natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 28. december 1993 har Zunis Holding SA, Finan Sri og Massinvest SA (herefter »appellanterne«) i medfør af artikel 49 i EØF­statutten for Domstolen iværksat appel til prøvelse af dom afsagt den 28. oktober 1993 i sagen Zunis Holding m.fl. mod Kommissionen (herefter »den anfægtede dom«), hvorved Retten i Første Instans frifandt Kommissionen for det af appellanterne anlagte annullationssøgsmål til prøvelse af den afgøreise, som er indeholdt i Kommissionens skrivelse af 31. juli 1992 til appellanterne, hvorved Kommissionen afslog at genoptage proceduren i sag nr. IV/M. 159 — Mediobanca/Generali.
By application lodged at the Court Registry Zunis Holding SA, Finan Sri and Massinvest SA ('the appellants') brought an appeal under Article 49 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment in Case T-83/92 Zunis Holding and Others ν Commission [1993] ECR 11-1169 in which the Court of First Instance dismissed their application for the annulment of a decision, allegedly contained in a letter of 31 July 1992 sent by the Commission to the appellants, refusing to reopen its investigation in Case IV/M.159 -Mediobanca/Generali.
Ved skrivelse af 31. juli 1992 afslog Kommissionen ansøgningen navnlig med den begrundelse, at beslutningen af 19. december 1991 ikke, som det hævdedes, var baseret på fejlagtige oplysninger.
On 30 September 1992 the appellants brought an action before the Court of First Instance seeking the annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of 31 July 1992.
Den 30. september 1992 anlagde appellanterne sag ved Retten i Første Instans med påstand om annullation af den afgørelse, som var indeholdt i skrivelsen af 31. juli 1992.
According to the contested judgment on 27 November 1991 Mediobanca-Banca di Credito Finanziario SpA notiñed the Commission under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 cf a transaction by which Mediobanca had increased its shareholding in Assicurazioni Generali SpA ('Generali') from 5.98% to 12.84%.
Det fremgår af den anfægtede dom, at Mcüiobanca­Banca di Credito Finanziario SpA den 27. november 1991 i medfør af bestemmelserne i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4064/89 gav Kommissionen meddelelse om den transaktion, hvorved Mediobanca forhøjede sin andel i den Assicurazioni Generali SpA tilhørende kapital, nemlig fra 5,98% til 12,84%.
The Commission raised an objection of inadmissibility against the action and claimed, inter alia, that the letter of 31 July 1992 did not constitute a decision directly and individually concerning the appellants, since they did not have locus standi either to challenge the initial decision of 19 December 1991 or to request the reopening of the investigation which had led to that decision.
Den 19. december 1991 besluttede Kommissionen i medfør af artikel 6, stk. 1, litra a), i forordning
By a decision of 19 December 1991, adopted on the basis of Article 6(l)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89, the Commission concluded that the notified transaction did not fall within the scope of that regulation.
Kommissionen påstod sagen afvist navnlig med henvisning til, at skrivelsen af 31. juli 1992 ikke berørte appellanterne umiddelbart og individuelt, da de ikke var berettiget til at anfægte den oprindelige beslutning af 19. december 1991 eller
In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance upheld the objection raised by the Commission and dismissed the application as inadmissible.
til at anmode om genoptagelse af den procedure, som gik forud for denne beslutning.
The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should set aside the contested judgment, reject the Commission's objection of inadmissibility and remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a decision on its merits.
Retten tog i den anfægtede dom Kommissionens formalitetsindsigelse til følge og afviste sagen.
It is necessary, at the outset, to consider whether the letter of 31 July 1992 constitutes a measure against which an action may be brought.
Det skal herom bemærkes, at Kommissionens svarskrivelse af 31. juli 1992 blot var en bekræftelse af Kommissionens beslutning af 19. december 1991.
The Commission's reply of 31 July 1992 was a decision which simply confirmed its decision of 19 December 1991.
Kommissionen meddelte nemlig alene appellanterne i skrivelsen, at den havde haft kendskab til den omhandlede aftale og derfor ikke fandt det nødvendigt at ændre sin beslutning.
It did no more than inform the appellants that the Commission had been aware of the agreement and, consequently, did not consider that there was any need to alter that decision.
Ifølge Domstolens faste praksis er en afgørelse, som blot bekræfter en tidligere afgørelse, ikke nogen anfægtelig retsakt.
It is settled case-law of the Court of Justice that a decision which merely confirms a previous decision is not an actionable measure.
Det skal først undersøges, om skrivelsen af 31. juli 1992 udgør en anfægtelig retsakt.
That being so, the action brought by the appellants before the Court of First Instance was inadmissible and could not but be dismissed.
Appellanterne betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the appellants to pay the costs.'
Sag C-273/94 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Nederlandene Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne
Case C-273/94 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of the Netherlands Approximation of laws
Det på denne baggrund, at Kommissionen har anlagt nærværende sag.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Obligation to give prior under Directive 83/189/EEC) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 30. september 1994 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 169 anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Nederlandene har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 8 i Rådets direktiv 83/189/EØF ved at have fastsat en ordning om dispensation fra bekendtgørelsen om margarine uden at have tilsendt Kommissionen udkastet hertil.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 30 September 1994, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that, by adopting on 19 September 1990 an order derogating from the Margarinebesluit (Margarine Decree) without notifying it to the Commission at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC.
Kommissionen er af den opfattelse, at den omtvistede ordning skulle have været meddelt som udkast i henhold til direktivets artikel 8, stk. 1, første afsnit, hvorefter medlemsstaterne straks
The Commission considers that the disputed order should have been notified to it at the drafting stage, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the directive, which provides that Member States are to immediately communicate to the Commission any draft technical regulation, except where such technical regulation merely transposes the full text of an international or European standard.
Kongeriget Nederlandene har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler det i henhold til artikel 8 i Rådets direktiv 83/189/EØF af 28. marts 1983 om en informationsprocedure med hensyn til tekniske standarder og forskrifter, ved den 19. september 1990 at have indført en ordning om dispensation fra bekendtgørelsen om margarine uden at have tilsendt Kommissionen udkastet hertit
Declares that, by adopting on 19 September 1990 an order derogating from the Margarinebesluit without notifying it to the Commission at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations;
Kongeriget Nederlandene betaler sagens omkostninger.·
Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.'
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 26. oktober 1995.
Advocate General P. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 26 October 1995.
Sag T-368/94 Pierre Blanchard / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Personalesag
Case T-368/94 Pierre Blanchard ν Commission of the European Communities Staff case
»Tjenestemandsvedtægten — personaleudvalg — valg - en fagforenings eller en faglig sammenslutnings ret til at opstille flere lister* (Fjerde Afdeling)
(Staff Regulations — Staff Committee -Elections — Right of trade unions or staff associations to submit several lists) (Fourth Chamber)
Sag T-23/95 Efthimia Bitha m.fl. / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Personalesag
Case T-23/95 Efthimia Bitha and Others ν Commission of the European Communities Staff case
Ved skrivelse af 14. oktober 1993 afviste Kommissionen sagsøgerens klage.
insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease of officials of the Community - Entitlement to benefits provided for in Aritele 73(2) of the Staff Regulations -Accidental death - Underwater diving (Fourth Chamber)
De faktiske omstændigheder, der ligger til grund for sagen
Case T-575/93 Casper Koelman ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
Rettens bemærkninger
(Regulation No 17 — Rejection o f a complaint — Statement of reasons (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
For så vidt angår viderespredning pr. kabel af radioprogrammer, er Buma den eneste rettighedshaver, der nævnes i standardaftalen.
Those standard agreements were notified to the Commission on 18 December 1985 for the purpose of obtaining negative clearance or an exemption.
Buma opkræver på rettighedshavernes vegne de afgift er, kabeldistributionsselskaberne skal betale, og har et lovbestemt monopol som organisation for indehavere af ophavsret til musikværker i Nederlandene.
In a letter of 16 June 1986, the Commission, replied that the Directorate-General for Competition did not intend to investigate the notified agreements with reference to the competition rules and that the matter was therefore closed.
For det første skal Retten med hensyn til sagsøgerens påstande om, at »der sikres ophavsmændene ret til frit at vælge den organisation, de ønsker at overlade forvaltningen af deres værker til«, og om, at »der sikres de virksomheder, som beskæftiger sig med forvaltning af rettigheder, en reel adgang til markedet«, og »de beskyttes mod de misbrug af en dominerende stilling, som de ophavsretlige organisationer, der indtager en monopolstilling med hensyn til musikværker, gør sig skyldige i«, bemærke, at det følger af fast praksis, at Retten ikke har kompetence til at give fællesskabsinstitutionerne, medlemsstaterne eller fysiske og juridiske personer pålæg.
According to a judgment of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), the retransmission by cable of television and radio programmes constitutes 'publication' within the meaning of Article 1 of the Auteurswet (Copyright Law), rendering that Law applicable to cable retransmission services so that persons owning or holding rights — within the meaning of the Auteurswet — in television and radio programmes have the right to give or refuse their consent to retransmission and the right to receive a royalty in the event of retransmission.
Standardaftalerne blev anmeldt til Kommissionen den 18. december 1985 med henblik på at opnå negativattest eller fritagelse.
From 8 August 1985 the applicant, a composer and manager of a photographic agency, regularly began to send letters to the Commission in which he drew its attention to the de facto monopolies which the copyright societies enjoyed in the various Member States and in which he objected to the conclusion of the abovementioned standard agreements.
Ved skrivelse af 16. juni 1986 svarede Kommissionen, at Generaldirektoratet for Konkurrence ikke havde til hensigt at fortsætte undersøgelsen af de kontrakter, der var anmeldt i henhold til konkurrencereglerne, og at sagen derfor var afsluttet.
On 29 May 1985 representatives of cable operators concluded a framework agreement with the holders of rights in television and radio programmes allowing contracts, based on two standard forms, to be entered into on an individual basis between right holders and each cable operator, one for television programmes and the other for radio programmes.
For det tredje finder Retten med hensyn til sagsøgerens påstand, hvori han anmoder Retten om »i øvrigt at træffe afgørelse på andre punkter, som Retten anser for relevante«, at det i en sådan påstand ikke angives, hvad der er dens genstand, og at den derfor ikke er så præcis, som den skal være i henhold til artikel 19 i statutten for EF-Domstolen og artikel 44, stk. 1, litra c), i
Buma receives, in the name of all right holders, the royalties payable by the cable operators. Furthermore, Buma enjoys a legal monopoly as
Den 26. oktober 1990 førte denne korrespondance til indgivelse af en klage vedrørende disse standardaftaler.
On 14 December 1993 the applicant brought an action under Article 173 of the Treaty for annulment of the Commission's decision
Rettens procesreglement for at kunne antages til realitetsbehandling. tetsbehandling.
rejecting his complaint and, under Articles 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, for compensation for the damage which he considered he had suffered.
Heraf følger, at dette anbringende ikke kan tages til følge.
his complaint, referred to in the first part of point 1 of the form of order sought, and his claim for compensation for the damage which he alleges to have suffered, referred to in point 4 of the form of order sought, must be declared inadmissible.
Det fremgår af det anførte, at alle sagsøgerens påstande, bortset fra påstanden om annulation af Kommissionens beslutning om at afvise hans klage og påstanden om erstatning af det tab, han angivelig har lidt, bør afvises.
By order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 1994 Buma was given leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
Det første anbringende: Der foreligger en tilsidesættelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3
First plea: infringement of Article 85(3) of the Treaty
Retten skal indledningsvis bemærke, at det er fast praksis, at når Kommissionen har besluttet at henlægge en klage, som er indgivet i medfør af artikel 3, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 17, uden at foretage en undersøgelse, må den legalitetskontrol, som Retten udøver, have til formål at efterprøve, om den anfægtede beslutning er truffet på grundlag af urigtige faktiske omstændigheder, samt om den er behæftet med en retsvildfarelse, et åbenbart fejlskøn eller magtfordrejning.
Firstly, with regard to the part of point 1 of the form of order sought by the applicant, in which he claims that the Court should 'ensure that authors are free to choose the organization which they wish to appoint to manage their works' and to 'ensure that undertakings which act as intermediaries for such rights enjoy fair access to the market, and protect them against abuses of dominant positions by monopolies in the field of copyrights in musical works', the Court observes that it is settled case-law that it has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Community institutions, to the Member States or to natural or legal persons.
Retten finder ikke, at sagsøgeren har godtgjort, at Kommissionens opfattelse, hvorefter en kollektiv og ensartet aftale om tilladelse til at udsende radio- og tvprogrammer er den mest virkningsfulde og effektive måde, hvorpå man kan sikre en retmæssig viderespredning af radioog tvprogrammer, beroede på et åbenbart urigtigt skøn.
The Court is asked to decide whether or not the Commission may reject a complaint under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 on the ground that the agreements complained of satisfy in any event the requirements laid down in Article 85(3) of the Treaty for grant of an exemption from the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty, even though it has not issued a decision on the matter to the parties to those agreements, who in fact also notified them to it, and even though it has not given a definitive decision on the issue whether or not those agreements infringe Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Retten anmodes om at afgøre, om Kommissionen kan afvise en klage, der fremsættes i henhold til artikel 3 i forordning nr. 17, med den begrundelse, at de aftaler, der er klaget over, under alle omstændigheder opfylder de krav, der er opstillet i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, for at en aftale kan være omfattet af en fritagelse fra forbuddet i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, når Kommissionen ikke har rettet en beslutning herom til parterne i aftalerne, som i øvrigt har anmeldt dem til Kommissionen, og når den ikke endeligt har taget stilling til, om aftalerne er i strid med traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
It follows from the settled case-law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance that Article 3 of Regulation No 17 does not confer upon a person who lodges an application under that article the right to obtain from the Commission a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty regarding the existence or otherwise of an infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty.
For det andet må det fastslås, at sagsøgeren ikke har anført noget forhold til støtte for, at forbrugerne ikke skulle være sikret en rimelig andel af fordelen ved en forbedring af viderespredningen af radio- og tvprogrammer, som kunne svække troværdigheden af Kommissionens argumentation i den anfægtede beslutning.
The Community courts have no jurisdiction to give a ruling, at the initiative of a natural or legal person, on the compatibility of a Member State's or a natural or legal person's conduct with the provisions of the Treaty or to annul, in whole or in part, agreements concluded by natural or legal persons.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at det følger af Domstolens og Rettens faste praksis, at artikel 3 i forordning nr. 17 ikke giver den, der har fremsat en begæring i henhold til denne bestemmelse, krav på, at Kommissionen træffer en beslutning efter traktatens artikel 189 om, hvorvidt der foreligger en overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 85.
Thirdly, as regards point 3 of the applicant's claims, in which he asks the Court to 'rule on the other matters which the Court considers relevant', such a claim does not indicate its subject-matter and does not therefore satisfy the degree of precision required by Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC and Article 44(l)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance for it to be admissible.
Kommissionen var berettiget til som begrundelse for sin beslutning om at afvise klagen at angive grundene til, at den på grundlag af de faktiske og retlige omstændigheder, klageren havde fremført, fandt, at standardaftalerne opfyldte betingelserne i artikel 85, stk. 3, uden først at træfie en beslutning om fritagelse af disse aftaler rettet til de kontraherende parter eller endeligt at tage stilling til, om aftalerne var forenelige med artikel 85, stk. 1.
The Commission was entitled to explain the reasons for its decision to reject the complaint by giving the reasons for which it considered, on the basis of the facts and points of law brought to its notice by the complainant, that the standard agreements satisfied the conditions of Article 85(3) without previously adopting a decision exempting those agreements which had been addressed to the contracting parties, or having definitely ruled on the compatibility of those agreements with Article 85(1).
Følgelig kan det andet led i det andet anbringende heller ikke tages til følge.
Second plea: manifest error of appraisal
For det fjerde skal Retten med hensyn til den sidste betingelse i artikel 85, stk. 3, hvorefter de omtvistede aftaler ikke må udelukke konkurrencen for en væsentlig del af markedet, bemærke, at Kommissionen i den anfægtede beslutning har gjort gældende, at disse standardaftaler ikke udelukker, at kabelselskaberne kan indgå individuelle aftaler med rettighedshaverne.
It is settled case-law that when the Commission has decided to reject a complaint submitted under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 without holding an investigation, the purpose of judicial review by the Court of First Instance is to ensure that the challenged decision is based on a correct assessment of the facts and that it is not vitiated by any error of law, manifest error of assessment or abuse of power.
Det er fast praksis, at Kommissionen er beføjet til at prioritere de klager, der indbringes for den, forskelligt. Retten finder heller ikke, at sagsøgeren har godtgjort, at det faktisk skulle være umuligt for ham at anlægge sag ved en national ret med henblik på at anfægte Buma's påståede misbrug af en dominerende stilling.
The Court therefore considers that the Commission's assessment does not imply that copyright intermediaries other than those who are parties to, or represented in, the standard agreements have no right to conclude with the cable operators individual agreements governing the settlement of royalties payable on retransmission of the works for which they act as intermediaries.
Retten finder ikke, at den af Kommissionen anlagte vurdering indebærer, at andre formidlere af ophavsrettigheder end dem, der er parter eller repræsenteret i standardaftalerne, ikke har ret til at indgå særlige aftaler med kabeldistributionsselskaberne om afregningen af de afgifter, der skal erlægges som følge af viderespredning af de værker, de optræder som formidlere af.
The Court considers that the applicant has not shown that the Commission's view that such a collective and uniform agreement is the most effective and efficient means of ensuring the lawful retransmission by cable of television and radio programmes was vitiated by a manifest error of appraisal.
Heraf følger, at dette anbringende ikke kan tages til følge.
It follows from the foregoing that, since the applicant has not shown that the Commission's assessments relating to the conditions laid down in Article 85(3) of the Treaty were manifestly wrong, the first part of the second plea must be rejected.
Heraf følger, at det første led i det andet anbringende ikke kan tages til følge, da sagsøgeren ikke har godtgjort, at Kommissionens vurdering med hensyn til betingelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, hviler på et åbenbart urigtigt skøn.
Secondly, the Court finds that the applicant has not submitted any evidence in support of his claim that users do not receive a fair share of the benefit resulting from an improvement in the retransmission of radio and television programmes which would undermine the plausibility of the Commission's view, set out in the contested decision.
Med hensyn til det andet led i dette anbringende, hvorefter Buma skal have misbrugt sin dominerende stilling på markedet for ophavsrettigheder til musikværker til at opnå en lignende stilling på beslægtede markeder, fremgår det af den anfægtede beslutning, at Kommissionen har afslået på eget initiativ at undersøge, om Buma har tilsidesat traktatens artikel 86, fordi der ikke forelå konkrete og nøjagtige angivelser fra sagsøgerens side.
As regards the second part of that plea, to the effect that Buma abused its dominant position on the market for copyrights in musical works in order to gain a similar position on related markets, it is clear from the contested decision that the Commission refused to investigate on its own initiative whether Article 86 of the Treaty had been infringed by Buma without precise and specific evidence from the applicant.