natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse: "Fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikel 30 i henhold til retspraksis på området giver ikke holdepunkter for at antage, at en kommunes anvendelse af Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Aet fra 1982, hvorefter det er forbudt at sælge pornografiske artikler fra uautoriserede pornoforretninger, kan betragtes som en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning som en kvantitativ indførselsrestriktion i artikel 30's forstand."
By order dated 7 September 1988, which was received at the Court on 30 January 1989, Chelmsford Crown Court referred to the Court three questions on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty in order to determine whether national legislation prohibiting the sale of lawful sex articles from unlicensed sex establishments was compatible with those provisions.
Sag C-35/88: Kornei ssionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber nod Den Hellenske Republik
Southend Borough Council had brought a prosecution against Quietlynn Limited and Mr Richards for using premises for the sale of sex articles while not in possession of the licence required for that purpose under a resolution of the local authority.
"Landbrug - markedet for korn bestemt til dyrefoder" (Domstolens plenum)
They were found guilty by Southend Magistrates Court on 11 February 1986, fined £1000, and ordered to pay costs.
Ved stævning, indgivet til Domstolen den 2. februar 1988, havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueres, at Den Hellenske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til en række bestemmelser i fællesskabsretten.
Quietlynn Limited and Mr Richards appealed against the conviction, their sole defence being that the licensing system for sex establishments was incompatible with Article 30 of the EEC Treaty inasmuch as it constituted a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports from other Member States and fell neither within one of the exceptions provided for in Article 36 nor under any other derogation.
Den Hellenske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser ifølge Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2727/75 af 29. oktober 1975 om den fæl les markedsordning for korn, som ændret, idet den har interveneret ved fastsættelsen af KYDEP's betingelser for køb og salg af korn bestemt til dyrefoder, over budgettet udlignet KYDEP's underskud som følge af dette organs intervention på markedet for korn bestemt til dyrefoder og givet KYDEP mulighed for, mod statsgaranti, at optage lån i den græske nationalbank.
By intervening with regard to KYDEP's terms of purchase and sale of feed grain, by compensating by budgetary measures KYDEP's deficit resulting from its intervention in the market in feed grain and by enabling KYDEP to obtain, as a result of a State guarantee, loans from the Bank of Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals, as amended.
Den Hellenske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser ifølge EØF-Traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3, idet den ikke har underrettet Kommissionen om den påtænkte støtte til KYDEP med henblik på køb og salg af korn bestemt til dyrefoder.
By failing to notify to the Commission plans for aid to KYDEP for the purchase and sale of feed grain the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 93 (3) of the Treaty.
Den Hellenske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser ifølge EØF-Traktatens artikel 5, stk. 1, idet den ikke har underrettet Kommissionen om de hellenske myndigheders afgørelser vedrørende betingelserne for KYDEP's intervention på markedet for korn bestemt til dyrefoder.
By failing to notify to the Commission the decisions of the Greek authorities relating to the terms of KYDEP's intervention in the market in feed grain the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty.
Den Hellenske Republik betaler sagens omkostninger."
The Hellenic Republic 1s ordered to pay the costs."
Generaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 23. maj 1990.
Mr Advocate General Jean Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 23 May 1990.
Generaladvokaten foreslog følgende: "Sagen admitteres, og det statueres, at Den Hellenske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser ifølge bestemmelserne i afsnit I under overskriften "Prisregler" og artikel 24 i forordning nr. 2727/75 om den fælles markedsordning for korn samt Traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3.
He proposed that the Court should: "declare the action to be admissible and that the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Title I, headed "prices" and Article 24 of Regulation No. 2727/75 on the common organization of the market in cereals as well as Article 93 (3) of the Treaty.
Følgelig bør den sagsøgte medlemsstat tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger." ninger."
The Hellenic Republic must therefore be ordered to pay the costs."
12.7.1990 "Frie varebevægelser ­ traktatbrudssag ­ phytosanitær kontrol af grapefrugter ­ forbud mod import via grænseovergange på landjorden" (Domstolens plenum)
Case C-128/89: Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic - 12 July 1990 (Free movement of goods - Action for a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Plant-health checks on grapefruit -Prohibition of imports through inland-border crossing-points) (Full Court)
Ved stævning indgivet den 14. april 1989 havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueredes, at Den Italienske Republik ikke havde overholdt de forpligtelser, der påhviler den i henhold til EØF­Traktatens artikel 30 og Rådets direktiv 77/93/EØF, idet den har forbudt import af grapefrugter hidrørende fra andre medlemsstater via grænseovergange på landjorden.
By an application lodged on 14 April 1989, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action seeking a declaration that, by prohibiting imports of grapefruit originating in other Member States through inland-border crossing-points the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Council Directive 77/93/EEC.
Den Italienske Republik har ikke overholdt de forpligtelser, der påhviler den i henhold til EØF­Traktatens artikel 30 og Rådets direktiv 77/93/EØF af 21. december 1976 om foranstaltninger mod indslæbning i medlemsstaterne af skadegørere på planter eller planteprodukter, idet den har forbudt import af grapefrugter hidrørende fra andre medlemsstater via grænseovergange på land­jorden.
By prohibiting imports of grapefruit originating in other Member States through inland-border crossing-points, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Council Directive 79/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduction into the Member States of harmful organisms of plants or plant products.
(Præjudiciel) "Socialpolitik - ligebehandling af mandlige og kvindelige arbejdstagere - et direktivs direkte virkning over for en nationaliseret virksomhed" (Domstolens plenum)
Case C-188/89: A. Foster and Others ν British Gas pic - 12 July 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women - Direct effect of a directive with regard to a nationalized company) (Full Court)
Ved kendelse af 4. maj 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 29. maj 1989, havde House of Lords forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF.
By an order of 4 May 1989 which was received at the Court on 29 May 1989, the House of Lords referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC.
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst under en sag anlagt af A. Foster og fem andre kvindelige tidligere ansatte i British Gas Corporation (BGC) mod British Gas plc, som var indtrådt i BGC's rettigheder, i anledning af BGC's krav om, at de skulle tage deres afsked.
That question was raised in proceedings between A. Foster and five other women who had formerly been employed by the British Gas Corporation (the "BGC"), and British Gas Pic, the successor to the rights and liabilities of the BGC, in respect of their compulsory retirement from the BGC.
I henhold til Gas Aet 1972, som på tidspunktet for de faktiske omstændigheder i hovedsagen indeholdt de for BGC gældende bestemmelser, var BGC en juridisk person oprettet ved lov, som havde til opgave at udvikle og opretholde gasforsyningen i Storbritannien, og som havde monopol herpå; BGC var undergivet tilsyn af vedkommende minister og skulle følge dennes anvisninger.
By virtue of the Gas Act 1972, which governed the BGC at the material time, the BGC was a statutory corporation responsible for developing and maintaining a system of gas supply in Great Britain under the control and supervision of the competent Secretary of State, and had a monopoly of the supply of gas.
BGC blev privatiseret ved Gas Aet 1986.
The BGC was privatized under the Gas Act 1986.
Privatiseringen førte til oprettelsen af indstævnte i hovedsagen, British Gas plc, hvortil BGC's rettigheder og forpligtelser blev overført med virkning fra den 24. august 1986.
Privatization resulted in the establishment of British Gas Pic, the respondent in the main proceedings, to which the rights and liabilities of the BGC were transferred with effect from 24 August 1986.
BGC forlangte, at appellanterne i hovedsagen tog deres afsked på tidspunkter mellem december 1985 og juli 1986, hvor de fyldte 60.
The appellants in the main proceedings were required to retire by the BGC on various dates between 27 December 1985 and 22 July 1986, on attaining the age of sixty.
Dette var i overensstemmelse med BGC's almindelige politik, som gik ud på, at de ansatte skulle tage deres afsked, når de nåede den alder, hvor de i henhold til britisk lovgivning havde ret til pension fra staten, dvs. 60 år for kvinder og 65 år for mænd.
These retirements reflected a general policy pursued by the BGC, that of requiring its employees to retire upon reaching the age at which they were entitled to a State pension pursuant to British legislation, that is to say sixty years of age for women and sixty-fi ve for men.
House of Lords anmodede Domstolen om at få oplyst, om BGC på det pågældende tidspunkt var et organ af en sådan art, at appellanterne umiddelbart kunne påberåbe sig Rådets direktiv 76/207 ved de engelske domstole og således var berettiget til at kræve erstatning med den begrundelse, at BGC's politik med hensyn til pensionering var i strid med direktivet.
[1986] ECR 723) the dismissals were contrary to Article 5 (1) of Directive 76/207. They were also agreed that those dismissals were not unlawful under the British legislation in force at the material time and that according to previous judgments of the House of Lords that legislation could not be interpreted in a manner consistent with Directive 76/207.
I den anledning henviste Domstolen til sin faste praksis, hvorefter et direktivs tilsigtede virkning ville blive afsvækket i tilfælde, hvor fællesskabsmyndighederne gennem en sådan retsakt har pålagt medlemsstaterne en forpligtelse til en bestemt handlemåde, såfremt de retsundergivne ikke kunne støtte ret herpå, og såfremt de nationale domstole var afskåret fra at tage det i betragtning som en del af fællesskabsretten.
The Court pointed out that, as it had consistently held, where the Community authorities have, by means of a directive, placed Member States under a duty to adopt a certain course of action, the effectiveness of such a measure would be diminished if persons were prevented from relying upon it in proceedings before a court and national courts were prevented from taking it into consideration as an element of Community law.
Følgelig kan en medlemsstat, som ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har truffet de i direktivet krævede gennem førelsesforanstaltninger, ikke over for private gøre gældende, at den ikke har opfyldt de forpligtelser, som direktivet pålægger.
Consequently, a Member State which has not adopted the implementing measures required by the directive within the prescribed period may not plead, as against individuals, its own failure to perform the obligations which the directive entails.
Når bestemmelser i et direktiv ud fra et indholdsmæssigt synspunkt fremstår som ubetingede og til strækkeligt præcise, kan der i mangel af rettidige gennemførelsesforanstaltninger støttes ret herpå over for enhver national regel, der ikke er i over ensstemmelse med direktivet, ligesom private over for staten kan påberåbe sig bestemmelser, der efter deres indhold tillægger private rettigheder i forhold til staten.
Thus, wherever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subjectmatter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive or in so far as the provisions define rights which individuals are able to assert against the State.
Domstolen udtalte endvidere i Marshall-dommen, at såfremt de retsundergivne i forhold til staten kan støtte ret på et direktiv, består denne mulighed, uanset i hvilken egenskab staten har handlet, dvs. som arbejdsgiver eller som offentlig myndighed.
The Court had further held in its judgment of in Marshall, cited above, that where a person was able to rely on a directive as against the State he could do so regardless of the capacity in which the latter was acting, whether as employer or as public authority.
Det er i begge tilfælde væsentligt at hindre, at medlemsstaten kan forbedre sin retsstilling ved ikke at efterkomme fællesskabsretten.
In either case it was necessary to prevent the State from taking advantage of its own failure to comply with Community law.
Ud fra disse betragtninger har Domstolen i en række sager statueret, at de retsundergivne kan støtte ret på ubetingede og tilstrækkeligt præcise bestemmelser i et direktiv over for organer eller institutioner, som er undergivet statslig myndighed eller kontrol, eller som har langt videre beføjelser end dem, der følger af de regler, der finder anvendelse i forholdet mellem privat personer.
On the basis of those considerations, the Court had held in a series of cases that unconditional and sufficiently precise provisions of a directive could be relied on against organizations or bodies which were subject to the authority or control of the State or had special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals.
Domstolen udtalte, at det følger heraf, at et organ, som - hvilken retlig organisationsform det end har - ved en retsakt udstedt af en offentlig myndighed har fået til opgave at yde offentlig service under den offentlige myndigheds tilsyn, og som med dette formål for Øje har langt videre beføjelser end efter de regler, der finder anvendelse i forholdet mellem privatpersoner, i hvert fald er et af de organer, som bestemmelserne i et direktiv, der kan have direkte virkning, kan gøres gældende over for.
It followed, therefore, that a body, whatever its legal form, which had been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public service under the control of the State and had for that
­ 18 ­ så vidt adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår kan til støtte for et erstatningskrav påberåbes over for et organ, som ­ hvilken retlig organisationsform det end har ­ ved en retsakt udstedt af en offentlig myndighed har fået til opgave at yde offentlig service under den offentlige myndigheds tilsyn, og som med dette formål for Øje har langt videre beføjelser end efter de regler, der finder anvendelse i forholdet mellem privatpersoner."
18 - purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals was included in any event among the bodies against which the provisions of a directive capable of having direct effect may be relied upon.
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 8. maj w:
With regard to Article 5 (1) of Directive 76/207 the Court pointed out that in the judgment in Marshall, cited above, it had held that that provision was unconditional and sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and to be applied by the national courts.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse:
The Court ruled as follows:
"Privatpersoner kan støtte ret på en ubetinget og tilstrækkelig præcis bestem­melse såsom artikel 5, stk. 1, i direktiv 76/207/EØF over for en virksomhed med hensyn til hvilken staten ­ forstået som ethvert organ, der har offentlig myndighed, uanset hvordan forholdet er mellem det og andre offentlige organer, og uanset arten af den opgave, der er pålagt det ­ har påtaget sig et ansvar, som sætter den i stand til på en hvilken som helst måde (undtagen ved generel lovgivning) at øve afgørende indflydelse på denne virksomheds handlemåde på det område, hvor den pågældende bestemmelse i direktivet pålægger en forplig­telse, som medlemsstaten ikke har gennemført i national ret.
"Article 5 (1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions may be relied upon in a claim for damages against a body, whatever its legal form, which has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public service under the control of the State and has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals."
Det påhviler den nationale ret at finde ud af, hvorledes dette krav, som følger af fællesskabs­retten, kan opfyldes efter den nationale retsorden".
Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 8 May 1990.
Sag C­236/88: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber aod Den Franske Republik
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows:
12.7.1990 "Fri bevægelighed for personer ­ social sikring ­ tillægsydelse fra Fonds national de solidarité ­ retten til at få ydelser, hvortil der er indbetalt bidrag, tilkendt eller udbetalt uanset bopæl i et andet land" (Domstolens plenum)
"Individuals may rely on an unconditional and sufficiently precise provision such as Article 5 (1) of Directive 76/207/EEC against an undertaking in respect of which the State (understood as any body endowed with public authority, regardless of its relationship with other public bodies or the nature of the duties entrusted to it) has assumed responsibilities which put it in a position to decisively influence the conduct of that undertaking in any manner whatsoever (other than by means of general legislation) with regard to the matter in respect of which the relevant provision of a directive imposes an obligation which the Member State has failed to implement in national law.
Ved stævning, indgivet den 17. august 1988, havde Kommissionen for De Euro­pæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueres, at Den Franske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF­Trakta­tens artikler 48­51 og artikel 10 i Rådets forordning nr. 1408/71, idet den havde afvist at tildele eller opretholde en tillægsydelse fra Fonds national
Although Directive 76/207, for the purpose of imposing a sanction for breach of the prohibition of discrimination, leaves the Member States free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving its objective, it nevertheless requires that if a Member State chooses to penalize breaches of that prohibition by the award of compensation, then in order to ensure that it is effective and that it has a deterrent effect, that compensation must in any event be adequate in relation to the damage sustained. It is for the national court to find a means within its own legal system of meeting that requirement under Community law."
- 19 - de solidarité (FNS) til modtagere af en fransk invalide-, alders- eller efterladtepension, som har eller tager bopæl i en anden medlemsstat inden for Fællesskabet.
Case C-236/88: Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic - 12 July 1990 (Freedom of movement - Social security - Additional allowance of the Fonds National de Solidarité - Exportability of non-contributory benefits) (Full Court)
Ifølge den franske regering er afgørelsen begrundet i selve karakteren af den pågældende ydelse.
The French Government contended that the refusal was justified by the \/ery nature of the allowance in question.
Den tilkendes nemlig af FNS med henblik på at supplere alle former for visse eldre menneskers Økonomiske midler, herunder ydelser, hvortil der er indbetalt bidrag, for at sikre dem et minimumseksistensgrundlag under hensyntagen til leveomkostningerne i Frankrig.
It was granted by the Fonds National de Solidarité 1n order to supplement the income from every source, including contributory benefits, of certain elderly people up to a level considered indispensable to ensure a minimum means of existence in France in view of the French cost of living.
Når en tillægsydelse som den her omhandlede er omfattet af socialsikringsordningen, jfr. forordning nr. 1408/71, kan det forhold, at udbetalingen er afhængig af bestemte Økonomiske og sociale forhold, ikke, på fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin, begrunde en sondring mellem ydelsen og den pension, hvortil den udgør et automatisk tillæg.
Where a supplemental benefit, such as that in issue in the present case, comes under the system of social security within the meaning of Regulation No. 1408/71 the fact that its payment is related to a certain economic and social environment cannot in view of the present Community law be justification for distinguishing it from the pension to which it is automatically ancillary.
Den franske regering gjorde yderligere gældende, at "eksporten" af tillægsydelsen fra FNS skabte betydelige forvaltnings-, koordinerings- og ressourceproblemer, som alene kan løses ved fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser.
The French Government also submitted that the transfer abroad of the additional allowance by the Fonds National de Solidarité gave rise to serious administrative problems and serious problems of coordination and substance which only Community rules could resolve.
Det er i Øvrigt med dette formål for Øje, at Kommissionen i 1985 fremsatte et forslag til forordning.
That was the reason that the Commission had in 1985 submitted a proposal for a regulation.
Domstolen bemærkede i denne forbindelse, at det ganske vist er rigtigt, at anvendelsen af disse bestemmelser kan give anledning til praktiske vanskeligheder, men at disse vanskeligheder ikke kan påberåbes til skade for de rettigheder, som privatpersoner kan gøre gældende i henhold til de fællesskabsretlige regler på det sociale område, og at det forhold, at Kommissionen forelægger Rådet et forslag, som kan bringe overtrædelsen til ophør, ikke kan fritage den medlemsstat, der er ansvarlig for overtrædelsen, for pligten til at rette sig efter gældende fællesskabsregler.
Although it is true that the application of those provisions may give rise to difficulties of a practical nature, that cannot prejudice the rights of individuals based on the principles of the social legislation of the Community and the fact that there is a proposal before the Council which could terminate the infringement cannot exempt the Member State responsible for the infringement from its obligation to comply with the Community provisions in force.
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 12. juni
Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of Regulation No. 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community.