natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De for Retten rejste annullationssøgsmål angående Kommissionens beslutning
The actions for annulment brought before the Court of First Instance against the Commission's decision
Det måtte følge heraf, at Kommissionens argument om, at den som kollegial enhed under vedtagelsesproceduren kan begrænse sig til at give udtryk for sin vilje til at handle på en bestemt måde, og ikke behøver at medvirke ved affattelsen af den retsakt, som stadfæster den, og den endelige udformning heraf, ikke kunne lægges til grund.
It followed that it was impossible to accept the Commission's argument that in the decision-making process the college of Commissioners can confine itself to making clear its intention to take certain action without having to become involved in the drafting and finalization of the act giving effect to its intention.
De indstævnte havde under annullationssøgsmålet fremført flere anbringender, der kan sammenfattes således: Den administrative procedure var behæftet med forskellige mangler; den anfægtede beslutning var ikke eller kun utilstrækkeligt begrundet; retten til forsvar var ikke blevet overholdt; den af Kommissionen anvendte bevisordning var omtvistelig; den anfægtede beslutning var i strid med traktatens artikel 85 og generelle principper i fællesskabsretten; beslutningen tilsidesatte forældelsesreglerne; den var udtryk for magtfordrejning; de pålagte bøder var ulovlige.
In their actions for annulment, the applicant companies raised a number of pleas which may be summarized as follows: the pre-litigation procedure was defective in a number of ways; the contested decision was not reasoned or was insufficiently reasoned; the rights of the defence were not observed; the evidential basis adopted by the Commission was questionable; the contested decision was contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty and to general principles of Community law; the decision was in breach of limitation rules; it was vitiated by misuse of power; and the fines imposed were unlawful.
Med hensyn til procesreglerne bemærkede Domstolen, at den i artikel 12, stk. 1, foreskrevne stadfæstelse af retsakter, der langt fra, som hævdet af Kommissionen, er en simpel formalitet, der skal tjene som erindring, har til formål at sikre retssikkerheden ved på de retsgyldige sprog at fastnagle den tekst, der er vedtaget af Kommissionen som kollegial enhed.
Having regard to the documents produced by the Commission, the applicants contended that it was not certain that the decision had been authenticated in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 12 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
De indstævnte havde under hensyn til de af Kommissionen fremlagte dokumenter blandt andet gjort gældende, at det ikke var sikkert, at beslutningen var blevet stadfæstet efter reglerne efter artikel 12 i Kommissionens forretningsorden.
As far as the Rules of Procedure are concerned, far from being, as the Commission claimed, a mere formality for archival purposes, the authentication of acts provided for in the first paragraph of Article 12 of its Rules of Procedure is intended to guarantee legal certainty by ensuring that the text adopted by the college of Commissioners becomes fixed in the languages which are binding.
Domstolen bemærkede herved for det første, at Kommissionens funktion er reguleret ved kollegialitetsprincippet.
Thus, in the event of a dispute, it can be verified that the texts notified or published correspond precisely to the text adopted by the college and so with the intention of the author.
Heraf følger, at den stadfæstelse af retsakter, der er omhandlet i artikel 12, udgør en væsentlig formforskrift efter EØF-traktatens artikel 173, og at en overtrædelse heraf kan give anledning til annullationssøgsmål.
Authentication of acts referred to in the first paragraph of Article 12 therefore constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty breach of which gives rise to an action for annulment.
Dette princip er baseret på, at Kommissionens medlemmer i lige grad deltager i beslutningerne, og indebærer dels, at beslutningerne drøftes i
In the present case, it was not disputed that, on its own admission, the Commission acted in breach of the first paragraph of Article 12 of its Rules of Procedure by failing to authenticate the contested decision in the way provided for by that article.
»1) Den af Retten i Første Instans afsagte dom af 27. februar 1992 i de forenede sager T79189, T-84/89, T-85/89, T-86/89, T-89/89, T-91/89, T-92/89, T-94/89, T-96/89, T-98189, T-102/89 og T-104189 ophæves.
Sets aside lhe judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 27 February 1992 in Cases T-79/89, T-84/89, T-85/89, T-86/89, T-89/89, T-91/89, T-92/89, T-94/89, T-96189, T-98/89, T-102/89 and T-104189;
Kommissionens beslutning 89/190/EØF af 21. december 1988 om en procedure i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 85 (IV/31.865, PVC) annulleres.
Annuls Commission Decision 89/190/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV-31.865, PVC);
Generaladvokat W. Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Domstolen den 29. juni 1993.
Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 29 June 1993
Han foreslog Domstolen at træffe følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court should :
Den dom, som Retten i Første Instans har afsagt den 27. februar 1992 i de forenede sager T-79/89, T-84/89-T-86/89, T-89/89, T-91/89, T-92/89, T-94/89, T-96/89, T-98/89, T-102/89 og T-104/89, BASF m.fl. mod Kommissionen, ophæves.
T-92/89, T-94/89, T-96/89, T-98/89, T-102/89 and T104/89 BASF and Others ν Commission;
Sagen hjemvises til Retten, for at denne kan træffe afgørelse om de søgsmålsgrunde, som sagsøgeren har påberåbt sig i Første Instans, og som der ikke er taget stilling til i den nævnte dom.«
(2) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance with a view to its pronouncing on the pleas raised by the applicants at first instance which were not dealt with in that judgment.'
Sag C-132/93 Volker Steen mod Deutsche Bundespost Fri bevægelighed for personer
Case C-132/93 Volker Steen ν Deutsche Bundespost Freedom of movement for persons
Præjudiciel »Rent interne forhold i en medlemsstat« (Anden Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Situation purely internal to a Member State) (Second Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 16. marts 1993, der indgik til Domstolen den 31. marts s.m., havde Arbeitsgericht Elmshorn forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Domstolens dom af 28. januar 1992 (sag C332/90, Steen).
The only effect of the Steen judgment is to preclude Community law from being relied on with respect to a purely internal situation,
Domstolen bemærkede blot, at det alene følger af dommen af 28. januar 1992, at der ikke kan støttes ret på fællesskabsretten, når der er tale om et rent internt forhold.
In substance, the national court asked whether, despite the fact that according to the Steen judgment Community law was not applicable to the present case, it could consider the discrimination pleaded by Mr Steen in the light of national law and decide the case accordingly.
Med sit spørgsmål i nærværende sag ønskede Arbeitsgericht Elmshorn oplyst, hvorvidt den -på trods af, at fællesskabsretten, jf. dommen af 28. januar 1992, ikke finder anvendelse i det
The Court held that it was for the national court, faced with a question of national law, to determine whether there is any discrimination under that law and whether that discrimination must be eliminated and, if so, how.
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Court ruled as follows :
»Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for, at en national retsinstans efterprøver en national bestemmelses forfatningsmæssighed, når bestemmelsen stiller statsborgere fra andre medlemsstater bedre end indenlandske arbejdstagere, hvis forhold er uden tilknytning til forhold, som fællesskabsretten regulerer. «
'Community law does not preclude a national court from examining the compatibility with its constitution of a national rule which, in a situation unconnected with any of the situations contemplated by Community law, treats national workers lessfavourably than nationals from other Member Stales.'
Generaladvokat M. Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling) den 10. marts 1994.
Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 10 March 1994
»I tilfælde, hvor en statsborger i en medlemsstat i modsætning til andre EF-borgere, hvem en sådan rettighed tilkommer, ikke har en af fællesskabsretten udspringende rettighed alene af den grund, at vedkommendes forhold — fordi de er udtryk for rent interne forhold — ikke er omfattet af fællesskabsrettens anvendelsesområde, er fællesskabsretten uden betydning for de nationale retsinstansers nærmere anvendelse af et forfatningsretligt princip om lighed for loven, idet dette spørgsmål udelukkende henhører under den pågældende medlemsstats nationale retsorden.«
'When, unlike other Community nationals who can rely on a right arising under Community law, a national of a Member State cannot take advantage of that right solely because his situation, which is a purely internal one, does not fall within the scope of Community law, that law has no effect on the conditions for the application by national courts of a constitutional principle of equality before the law, those conditions being determined exclusively by the domestic law of that Member State.'
Ved kendelse af 12. januar 1993, indgået til Domstolen den 5. februar s.a., hade Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af den almindelige tariferingsbestemmelse 2 a), andet punktum, vedrørende nomenklaturen i den fælles toldtarif.
By order of 12 January 1993, received at the Court on 5 February 1993, the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Baden-Württemberg referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of the second sentence of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the interpretation of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff.
Ved ændringsafgørelse af 8. juni 1989 fremsatte Hauptzollamt over for Develop Eisbein krav om efterbetaling af antidumpingtold på i alt 3 112 836,97 DM.
Accordingly, the Hauptzollamt required Develop Eisbein to pay an antidumping duty of DM 3 112 836.97.
Fotokopieringsmaskinerne var blevet leveret som byggesæt omfattende ca. 200 enkeltdele.
The photocopiers were supplied in kits comprising some 200 pieces.
I overensstemmelse med Develop Eisbein's toldangivelse tariferede toldvæsenet først disse enkeltdele af fotokopieringsmaskiner under pos. 90.10 A (Fotokopieringsapparater med optisk system) og ekspederede dem til fri omsætning som dele til fotokopieringsmaskiner.
In accordance with Develop Eisbein's declaration, the customs office first classified those parts of photocopiers under subheading 90.10A (Photocopying apparatus incorporating an optical system) of the Common Customs Tariff and cleared them into free circulation as parts of photocopiers.
Efter et kontrolbesøg hos Develop Eisbein fastslog toldvæsenet imidlertid, at de indførte varer i henhold til tariferingsbestemmelse 2 a),
The national court asked what were the criteria for considering that goods are presented unassembled or disassembled within the meaning of the second sentence of Rule 2(a).
Retten spurgte for det første, om det er tilfældet, når samlingen af enkeltdelene som anført i punkt VI i de forklarende bemærkninger ikke kræver anvendelse af en kompliceret samlemetode, og dernæst om den forudgående forarbejdning eller bearbejdning af enkeltdelene og det store antal enkeltdele udelukker, at der foreligger en vare i ikke samlet stand.
'The second sentence of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the interpretation of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Part I, Section I, A of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 of the Council of 28 June 1968 on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1172 of the Council of 20 December 1971 must be interpreted as meaning that an article is to be considered to be imported unassembled or disassembled where the component parts, that is the parts which may be identified as components intended to make up the finished product, are all presented for customs clearance at the same time and no account is to be taken in that regard of the assembly technique or the complexity of the assembly method'
»Den almindelige tanferingsbestemmelse 2 a), andet punktum, vedrørende nomenklaturen i den fælles toldtarif, som er anført i 1. del, afsnit I, punkt A, i bilaget til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 950/68 af 28. juni 1968 om den fælles toldtarif, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1172 af 20. december 1971, skal fortolkes således, at en vare, hvis enkeüdele — dvs. de dele, som kan identificeres som dele, der skal danne den færdige vare — alle frembydes samtidig til fortoldning, må anses for en vare, der frembydes i adskilt eller ikke samlet stand, idet der herved hverken skal tages hensyn til samleteknik eller til samlemetodens komplicerthed. «
The second sentence of Rule 2(a) is to be interpreted as meaning that an article is presented unassembled if the technical means which must be applied in assembling the components do not necessitate a complex method of assembly. In determining whether a simple or complex assembly method is involved, account may be taken inter alia of whether the assembly of the components requires staff with special qualifications for the work in question, sophisticated tools or specially equipped factories for the purposes of assembly.'
Generaladvokat C. Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet i femte Afdeling den 16. december 1993
The first, letter No 06873, informed it of the decision by its competent departments to close the 'State aids' dossier.
»2. pkt. i den almindelige tariferingsbestemmelse 2.a) skal fortolkes således, at der foreligger en vare i ikke samlet stand, når den teknik, som skal anvendes ved samlingen af enkeltdelene, ikke forudsætter en kompliceret samlemetode. Der kan ved afgørelsen af, om der foreligger en enkel eller kompliceret samlemetode bl.a. lægges vægt på, om samlingen af enkeltdelene kræver særligt uddannet personale til at udføre de pågældende arbejder, specialværktøj eller fabrikker udstyret med særlig henblik på samlingen.«
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 8 February 1993, SFEI, DHL International SA Service Crie-LFAL SA and May Courier International SARL, brought an appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 1992 in Case T-36/92 SFEI and Others ν Commission dismissing as inadmissible their action against letter No 000978 of 10 March 1992 in which the Commission stated that it did not envisage pursuing inquiries under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty.
Sag C-39/93 Ρ Le Syndicat français de l'Express international (SFEI) mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
The second, letter No 000978, concerning the application of Article 86 of the Treaty stated that an investigation had been carried out under the provisions of the Merger Regulation, and that the investigation had necessarily covered the most important points raised by SFEI in relation to a potential infringement of Article 86 by La Poste.
16.6.1994 virksomhederne ■ skrivelse fra Kommissionen til en klager
The end of the letter was worded as follows:
»Appel — konkurrence — reglerfor — anfægtelig retsakt« (Femte Afdeling) benævnt »SFMI«) ved at stille samtlige postkontorer til rådighed for dettee, anvende en privilegeret toldprocedure, ydet særlig gunstige finansbetingelser og iværksat foranstaltninger til fremme af salg og reklame.
SFEI had lodged a complaint with the Commission on 21 December 1990 challenging the logistical and commercial assistance which the French Post Office was said to provide to the Société Française de Messagerie Internationale (SFMI): availability of the whole post office network, preferential customs clearance procedure, preferential financial terms, conduct of promotional and advertising operations by La Poste in favour of SFMI.
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 8. februar 1993 havde SFEI, DHL International SA, Service Crie-LFAL SA og May Courier International SARL indgivet appel vedrørende en kendelse afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 30. november 1992 i sag T36/92, SFEI m.fl. mod Kommissionen, om afvisning af den sag, som appellanterne havde anlagt vedrørende Kommissionens skrivelse nr. 000978 af 20. marts 1992, hvorved Kommissionen meddelte appellanterne, at den ikke agtede at indlede en undersøgelse i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 86.
'I am aware that you had hoped that the Commission would follow the full procedure of an Article 86 investigation (...) While we do not propose to pursue enquiries under Article 86 in these circumstances, I can assure you that we shall maintain a close watch on developments in this market.'
Det fremgik af sagens akter, for det første at den klage, som var indgivet den 21. december 1990, under alle omstændigheder var rettet mod den franske stat og var støttet på EØF-traktatens artikel 92 ff, og for det andet, at det senest den 18. marts 1991 under et møde mellem Kommissionen og repræsentanter for SFEI blev drøftet, om det franske postvæsen udøvede en virksomhed, som var i strid med traktatens artikel 86.
By application lodged on 16 May 1992 SFEI and those three undertakings brought another application before the Court of First Instance for the annulment of the Commission decision contained in the contested letter concerning the investigation under Article 86 of the Treaty.
Kommissionen afgav ved den lejlighed tilsagn om at undersøge de oplysninger, som den
The Commission raised several objections of inadmissibility to the second application.
Den 21. december 1990 havde SFEI indgivet en klage til Kommissionen, hvori det påtalte den logistiske og handelsmæssige bistand, som det franske postvæsen angiveligt havde ydet société française de messagerie internationale (herefter
It was undisputed that the complaint lodged on 21 December 1990 was in any event directed against the French State and, in that respect, based on Articles 92 et seq. of the Treaty. It was also common ground that at the latest on 18 March 1991, at a meeting between the Commission and representatives of SFEI the question was raised of a possible infringement of Article 86 by La Poste qua undertaking.
11 grundlag af denne rådede over, på traktatbestemmelse.
it was said to be a decision rejecting the complaint and as such amenable to annulment proceedings.
Den 10. marts 1992 tilsendte Kommissionen SFEI to skrivelser.
In view of its preparatory nature it is not an actionable decision.
Ved den første skrivelse, nr. 06873, gav Kommissionen SFEI meddelelse om, at dens kompetente tjenestegrene havde truffet beslutning om at henlægge den del af sagen, som vedrørte statsstøtte.
First of all, the Court of Justice held that an institution empowered to find that there has been an infringement and to inflict a sanction in respect of it and to which private persons may make complaint, as is the case with the Commission in the field of competition, necessarily adopts a measure producing legal effects when it terminates an investigation initiated upon a complaint by such a person.
taget stilling til aftalens forenelighed med fusionsforordningen, og henledte opmærksomheden på forbindelsen mellem de problemer, Kommissionen havdebehandlet under fusionsundersøgelsen, og de problemer, som var rejst i klagen.
As to the legal effects of the contested letter from the Commission, the Court of First Instance considered that the document merely explained the decision as to compatibility taken by the Commission on 2 December 1991 under the Merger Regulation and the connections between the problems encountered during the investigation carried out under the Merger Regulation and those described in the complaint.
Retten konstaterede endvidere, at skrivelsen ikke indeholdt nogen kvalifikation af de kritiserede forhold i relation til traktatens artikel 86, og konkluderede, at den anfægtede skrivelse måtte anses for en retsakt, der vedrørte den indledende fase af undersøgelsen, og som blot udgjorde en første reaktion fra Kommissionens side og ikke havde nogen retsvirkninger.
The Court of First Instance further found that the contested letter contained no evaluation in the light of Article 86 of the Treaty of the facts alleged, and concluded that it fell to be regarded as a document established at a preliminary stage in the investigation, which merely expressed an initial reaction by the Commission's services having no legal effects.
I den anden skrivelse, skrivelse nr. 000978, vedrørende anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 86, anførte Kommissionen, at der var indledt en undersøgelse i medfør af fusionsforordningen, og at denne undersøgelse i sagens natur omfattede alle de vigtigste af de punkter, som SFEI havde rejst vedrørende det franske postvæsens mulige overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 86.
In fact, unlike a communication which is intended to afford to the undertakings concerned the opportunity of making known their point of view on the Commission's statement of objections and which does not prevent the Commission from altering its position, the decision to close the file on a complaint is the final step in the procedure; it cannot be followed by any other decision amenable to annulment proceedings.
Skrivelsen sluttede således:
Misconstruction of the concept of actionable decision
»Jeg ved, at De havde håbet, at Kommissionen ville iværksætte en procedure i henhold til artikel 86, som indebar en fuldstændig undersøgelse... Selv om vi ikke ... agter at fortsætte undersøgelsen i henhold til artikel 86, kan jeg forsikre Dem om, at Kommissionen vil fortsætte med at overvåge udviklingen på dette marked nøje.«
In those circumstances a letter closing the file on a complaint may be analyzed as a preliminary or preparatory statement of position only if the Commission has clearly indicated that its conclusion is valid only subject to the submission by the parties of supplementary observations, which was not so in this case.
Appellanterne anførte, at Retten havde fejlfortolket dette begreb ved at betegne den anfægtede skrivelse som en indledende retsakt.
By classifying the contested letter as a preliminary document, the Court of First Instance is alleged by the appellants to have misconstrued the concept of an actionable decision.
Ved denne skrivelse, som indeholdt en gennemgang af de påtalte handlinger på grundlag af traktatens artikel 86, blev undersøgelsen nemlig afsluttet, hvormed appellanterne blev afskåret fra at kræve undersøgelsen genoptaget, medmindre de fremførte nye omstændigheder.
That letter in fact contained an assessment under Article 86 of the Treaty of the conduct complained of, terminated the investigation, and precluded the appellants from demanding the resumption of the investigation unless they brought forward new evidence.
Ved stævning indleveret den 16. maj 1992 anlagde SFEI og de tre tilknyttede virksomheder et annullationssøgsmål ved Retten i Første Instans vedrørende den beslutning fra Kommissionen, som var indeholdt i den anfægtede skrivelse om undersøgelsen i henhold til traktatens artikel 86.
It followed from the foregoing that the Court of First instance misdirected itself in law by analysing the contested letter as a document having no legal effects and by declaring the application inadmissible.
På grund af sin forberedende karakter udgjorde skrivelsen ikke nogen retsakt, som kan anfægtes.
Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
12- fremsætter supplerende bemærkninger, hvilket ikke skete i den foreliggende sag.
Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 10 February 1994. He proposed that:
Af det anførte konkluderede Domstolen, at Retten havde foretaget en forkert retsanvendelse, da den betegnede den anfægtede skrivelse som en foranstaltning uden retsvirkninger og derfor afviste sagen.
Case C-322/93 Ρ Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot SA ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
- Authorized intermediary