natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For at afgøre, om der var tale om støtte i Traktatens forstand, fandt Domstolen, at det var relevant at anvende det kriterium, som var omhandlet i Kommissionens beslutning, og som den belgiske regering i Øvrigt ikke havde bestridt, nemlig hvilke muligheder, virksomheden havde for at opnå de pågældende beløb på det almindelige kapitalmarked.
To determine whether such measures constituted State aid, the Court considered that it was appropriate to apply the criterion indicated in the Commission's decision - and not contested by the Belgian Government - of the undertaking's ability to obtain the sums in question on the capital market.
Herom fastslog Domstolen, at der ikke i sagens akter fandtes holdepunkter for den antagelse, at Kommissionen havde anlagt et forkert skøn ved at gå ud fra, at ingen private investorer, som driver virksomhed på normale markedsvilkår, i betragtning af Tubemeuse's fremtidige rentabilitetsudsigter ville have påtaget sig de pågældende økonomiske transaktioner, og at det var lidet usandsynligt, at Tubemeuse kunne have opnået de beløb på kapitalmarkedet, som var nødvendige, for at virksomheden kunne overleve.
In the present case, the Court found that there was no evidence in the documents before it to suggest that the Commission was wrong in concluding that Tubemeuse's foreseeable profit-making capacity could not have prompted a private Investor, operating under normal conditions in a market economy, to undertake the financial operations in question, and that there was little likelihood of the undertaking's obtaining the funds which were essential for its survival on the capital market.
Vedrørende Traktatens artikel 92, stk. 1
Article 92 (1) of the Treaty
Følgelig var transaktionerne omfattet af Traktatens artikel 112, hvilket udelukkede anvendelsen af Traktatens artikler 92-94.
It was thus governed by Article 112 of the Treaty, with the result that Articles 92 to 94 could not apply.
Herom bemærkede Domstolen, at Traktatens artikel 112 ikke udelukker anvendelsen af artiklerne 92-94, uanset om den anfægtede støtte i øvrigt måtte betragtes som eksportstøtte eller ej. Det var nemlig ikke udelukket, at eksportstøtten påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
In that regard, the Court noted that, irrespective of the question whether the aid in question could be considered to be aid to exports, Article 112 of the Treaty did not preclude the application of Article 92 to 94 of the Treaty.
Den belgiske regering anførte videre, at de omhandlede økonomiske støtteforanstaltninger ikke kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne eller for dreje konkurrencen inden for fællesmarkedet, da 90% af Tubemeuse's produktion eksporteres til lande uden for EF, navnlig til Sovjetunionen.
The Belgian Government claimed that the financial assistance in question could not affect trade between Member States or distort competition within the Common Market, since 90 % of Tubemeuse's production was exported outside the Community, especially to the Soviet Union.
- 10 med rimelighed forudses, at Tubemeuse ville orientere sin virksomhed mod EF's indre marked, så meget mere som det fremgik, at selskabets udførsler til Sovjetunionen var faldet til 33,3% af selskabets samlede produktion, mens dets udførsler til andre EF-lande udgjorde 31,8% af den samlede produktion.
- 10 - seamless tube industry worldwide, Tubemeuse's avowed aim was to withdraw from the Soviet market, which it considered to be insufficiently profitable, and to use the aid received to turn towards other markets.
Vedrørende den belgiske regerings argument om, at Tubemeuse ikke, som påstået, havde 17% af EF's samlede produktion af helvalsede rir, men en meget mindre andel, bemærkede Domstolen, at selv om regeringens antagelse skulle være korrekt, kunne den ikke ændre ved det førnævnte af Kommissionen foretagne skøn vedrørende de anfægtede støtteforanstaltningers virkning på konkurrencestillingen hos EF-virksomhederne inden for den pågældende sektor.
With regard to the applicant State's argument that Tubemeuse provided not 17 % but a much smaller proportion of the Community's production of seamless tubes, the Court pointed out that the assertion, even if true, did not invalidate the above conclusions as to the possible effect of the contested aid on the competitive position of Community undertakings in the sector concerned.
Den belgiske regering anførte endvidere, at man i mangel af kriterier for bedømmelsen af, hvornår der efter artikel 92, stk. 1, kan antages at foreligge en påvirkning af samhandelen, kunne anvende den regel om en markedsandel på 5%, som Kommissionen normalt anvender på konkurrenceområdet.
The applicant State also maintained that since there was no standard for determining the threshold above which State aid affected intraCommunity trade, that of 5 % of the market, which the Commission generally used in regard to competition, could be applied.
Domstolen tog ikke regeringens argument til følge, men henviste til sin faste praksis, hvorefter en påvirkning af samhandelen ikke på forhånd er udelukket, selv om støtten er forholdsvis ubetydelig eller den støttemodtagende virksomhed af beskeden størrelse.
The Court dismissed that argument, pointing out that, in accordance with its consistent case-law, the fact that the aid was relatively insignificant or that the recipient undertaking was relatively small did not necessarily preclude the possibility that trade between Member States may be affected.
Anbringendet om tilsidesættelse af kontradiktionsprincippet
Infringement of the right to a fair hearing
Herom anførte den belgiske regering, at den ikke var blevet informeret af Kommissionen om de bemærkninger, denne havde modtaget af de "interesserede parter" i henhold til Traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2.
The Belgian Government claimed that Its right to a fair hearing had been infringed in the present case because the Commission did not communicate to it the observations submitted by Interested third parties under Article 93 (2) of the Treaty.
Domstolen henviste i den forbindelse til sin praksis, ifølge hvilken Kommissionen, når den træffer beslutning i forhold til en bestemt medlemsstat, er udelukket fra at basere sig på bemærkninger fra "interesserede parter", hvis den ikke har givet den pågældende medlemsstat lejlighed til at kommentere disse bemærkninger.
With regard to that claim, the Court pointed out that it had ruled in previous cases that the Commission might not rely on such observations in a decision against a Member State to the extent that the State had not been placed in a position to comment on them.
I den forbindelse fastslog Domstolen, at de bemærkninger, der var fremsat af "interesserede parter" ikke indeholdt nogen supplerende oplysninger i forhold til det.
For such an infringement of the right to a fair hearing to result in an annulment it had, however, to be established that, had It not been for that irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different.
Kommissionen allerede vidste, og som den belgiske regering havde kendskab til.
In that connexion, the Court observed that the observation at issue contained no information additional to that already available to the Commission and known to the Belgian Government.
Den omstændighed, at den belgiske regering ikke havde haft mulighed for at kommentere disse bemærkninger, havde derfor ikke haft nogen virkninger på resultatet af den administrative procedure.
That being so, the fact that the Belgian Government did not have an opportunity of commenting on the observations was not likely to have influenced the outcome of the administrative procedure.
Anbringendet om, at Tubemeuse på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af den anfægtede beslutning var under akkord ("concordat judiciaire par abandon d'actif")
The submission that, at the time when the decision was adopted.
Den anfægtede beslutning kunne derfor ikke, som hævdet, antages at være uden genstand.
It pointed out that, under Belgian law, the bankruptcy court could empower the liquidator to continue the commercial operations of the undertaking in question.
Vedrørende artikel 92, stk. 3
In this regard, the Belgian Government claimed that the aid in question should have enjoyed the benefit of the derogations provided for in Article 92 (3) (a) and (c), since 1t was intended to promote the economic development of the Liège region, which was severely affected by factory closures and redundancies.
Denne argumentation kunne Domstolen ikke tiltræde, men henviste til, at Kommissionen råder over et vidt skøn, og at den belgiske regering ikke havde fremlagt beviser, som kunne drage skønnets rigtighed i tvivl, men havde nøjedes med, ud fra mere generelle betragtninger, at bestride de skønsmæssige udsagn, der var indeholdt i den anfægtede beslutning.
It pointed out that the Commission enjoyed a large degree of discretion in that field and that the applicant Government had confined itself to challenging, In general terms, the findings set out in the grounds of the contested decision, but had not produced any evidence capable of casting doubt on those findings.
Anbringendet om, at en øjeblikkelig fuldbyrdelse af den anfægtede beslutning var udelukket
The submission that immediate application of the contested decision was impossible
Vedrørende dette anbringende anførte den belgiske regering, at Tubemeuse's aktier overgik til virksomhedens kreditorer, hvorfor regeringen var henvist til under akkordforhandlingen blot at anmelde sin fordring i virksomheden som simpel kreditor.
On this point, the Belgian State maintained that, since the assets of the undertaking were to be surrendered to its creditors, all it could do within the composition proceedings would be to declare its claim as an unsecured creditor as part of the undertaking's liabilities.
Pålægget i den anfægtede beslutning om øjeblikkelig tilbagesøgning af støtten var derfor i strid med de almindelige retsgrundsætninger inden for selskabs- og konkursretten, som er fælles for medlemsstaternes retssystemer.
The contested decision, therefore, 1n so far as 1t ordered the immediate recovery of the alleged aid, constituted a breach of the general principles of company and bankruptcy laws common to the Member States.
Videre bemærkede Domstolen, at tilbagesøgningen skulle finde sted i overensstemmelse med de processuelle bestemmelser, der gælder herom i national ret, som dog skal anvendes på en sådan måde, at de ikke umuliggør det EF-ret-lige krav om tilbagesøgning.
In that regard, the Court observed that the Belgian Government's argument assumed that the contested decision ordered the use of a preferential procedure to recover the aid in question.
Endvidere kunne eventuelle vanskeligheder med fuldbyrdelsen af den anfægtede beslutning, de måtte være sig af processuel eller anden art, ikke påvirke beslutningens lovlighed.
In fact, the decision merely ordered that the aid should be recovered but did not specify the means of effecting the recovery, which was to be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of national procedural law -provided, however, that those rules were applied in such a way as not to render the recovery required by Community law practically impossible, and that no possible procedural or other difficulties in implementing the act could affect its legality.
Endelig anførte den belgiske regering, at pålægget i den anfægtede beslutning ikke stod i rimeligt forhold til formålene i Traktatens artikler 92 og 93, idet anmeldelsen af den belgiske stats fordring under akkordforhandlingen ville tilføje andre kreditorer et alvorligt tab.
The applicant State further maintained that the obligation imposed by the decision was disproportionate with regard to the aims of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty, inasmuch as a declaration of claim filed by the Belgian State in the composition proceedings would be seriously detrimental to other creditors.
Domskonklusionen lød således:
The Court ruled as follows:
Sagsøgte frifindes.
The application 1s dismissed.
Kongeriget Belgien betaler sagens omkostninger."
The Kingdom of Belgium 1s ordered to pay the costs".
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 19. september 1989
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 19 September 1989.
"­ Sagen fremmes som helhed til realitetsbehandling.
"Declare the application admissible in its entirety;
­ Sagsøgte frifindes.
Dismiss it on the merits;
Ved dom afsagt den 30. juni 1988, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 21. juli s.a., havde Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF­Traktatens artikel 51 samt artikel 46, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 og artikel 112 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72.
By a judgment of 30 June 1988, received at the Court on 21 July 1988, the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Article 51 of the EEC Treaty, Article 46 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71, and Article 112 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 574/72.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, G. Cabras, der er af italiensk nationalitet, havde været arbejdstager i Italien og i Belgien.
Mr Cabras, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, was an Italian national and had been employed in both Italy and Belgium.
Efter at være blevet uarbejdsdyg­tig, blev han fra den 1. oktober 1973 tilkendt ret til ydelser ved invalidi­tet.
He became unfit to work, and was granted invalidity benefits in both States as from 1 October 1973.
Til forskel fra den belgiske lovgivning (den såkaldte type A lovgivning) afhang størrelsen af ydelserne ved invaliditet i henhold til italiensk lovgiv­ning (den såkaldte type Β lovgivning) af forsikringsperiodernes længde.
Unlike Belgian legislation (known as "Type A legislation"), Italian legislation ("Type Β legislation") made the level of invalidity benefits dependent on the length of insurance periods completed.
I medfør af artikel 40, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 finder forordningens artikel 46 analog anvendelse på fastsættelsen af de ydelser, der skal betales til G. Cabras.
In accordance with Article 40 (1) of Regulation No. 1408/71, Article 46 thereof applied by analogy to the computation of the invalidity benefits payable to Mr Cabras.
Den belgiske invaliditetsydelse var blevet fastsat af INAMI alene på grundlag af den nationale lovgivning, herunder de nationale regler om antikumulation: ydelsens størrelse svarede derfor til den fulde belgiske ydelse nedsat med den italienske pro rata-ydelse.
The Belgian invalidity benefit was calculated by the INAMI by reference to Belgian legislation alone, including its provisions against overlapping benefits: it was therefore equal to the level of the full Belgian benefit, less the amount of the apportioned Italian benefit.
Efterfølgende var begge ydelser uafhængigt af hinanden blevet indeksreguleret i medfør af landenes nationale regler herom.
Both benefits were subsequently increased independently of one another, pursuant to provisions peculiar to each of the two countries regarding the index-linking of pensions.
Især den italienske ydelse var blevet sat betragteligt op.
The Italian benefit in particular was greatly increased.
Som følge af en ændring af de belgiske regler, som trådte i kraft den 1. juli 1982, blev G. Cabras herefter ikke langere betragtet som forsørger.
As a result of a change in the Belgian legislation which came into effect on 1 July 1982, Mr Cabras was thereafter to be considered to be "without family commitments".
Det gav anledning dels til, at hans invalidepension efter de belgiske regler blev nedsat, dels til en fornyet beregning efter bestemmelserne i artikel 46 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
The consequence was a reduction of the invalidity benefit payable to him under Belgian legislation alone, and a recalculation of the benefits carried out in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation No. 1408/71.
INAMI fastsatte ved den lejlighed alene efter de nationale regler den nye ydelse til G. Cabras, hvorefter den fulde belgiske ydelse blev nedsat med den indeksregulerede italienske ydelse.
On that occasion, the INAMI calculated the new benefit due to Mr Cabras in accordance with national legislation alone, deducting from the full Belgian benefit the revalued amount of the Italian benefit.
G. Cabras modtog imidlertid fortsat den samme ydelse.
However, Mr Cabras continued to receive benefits of the same amount as those paid to him previously.
INAMI's afgørelse om en ny, nedsat ydelse blev meddelt sagsøgeren den 23. februar 1983.
The decision of the INAMI setting out his new entitlement to a reduced benefit was notified to him on 23 February 1984.
G. Cabras blev herefter anmodet om at tilbagebetale de ydelser, der var blevet for meget udbetalt siden den 1. juli 1982.
Mr Cabras was then requested to refund the overpaid amount of the benefits paid to him since 1 July 1982.
G. Cabras indbragte disse afgørelser for Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles, der med første led af sit første spørgsmål ønskede oplyst, om bestemmelserne i artikel 46, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1408/71 skal fortolkes siledes, at det højeste teoretiske beløb, der er beregnet efter stk. 2, litra a), udgør den Øvre grænse for de ydelser, en vandrende arbejdstager har ret til efter fællesskabsretten, herunder om dette også gælder, såfremt det teoretiske beløb svarer til en fuld ydelse efter én medlemsstats nationale lovgivning alene.
Mr Cabras challenged those decisions in proceedings before the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels, which, in the first part of its first question, sought to ascertain whether Article 46 (3) of Regulation No. 1408/71 was to be Interpreted as meaning that the highest theoretical amount of benefits calculated according to Paragraph 2 (a) constituted a limit on the amount of the benefits to which a migrant worker might be entitled pursuant to Community law, even where that theoretical amount was equal to that of the full benefit payable under the legislation of one Member State alone.
Herom udtalte Domstolen, at såfremt arbejdstageren opfylder betingelserne for at få tildelt ydelserne efter en national lovgivning af typen A, svarer det teoretiske beløb for denne ydelse til det i artikel 46, stk. 1, nævnte beløb, dvs. til den fulde ydelse, som arbejdstageren ville have ret til efter den nationale lovgivning, for så vidt han ikke modtog en ydelse i medfør af en anden medlemsstats lovgivning.
The Court pointed out in that regard that when, under Type A national legislation, a worker satisfied the conditions for entitlement to a benefit, the theoretical amount of that benefit was equal to the amount referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 46 (1), that is to say the amount of the full benefit to which the worker would have been entitled under the national legislation had he not been entitled to a benefit under the legislation of another Member State.
I et sådant tilfælde bliver resultatet - i det mindste forudsat, at det af en institution i en anden medlemsstat beregnede teoretiske ydelsesbeløb ikke er højere - at antikumulationsreglen i artikel 46, stk. 3, begrænser beløbet af de kumulerede ydelser, som er beregnet efter artiklens stk. 1 og 2, til den fulde ydelse, som en arbejdstager har ret til alene efter en national lov givning af typen A.
Consequently, in such a case, provided In any event that the theoretical amount of the benefit calculated by the institution of another Member State was no higher, the rule against overlapping laid down by Article 46 (3) limited the aggregate amount of the benefits, calculated in
Domstolen bemærkede, at det - såfremt første spørgsmåls første led var besvaret bekræftende - med spørgsmålets andet led ønskedes oplyst, om bestemmelserne i artikel 46, stk. 3, er forenelige med Traktatens artikel 51, og at der således burde svares herpå.
It was therefore necessary to answer the second part of that question, which sought to ascertain whether, in the light of that interpretation, Article 46 (3) was compatible with Article 51 of the Treaty.
Domstolen fastslog i den forbindelse, at antikumulationsreglen i artikel 46, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke kan antages at være uforenelig med Traktatens artikel 51. Domstolen henviste herved til, at reglen i en situation som den omtvistede begrænser størrelsen af de kumulerede ydelser, som betales til den vandrende arbejdstager, til et beløb svarende til den fulde ydelse, som udbetales af en institution i en medlemstat med lovgivning af typen A, hvorfor denne grænse således ikke ændres som følge af de forsikringsperioder, der er tilbagelagt i henhold til en lovgivning af typen B.
The Court pointed out, in that regard, that the rule against overlapping laid down by Article 46 (3) of Regulation No. 1408/71 could not be regarded as incompatible with Article 51 of the Treaty because, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, its effect was to limit the aggregate amount of the benefits paid to the migrant worker to an amount equal to that of the full benefit payable by the institution of the State applying Type A legislation and, consequently, to prevent that limit from varying depending on the periods of insurance completed under the Type Β legislation.
Reglen fandtes nemlig kun at finde anvendelse, hvis den ikke reducerer de rettigheder, som en vandrende arbejdstager har alene i medfør af en lovgivning af typen A; reglen stiller i øvrigt ikke arbejdstageren ringere, end hvis han havde tilbagelagt samtlige sine forsikringsperioder i en stat med en lovgivning af denne type.
That rule could be applied only if it did not have the effect of reducing the migrant worker's entitlement under the Type A legislation alone; moreover, it did not place the worker in a position less favourable than if he had completed all his periods of insurance in the State applying that type of legislation.
Domstolen bemærkede videre, at det resultat ikke ændres af det forhold, som sagsøgeren gjorde gældende for Domstolen, nemlig at den vandrende arbejdstager ikke desto mindre er ringere stillet end den indenlandske arbejdstager, fordi han skal tåle ulempen ved de opdelte ydelser og den retlige usikkerhed, som er forbundet med en eventuel fornyet beregning.
That conclusion could not be affected by the circumstance, referred to by the plaintiff in the main proceedings in his observations submitted to the Court, that a migrant worker was none the less placed at a disadvantage in comparison with a national worker, since he had to accept the drawbacks involved in the splitting of the benefits and the legal uncertainty involved in the possibility that they might be reassessed.
Domstolen påpegede herved, at disse ulemper, der i Øvrigt begrænses så vidt muligt ved visse bestemmelser i forordning nr. 1408/71 og forordning nr. 574/72, hænger nøje sammen med, at Traktatens artikel 51 ikke har til formål at indføre en fælles social sikringsordning, men alene at tilvejebringe en samordning af medlemsstaternes socialsikringsordninger.
The Court pointed out that those drawbacks, which were, moreover, limited as far as possible by certain provisions of Regulation No. 1408/71 and Regulation No. 574/72, were inherent in the fact that Article 51 of the Treaty was not intended to set up a common system of social security but sought merely to lay down rules co-ordinating the social security systems of the Member States.