sanktion - ikke-udbenet kød - udbenet kød - fast omregningssats -anvendelse" (Første Afdeling) Ved kendelser af 29. oktober 1992, der indgik til Domstolen den 24. december s.a., havde Bundesverwaltungsgericht forelagt henholdsvis ét præjudicielt spørgsmål, i sag C-433/92, Frick, og fem præjudicielle spørgsmål, i sag C-434/92, Murr, vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 3, stk. 2, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1071/68, af artikel 4, stk. 4 og 5, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2471/77 og af artikel 4, stk. 2 og 3, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1405/78.
(5) in order to calculate, in the case of boned meat, the quantity of meat to take into consideration as regards entitlement to aid for storage, reference should be made to the standard rates provided for in Article 4(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2471/77 of 8 November 1977 on the granting at a standard rate fixed in advance of private storage aid in respect of beef carcases, half carcases and compensated quarters and Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1405/78 of 22 June 1978 on the granting at a standard rate fixed in advance of private storage aid for beef forequarters."
Domstolen besvarede de i sagerne forelagte spørgsmål således:
(Preliminary ruling) (Old-age pension in respect of forced labour in Germany during the Second World War) (Second Chamber)
Artikel 3, stk. 2, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1071/68 af 25. juli 1968 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser vedrørende ydelse af støtte til den private oplagring inden for oksekødssektoren skal fortolkes således, at en privat lagerindehaver først kan påbegynde
This question was raised in the course of proceedings between Mr Hoorn, a Netherlands national, and the Landesversicherungsanstalt (Regional Insurance Office), Westfalia, to which Mr Hoorn applied for an old-age pension in respect of forced labour performed in that country during the Second World War.
- 14 - indi agri ngen af den aftalte mængde efter indgåelsen af kontrakten om oplagring.
14 confer no entitlement under the German pension insurance scheme, but to be accounted for under the Netherlands scheme as if it had been performed in the Netherlands.
Det stadium, på hvilket indlagringen påbegyndes, jf. ovennævnte bestemmelse, er anbringelsen, før frysning, af det kød, der skal indlagres, på frysehusets kølelager.
Discrimination between Netherlands nationals and German nationals compelled to perform forced labour
Forpligtelsen til først at påbegynde indlagringen efter indgåelsen af kontrakten om oplagring er en primær forpligtelse, hvis tilsidesættelse som udgangspunkt bevirker, at retten til støtte for den pågældende mængde kød fortabes.
Mr Hoorn maintained that the Complementary Agreement discriminates against Netherlands nationals on the ground that their pension entitlement under Netherlands legislation is less than that paid by the German pension insurance scheme to its own nationals who were compelled to perform forced labour in Germany during the Second World War.Under the terms of Article 7(2)(c) of that Regulation, the provisions of international social security conventions set out at paragraph 28(b) of Annex III remain applicable notwithstanding the provisions of the Regulation. The abovementioned Agreement appears amongst the conventions cited in that annex.
Denne ret fortabes dog ikke, når den private lagerindehaver uden at være mødt med nogen form for indsigelse telefonisk har givet interventionsorganets ansvarlige embedsmænd meddelelse om en påtænkt indlagring før tiden af den aftalte mængde, og denne indi agri ng har været uden betydning for interventionsorganets mulighed for at foretage en effektiv kontrol med, at lagerindehaveren overholder sine forpligtelser.
Mr Hoorn further maintained that the difference between the amounts of pension to which Netherlands and German nationals compelled to perform forced labour are entitled under their respective old-age schemes gives rise to discrimination contrary to Article 7(1) of the Treaty.
I tilfælde af udbening skal der ved fastsættelsen af den mængde kød, som skal tages i betragtning med henblik på retten til støtte til op lagring, regnes med de faste satser, der er fastlagt i henholdsvis artikel 4, stk. 3, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2471/77 af 8. november 1977 om ydelse af en forudfastsat fikseret støtte til privat oplagring af hele og halve kroppe og såkaldte quartiers compensés inden for oksekødssektoren og artikel 4, stk. 2, i Kommissionens for ordning (EØF) nr. 1405/78 af 22. juni 1978 om ydelse af en forudfastsat fikseret støtte til privat oplagring af forfjedringer af oksekød." kød."
The alleged difference of treatment does not stem from the Complementary Agreement itself, which merely determines the law applicable to the workers concerned, without stating the scope of the benefits. Rather it arises from the fact that the Netherlands legislature laid down for the pensions for which it is responsible under the Complementary Agreement an amount different from that laid down by the German old-age insurance scheme for pensions payable by it.
Generaladvokat M. Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 24. februar 1994.
As Community law currently stands, each Member State is free to determine the amount of the pensions to be paid by it, provided that such amount does not entail any discrimination founded on nationality.
Han foreslog heri følgende besvarelse:
Discrimination as between two categories of Netherlands nationals
Artikel 3, stk. 2, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1071/68 af 25. juli 1968 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser vedrørende ydelse af støtte til den private oplagring inden for oksekødssektoren skal fortolkes således, at en privat lagerindehaver først kan påbegynde indlagringen af den aftalte mængde efter indgåelsen af kontrakten om oplagring.
Mr Hoorn further argued that, in breach of the abovementioned provisions, the Complementary Agreement discriminates between two categories of Netherlands workers compelled to perform forced labour, namely on the one hand, those subject to the Netherlands old-age insurance scheme is responsible and on the other hand, workers who continued to work in Germany after 1 September 1945 or remained in that country after 31 December 1945.
Det stadium, på hvilket indlagringen påbegyndes, jf. ovennævnte bestemmelse, er anbringelsen, før frysning, af det kød, der skal indlagres, på frysehusets kølelager.
In that connection, as the Commission rightly claimed, Community law, as it currently stands, does not preclude the Member States from providing by legislation or conventions concluded with other States different pension arrangements for different categories of population.
Denne ret fortabes dog ikke, når den private lagerindehaver uden at være mødt med nogen form for indsigelse telefonisk har givet interventionsorganets ansvarlige embedsmænd meddelelse om en påtænkt indlagring før tiden af den pågældende mængde, og denne indlagring har været uden betydning for interventionsorganets mulighed for at foretage en effektiv kontrol med, at lagerindehaveren overholder sine forpligtelser.
In the event, the conflict with Article 8 stems from the fact that the Complementary Agreement provides for account to be taken in one Member State of work performed in another Member State, whereas the Regulation is based on the principle that a right to a pension arises in each Member State in which the person concerned has worked.
I tilfælde af udbening skal der ved fastsættelsen af den mængde kød, som skal tages i betragtning med henblik på retten til støtte til oplagring, regnes med de faste satser, der er fastlagt i henholdsvis artikel 4, stk. 3, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2471/77 af 8. november 1977 om ydelse af en forudfastsat fikseret støtte til privat oplagring af hele og halve kroppe og såkaldte quartiers compensés inden for oksekødssektoren og artikel 4, stk. 2, i Kommissionens for ordning (EØF) nr. 1405/78 af 22. juni 1978 om ydelse af en forudfastsat fikseret støtte til privat oplagring af forfjedringer af oksekød." kød."
"Under Article 2 of Complementary Agreement No 4 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the settlement of rights acquired under the German social insurance scheme by Dutch workers between 13 May 1940 and 1 September 1945, signed at the Hague on 21 December 1956, it is compatible with Community law for forced labour performed by Netherlands nationals in Germany during the Second World War to confer no entitlement under the German pension insurance scheme, but to be accounted for under the Netherlands scheme as if it had been performed in the Netherlands."
Sag C-305/92 Albert Hoorn mod Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen Fri bevægelighed for personer
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 14 July 1993
Ved kendelse af 19. juni 1992, indgået til Domstolen den 20. juli s.a., havde Sozialgericht Münster forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten i forhold til artikel 2 i tillægsoverenskomst nr. 4 mellem Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland og Kongeriget Nederlandene vedrørende afgørelse af spørgsmålet om rettigheder erhvervet af nederlandske arbejdstagere inden for den tyske ordning for social sikring mellem den 13. maj 1940 og den 1. september 1945, undertegnet i Haag den 21. december 1956.
"Neither Articles 48 and 51 of the EEC Treaty nor the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 preclude the application of Article 2 of Complementary Agreement No 4 to the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on social security of 29 March 1951, under which the insurance periods completed under German legislation by Dutch forced labourers during the Second World War are deemed to have been completed under the legislation of the Netherlands."
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst under en sag anlagt af Albert Hoorn, en nederlandsk statsborger, mod Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen, en offentlig forsikringsinstitution i Tyskland, hvortil sagsøgeren havde indgivet ansøgning om alderspension på grundlag af tvangsarbejde, udført i Tyskland under Anden Verdenskrig.
Case T-38/92 All Weather Sports Benelux BV ν Commission of the European Communities 28 April 1994 (Competition) (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty - Exclusive distribution -Concerted practice - Elimination of parallel imports - Fine - Liability for the infringement - Statement of reasons) (Second Chamber)
Sozi al geri cht ønskede en afgørelse af, om fællesskabsretten er til hinder for, at tvangsarbejde udført af nederlandske statsborgere i Tyskland under Anden Verdenskrig ifølge tillægsoverenskomstens artikel 2 ikke giver ret til ydelser i henhold til den tyske alderspensionsordning, men medregnes under den nederlandske ordning, som om det var udført i Nederlandene.
The applicant company, All Weather Sports Benelux BV, a company incorporated under Netherlands law whose registered office is at Zoetermeer (Netherlands), was formed on 17 April 1989.
Forskelsbehandling af nederlandske og tyske tvangsarbejdere
It specializes in the marketing of sports goods.
Sagsøgeren havde gjort gældende, at tillægsoverenskomsten forskelsbehandler nederlandske statsborgere, idet den pension, som disse modtager i henhold til nederlandsk lovgivning, er lavere, end den der i henhold til den tyske alderspensionsordning udbetales til dette lands egne statsborgere, der ligeledes udførte tvangsarbejde i Tyskland under krigen.
Also on 17 April 1989 the applicant concluded an agreement, with retroactive effect as from 1 January 1989, by which it took over the activities relating to the import and wholesale of sports goods, together with the relevant assets, of All Weather Sports BV (hereinafter 'AWS'), a company incorporated under Netherlands law whose registered office was also at Zoetermeer and which belonged to the Bührmann-Tetterode Nederland BV group (hereinafter 'Bührmann-Tetterode'), a company incorporated under Netherlands law whose registered office was at Amsterdam.
Domstolen udtalte, at i medfør af artikel 7, stk. 2, litra c), i forordning 1408/71 skal de i bilag III anførte bestemmelser i overenskomster om social sikring fortsat være gældende, uanset forordningens bestemmelser.
The assets thus acquired by the applicant included inter alia an exclusive distribution agreement, originally covering the Netherlands and subsequently extended to the whole of Benelux, for products of the Dun!op brand from the British company Dunlop-Siazenger International Ltd (hereinafter 'DSIL').
Tillægsoverenskomsten er imidlertid nævnt blandt de overenskomster, der er anført i dette bilag.
DSIL gave notice to terminate the distribution agreement on 18 September 1988 and it ended on 30 April 1989.
Sagsøgeren havde endvidere gjort gældende, at forskellen på størrelsen af de pensioner, som de nederlandske og tyske tvangsarbejdere havde krav på fra deres respektive alderspensionsordninger, udgjorde en forskelsbehandling i strid med traktatens artikel 7, stk. 1.
The assets acquired also included rights relating to the distribution of the products of a sports brand belonging to All Weather Sports International BV (hereinafter 'AWS International'), a company incorporated under Netherlands law engaging in commercial activities relating to sports goods, working closely together with AWS, having its registered office at Zoetermeer, like AWS, and also belonging to the Bührmann-Tetterode Group.
Forskelsbehandlingen skyldtes snarere, at den nederlandske lovgiver for de pensioner, som denne skulle udbetale i henhold til tillægsoverenskomsten, havde fastsat et andet beløb end det, der var fast sat ved den tyske alderspensionsordning for de pensioner, som det påhvilede denne at udbetale.
Following the transfer of assets on 17 April 1989, AWS and AWS International ceased their commercial activities and, after transferring their registered offices to Amsterdam and changing their names to BT Sports BV and BT Sports International BV respectively, continued to exist for tax reasons, although they no longer carried on any commercial activities.
Domstolen bemærkede imidlertid, at på fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin kan hver medlemsstat frit fastsætte størrelsen af de pensioner, den udbetaler, såfremt størrelsen ikke indebærer nogen forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet.
On 29 May 1990 the Commission, after carrying out investigations at the offices of DSIL's exclusive distributors in the Netherlands, including an investigation at AWS on 3 November 1988, sent that company, under its former name of All Weather Sports BV and at its former registered office at Zoetermeer, a statement of objections relating to an infringement of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty.
Forskelsbehandling af to grupper af nederlandske arbejdstagere
The statement of objections was responded to by a written reply filed on 31 July 1990 on behalf of the applicant and the three companies BT Sports (formerly AWS), BT Sports International (formerly AWS International) and AWS Nederland BV, the applicant's Netherlands subsidiary.
Sagsøgeren havde endvidere gjort gældende, at tillægsoverenskomsten for skelsbehandlede to grupper nederlandske tvangsarbejdere, nemlig dels dem, hvis pension udbetales i henhold til den nederlandske alderspensionsordning, og dels de arbejdstagere, der fortsatte deres erhvervsmæssige beskæftigelse i Tyskland efter den 1. september 1945 eller forblev i Tyskland efter den 31. december 1945.
Both in their written reply to the objections and at the hearing on 5 October 1990, the four companies explained that because of the name used for the company to which the statement of objections had been notified, in other words AWS, the identity of the company addressed by the Commission was not clear, and for that reason their replies and observations on the objections were made 'on behalf of all the companies to the extent that they must be addressees or are to be regarded as addressees of the statement of objections'.
I denne forbindelse bemærkede Domstolen blot, at på fællesskabsrettens nu værende udviklingstrin er det ikke forbudt for medlemsstaterne i deres egen lovgivning eller i overenskomster indgået med andre stater at fastsætte forskellige persionsordninger for forskellige befolkningsgrupper.
With respect to identification of the company to which the statement of objections was addressed, and consequently the question of which company was to be held liable for the alleged infringement, each of the companies argued before the Commission that it could not be held liable for the infringement and that, since the undertaking carried on by AWS at the time of the alleged
I det foreliggende tilfælde bestod der ifølge sagsøgeren en uoverensstemmelse med artikel 8 deri, at det i tillægsoverenskomsten var fastsat, at arbejde udført i én medlemsstat medregnes i en anden medlemsstat, mens for ordningen hviler på det princip, at der optjenes ret til pension i hver medlemsstat, hvor vedkommende har arbejdet.
With respect more particularly to the applicant company, that company essentially argued before the Commission that the mere fact that it had taken over the assets of the previous companies AWS and AWS International, a takeover which had moreover related to elements which were not necessary for carrying on its own commercial activities, was not sufficient for it to be identified with those two companies.
1 denne forbindelse bemærkede Domstolen blot, at artikel 8 kun vedrører overenskomster, der er afsluttet mellem medlemsstaterne efter forordningens ikrafttræden, og derfor ikke finder anvendelse på tillægsoverenskomsten.
On 18 March 1992 it adopted Decision 92/261/EEC relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty.
"Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for, at tvangsarbejde udført af nederlandske statsborgere i Tyskland under Anden Verdenskrig ifølge artikel 2 i tillægsoverenskomst nr. 4 mellem Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland og Kongeriget Nederlandene vedrørende afgørelse af spørgsmålet om rettigheder er hvervet af nederlandske arbejdstagere inden for den tyske ordning for social sikring mellem den 13. maj 1940 og den 1. september 1945, under tegnet i Haag den 21. december 1956, ikke giver ret til ydelser efter den tyske alderspensionsordning, men medregnes under den nederlandske ordning, som om det var udført i Nederlandene."
The applicant company stated in its application that its challenge is directed only against the correctness of the administrative procedure before the Commission and of the manner in which the contested decision was adopted, in so far as it held it liable for the alleged infringement and imposed a fine, and against the criteria used by the Commission in fixing the amount of that fine.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling) den 14. juli 1993.
The applicant argued, firstly, that if a decision imposes a fine on an undertaking by reason of the conduct of another undertaking, the statement of reasons must demonstrate clearly to the undertaking in question why it is to be held liable for an infringement which is not its doing.
"Hverken EØF-traktatens artikel 48 eller 51 eller bestemmelserne i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 er til hinder for anvendelse af artikel 2 i tillægsoverenskomst nr. 4 til overenskomsten af 29. marts 1951 mellem Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland og Kongeriget Nederlandene om social sikring, hvor efter forsikringsperioder, som er tilbagelagt efter den tyske lovgivning af nederlandske statsborgere, der skulle udføre tvangsarbejde under Anden Verdenskrig, betragtes, som om de var tilbagelagt efter lovgivningen i Nederlandene."
Secondly, the applicant company argued that the identity of the undertaking which committed the infringement for which it was fined is not clear from the contested decision. It submitted that in Article 1 of the operative part of the decision the Commission asserts that AWS International is liable for the infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, although that company is not mentioned anywhere else in the decision, and that the Commission then fines the applicant in Article 2 of the operative part on the grounds that it took over the assets of AWS.
28.4.1994 "Konkurrence - EØF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1 - eneforhandling - samordnet praksis - udelukkelse af parallelimport - bøde - ansvar for over trædelse - begrundelse" (Anden Afdeling)
If, on the other hand, it is AWS which the Commission considers liable for the infringement, the reasons stated in the contested decision are in any event insufficient with respect to the applicant, since even if it is admitted that the mere takeover of the assets of AWS could be a reason for identifying the applicant with that company from the economic and legal points of view, the Commission in any case did not state that it was for that reason that a fine is imposed on it.
Sagsøgeren, det nederlandske selskab All Weather Sports Benelux BV, Zoetermeer (Nederlandene), var blevet stiftet den 17. april 1989. Selskabet havde specialiseret sig i forhandling af sportsartikler.
The Court noted where, as in the present case, a decision taken in application of Article 85 or 86 of the Treaty relates to several addressees and raises a problem with regard to liability for the infringement, it must include an adequate statement of reasons with respect to each of the addressees, in particular those of them who according to the decision must bear the liability for the infringement.
Samme dato, den 17. april 1989, indgik sagsøgeren med tilbagevirkende gyldighed til 1. januar 1989 en aftale, hvorved selskabet fra det nederlandske selskab All Weather Sports BV (herefter benævnt "AWS"), Zoetermeer, der tilhører den nederlandske koncern Bührmann-Tetterode Nederland BV (herefter benævnt "Bührmann-Tetterode"), Amsterdam, overtog dette selskabs aktiviteter vedrørende import og engroshandel med sportsartikler, samt de dertil hørende aktiver.
It was established that during the administrative procedure before the Commission the applicant advanced several reasons why in its opinion it could not be held liable for the alleged infringement.
De af sagsøgeren erhvervede aktiver bestod blandt andet i en aftale om eneforhandling, der oprindeligt dækkede Nederlandene og senere er udvidet til hele Benelux-området, af produkter af mærket Dunlop fra det britiske selskab Dunlop-Slazinger International Ltd (herefter benævnt "DSIL").
It was also established that at that stage of the proceedings the Commission, despite thus being challenged, did not clarify its position on the question of liability for the alleged infringement.
De erhvervede aktiver omfattede også rettighederne til distribution af sportsartikler af et mærke, der tilhørte det nederlandske selskab All Weather Sports International BV (herefter be nævnt "AWS International"), der handlede med sportsartikler i snævert samarbejde med AWS og som dette var hjemmehørende i Zoetermeer og tilhørte Bührmann-Tetterode-koncernen.
It follows that, in order for there to be an adequate statement of reasons with respect to the applicant, the contested decision must contain an even more detailed account of the grounds for holding the applicant liable for the infringement.
Efter overdragelsen af aktiverne den 17. april 1989 er selskaberne AWS og AWS International ophørt med deres erhvervsvirksomhed, men eksisterer stadig af skattemæssige grunde, skønt de ikke udøver erhvervsvirksomhed; de har overført deres hjemsted til Amsterdam og har ændret navn til henholdsvis "BT Sports BV" og "BT Sports International BV'(" ("
That statement of reasons thus ignored the two points raised by the applicant, namely that the companies AWS and AWS International continue to exist as legal persons under the new names BT Sports and BT Sports International and that they form part of the Bührmann-Tetterode group, as they did before the takeover of their assets.