natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning om en procedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 85 (IV/33.126 og 33.322 - Cement) eller, subsidiært, en nedsættelse af de bøder, sagsøgeren er blevet pålagt
That period is not disputed by the Commission, which has in any event not submitted that alternative arrangements capable of giving the applicant the support necessary for the provision of the guarantee would be achievable within a shorter period of time.
Sag T-20/95 B. Wetterau / Rådet og Kommissionen
According to consistent case-law, a decision to suspend also presumes that the balance of all the interests concerned is in favour of granting that measure.
Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning om en procedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 85 (IV/33.126 og 33.322 - Cement)
So far as the question of urgency is concerned, it is first necessary to consider whether and to what extent it has been prima facie established that the applicant cannot possibly provide the guarantee required.
Følgende afsnit bedes indføjet i nr. 4/95 af Arbejdet ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol og Ret i Første Instans:
However, in order to define the details of this suspension it is necessary to balance the different interests concerned, in particular the Commission's interest in being able to recover the fine if the main action is dismissed and the applicant's interest, in the event that it is unable immediately to provide the full amount of the required guarantee, in avoiding steps being taken to secure immediate recovery of the fine and thereby placing its very existence in jeopardy.
Sag T-308/94 R Cascades SA / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
In order to enable the Commission to determine at any moment, during the period in question, whether such a step is necessary, it must be kept informed of the course of developments in the applicant's economic and financial position.
»Konkurrence — betaling af bøde — bankgaranti — sag om foreløbige forholdsregler*
If this were to happen, the mere undertaking by Cascades Inc., following approval by its Board of Directors, to assist the applicant in providing the balance of the guarantee, could forfeit any usefulness which it had for the Commission.
Ved stævning indleveret den 6. oktober 1994 har sagsøgeren anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af beslutningen i det omfang, den vedrører sagsøgeren, samt subsidiært om, at Retten nedsætter den sagsøgeren pålagte bøde.
The obligation on the applicant to provide a bank guarantee in favour of the Commission in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) is suspended, subject to the following conditions:
Den 13. juli 1994 vedtog Kommissionen en beslutning om en procedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 85 (IV/C/33.833 - karton), som berigtiget ved Kommissionens beslutning af 26. juli 1994.
(a) the applicant shall provide that guarantee in the amount of 30% of the fine, plus interest due in accordance with the letter of notification cf 1 August 1994, within three weeks of notification of the present order;
Ved beslutningens artikel 3 pålægges der sagsøgeren en bøde på 16,2 mio. ECU for de overtrædelser, som er fastslået i artikel 1.
(b) the applicant shall provide the balance of the guarantee, plus the abovementioned interest, within six months cf notification of the present order.
Artikel 4 bestemmer, at de bøder, der pålægges ved artikel 3, indbetales senest tre måneder efter datoen for meddelelsen af beslutningen.
Until such time as the whole of the guarantee has been provided, or, failing that, until expiry of the period specified in Point 1(b) of the operative part of the present order, the applicant shall forward to the Commission:
I overensstemmelse med sædvanlig praksis vil Kommissionen ikke tage skridt til, at beslutningen tvangsfuldbyrdes, jf.
(a) on a monthly basL·, the principal data relating to developments in its economic and financial position, data to be defined by the Commission following notification of the present order,
Ved skrivelse af 1. august 1994 forkyndte Kommissionen beslutningen for sagsøgeren. I skrivelsen præciseredes det, at Kommissionen, såfremt sagsøgeren anlagde sag ved Retten, ikke ville tage skridt til at inddrive bøden, så længe sagen verserende.
(b) prior to its adoption, any decision likely to have a substantial effect on the applicant's economic position or seeking to alter its legal status.
EF-traktatens artikel 192, før der er afsagt kendelse om nærværende begæring om foreløbige forholdsregler.
The suspension granted under Point 1(b) ofthe operative part of'the present order shall cease to have effect ψ the applicant fads to forward to the Commission, within three weeks of notification of the present order:
Henset til det af Kommissionen anførte bemærkes, at nærværende begæring savner genstand, i det omfang der herved er begæret udsættelse af gennemførelsen af beslutningens artikel 3 og 4 så længe sagen om foreløbige forholdsregler verserer.
(a) the approval, by the Board of Directors of Cascades Inc, of intervention by that company for the purpose of making available to the applicant the funds necessary for provision of the balance of the guarantee, as referred to in Point 1(b) of the operative part of the present order and within the period there specified;
Sagsøgerens forslag synes at tage hensyn til begge disse interesser, undtagen i henseende til den risiko, en eventuel konkurs ville indebære for beskyttelsen af Fællesskabets retsorden og
(b) the undertaking by Cascades Inc. to provide, on the applicant's behalf, the balance of the guarantee as referred to in Point 1(b) of the operative part of the present order in the event that, prior to the expiry of the period there specified, die applicant should be wound-up by court order without having provided that balance.
økonomiske interesser, såfremt der ikke er stillet passende garanti for det resterende bødcbeløb. I denne situation ville alene et tilsagn fra Cascades Inc., som ledelsen havde godkendt, om at Cascades Inc. ville hjælpe sagsøgeren med henblik på at stille garanti for restsummen, ikke have nogen værdi for Kommissionen.
This bulletin is issued by the Court's Information Service (L-2925 Luxembourg) to provide rapid information on the work or the Court However, it is only the text of the judgments and opinions published in the European Court Reports that is authentic.
Det er endvidere nødvendigt at tage højde for den situation, at sagsøgerens forhold forringes mærkbart i den nævnte periode, uden at virksomheden dog tages under konkursbehandling.
This information may be reproduced provided that the source is acknowledged.
Det hedder i kendelsens konklusion:
Original version: French Completed on 28.02.1995 Catalogue No: DX-AC-95-005-EN-C
Ugen 6.-10. marts 1995
6 to 10 March 1995
Sag C-130/91 REV
JUDGMENTS
Forenede sager T-432/93, T-433/93 og T-434/93 Socurte — Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Ld.' m.fl. / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Socialpolitik
Joined Cases T-432/93 to T-434/93 Socurte — Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do
Sag C-68/93 Fiona Shevill m.fl. / Presse Alliance SA Konventionen om retternes kompetence/fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser
Case T-34/93 Société Générale ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE
Case C-350/92
Sag C-350/92 Kongeriget Spanien / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union
Case C-62/93 BP Soupergaz ν Hellenic Republic
Sag C-130/91 REV. ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional) m.fl. / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Regler for institutionerne
Case C­130/91 REV ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio Emprego e à Valorização Profissional) and Others ν Commission of the European Communities Institutional law
»Begæring om ekstraordinær genoptagelse — åbenbart afvisningsgrundlag* (Domstolens plenum)
(Application for revision (Full Court)
Ved begæring af 11. august 1994 har selskaberne ISAE/VP og Interdata begæret ekstraordinær genoptagelse af Domstolens kendelse den 14. januar 1992 i sag C-130/91, ISAE/VP og Interdata mod Kommissionen.
By application lodged on 11 August 1994, the applicants brought an action seeking revision of the order of the Court of 14 January 1992 in ISAE/VP and Interdata ν Commission.
Genoptagelse forudsætter, at der er fremkommet omstændigheder af faktisk art, som er tidligere end dommens afsigelse, og som indtil da var ukendt for den ret, som har afsagt dommen, samt for den part, der begærer genoptagelse, og som, såfremt Retten kunne have taget dem i betragtning, ville have kunnet føre til en anden afgørelse af tvisten end den trufne.
of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered it as well as to the party applying for revision and which, had the court been able to take them into consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings.
Ved denne kendelse besluttede Domstolen at afvise sagen, i hvilken der var nedlagt pastand om annullation af en beslutning, som Kommissionen på et ukendt tidspunkt skulle have truffet om ikke at udbetale tidligere godkendte tilskud fra Den Europæiske Socialfond.
In that order, the Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for the annulment of a Commission decision alleged to have been adopted on a date unknown and to have refused payment of contributions from the European Social Fund which had previously been approved.
I de dokumenter, andragerne har indleveret til Domstolen, er der imidlertid ikke indeholdt omstændigheder af faktisk art, som er tidligere end dommens afsigelse.
The documents lodged with the Court by the applicants do not contain any new element of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment
Heraf følger, at Domstolens kendelse af 14. januar 1992 ikke kan være genstand for en begæring om ekstraordinær genoptagelse baseret pä, at der hævdes at foreligge en ny faktisk omstændighed.
It follows that the aforesaid order of the Court in Case C-130/91 cannot be the subject of an application for revision based on the alleged existence of a new fact.
Domstolen udtalte, at genoptagelse ikke er en appelmulighed, men et ekstraordinært retsmiddel, som giver mulighed for at anfægte en endelig doms retskraft på grund af de konstateringer af faktiske omstændigheder, som den dømmende myndighed har baseret sig på.
Revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment to be called in question on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the court. Revision presupposes the discovery of elements
Begæringen om ekstraordinær genoptagelse afvises.
Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;
Andragerne betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the applicants to pay the costs.'
Sag C-68/93 Fiona Shevill m.fl. / Presse Alliance SA Konventionen om retternes kompetence/fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser
Case C-68/93 Fiona Shevill and Others ν Presse Alliance SA Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments
7.3.1995 det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået
—Article 5(3) — Place where the harmful event occurred — Libel by a
Det første, andet, tredje og sjette spørgsmål
The first, second, third and sixth questions
Ved kendelse af 1. marts 1993 indgået til Domstolen den 15. marts 1993 har House of Lords i medfør af protokollen af 3. juni 1971 vedrørende Domstolens fortolkning af konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager som ændret, forelagt syv præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af konventionens artikel S, nr. 3.
By order of 1 March 1993, received at the Court on 15 March 1993, the House of Lords referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended, seven questions on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the Convention.
Den forelæggende ret anmoder Domstolen om en fortolkning af begrebet »det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået« i konventionens artikel S, nr. 3, for at kunne tage stilling til, hvilke retsinstanser der har kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i en sag om erstatning for den skade, der er påført den fornærmede ved udbredelse af en ærekrænkende avisartikel i flere kontraherende stater.
The national court seeks guidance from the Court as to the interpretation of the concept 'the place where the harmful event occurred' used in Article 5(3) of the Convention, with a view to establishing which courts have jurisdiction to hear an action for damages for harm caused to the victim following distribution of a defamatory newspaper article in several Contracting States.
Presse Alliance SA som udgiver avisen »FranceSoir«, offentliggjorde den 23. september 1989 en artikel om en razzia foretaget af betjente i det franske politis narkotikaafdeling i et vekselkontor, som Chequepoint SARL drev i Paris.
On 23 September 1989 Presse Alliance SA, which publishes the newspaper France-Soir, published an article about an operation which drug squad officers of the French police had carried out at one of the bureaux de change operated in Paris by Chequepoint SARL.
I artiklen, som var baseret på oplysninger fra pressebureauet France Presse, omtaltes »Chequepoint« og »en ung kvinde, Fiona Shevill-Avril«.
That article, based on information provided by the agency France Presse, mentioned the company 'Chequepoint' and 'a young woman by the name of Fiona Shevill-Avril'.
Når der er tale om en ærekrænkelse i en avisartikel, som er blevet udbredt i flere kontraherende stater, kan stedet for den skadevoldende begivenhed kun være det sted, hvor udgiveren af det omhandlede skrift har hjemsted, for så vidt som det er det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen har sin oprindelse, og hvorfra ærekrænkelsen hidrører og er bragt i omløb.
In the case of a libel by a newspaper article distributed in several Contracting States, the place of the event giving rise to the damage can only be the place where the publisher of the newspaper in question is established, since that is the place where the harmful event originated and from which the libel was issued and put into circulation.
Retten på det sted, hvor udgiveren af det ærekrænkende skrift har hjemsted, må derfor have kompetence til at pådømme erstatningssagen for så vidt angår hele den skade, der er forvoldt som følge af den retsstridige handling.
The court of the place where the publisher of the defamatory publication is established must therefore have jurisdiction to hear the action for damages for all the harm caused by the unlawful act.
Da Fiona Shevill, Chequepoint SARL, Ixora Trading Inc. og Chequepoint International Ltd fandt, at avisartiklen var ærekrænkende, idet den antydede, at de indgik i en narkoring, for hvilken de havde »hvidvasket« penge, anlagde de den 17. oktober 1989 ærekrænkelsessag mod Presse Alliance SA ved High Court of England and Wales og krævede erstatning, for så vidt angik de eksemplarer af »FranceSoir«, der var distribueret i Frankrig og i andre europæiske lande, herunder de eksemplarer, der var solgt i England og Wales.
Miss Shevill, Chequepoint SARL, Ixora Trading Inc. and Chequepoint International Ltd considered that the abovementioned article was defamatory in that it suggested that they were part of a drug-trafficking network for which they had laundered money. On 17 October 1989 they issued a writ in the High Court of England and Wales claiming damages for libel from Presse Alliance SA in respect of the copies of France-Soir distributed in France and the other European countries including those sold in England and Wales.
Senere ændrede sagsøgerne deres påstande, idet de frafaldt henvisningen til den del af oplaget, der var solgt uden for England og Wales.
The plaintiffs subsequently amended their pleadings, deleting all references to the copies sold outside England and Wales.
Da der efter engelsk ret med hensyn til ærekrænkelser gælder en formodning for, at der er indtrådt en skade, har sagsøgerne
Since under English law there is a presumption of damage in libel cases, the plaintiffs did not
Det fjerde, fonte og syvende spørgsmål
The fourth, fifth and seventh questions
Der må derfor gives sagsøgeren mulighed for også at anlægge sagen på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, da konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, ellers ville blive indholdsløs.
The place where the damage occurred is the place where the event giving rise to the damage, entailing tortious, delictual or quasi-delictual liability, produced its harmful effects upon the victim.
Det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, er det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling, der fører til, at skadevolderen ifalder erstatningsansvar uden for kontraktforhold, har påført den skadelidte et tab.
In the case of an international libel through the press, the injury caused by a defamatory publication to the honour, reputation and good name of a natural or legal person occurs in the places where the publication is distributed, when the victim is known in those places.
Den forelæggende ret ønsker oplyst, om den ved afgørelsen af, om den har kompetence som retten på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, således som denne bestemmelse fortolkes af Domstolen, skal overholde særlige regler, som er forskellige fra reglerne i den nationale lovgivning, der gælder for den, for så vidt angår betingelserne for bedømmelsen af, om den omtvistede handling har karakter af en skadetilføjelse, og betingelserne vedrørende beviset for, at der foreligger en skade som hævdet af den fornærmede, og for skadens omfang.
The national court asks whether, in determining whether it has jurisdiction qua court of the place where the damage occurred pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Convention as interpreted by the Court, it is required to follow specific rules different from those laid down by its national law in relation to the criteria for assessing whether the event in question is harmful and in relation to the evidence required of the existence and extent of the harm alleged by the victim of the defamation.
Heraf følger, at retsinstanserne i hver enkelt kontraherende stat, hvor det ærekrænkende skrift er blevet udbredt, og hvor den fornærmede hævder, at hans omdømme har lidt skade, har kompetence til at tage stilling til skade påført den fornærmedes omdømme i denne stat
It follows that the courts of each Contracting State in which the defamatory publication was distributed and in which the victim claims to have suffered injury to his reputation have jurisdiction to rule on the injury caused in that State to the victim's reputation.
Hvad angår erstatningsansvaret uden for kontraktforhold, som de præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrører, har konventionen alene til formål at fastlægge, hvilken ret eller hvilke retter der har kompetence til at pådømme sagen under hensyn til det sted eller de steder, hvor den handling, der betragtes som en skadetilføjelse, er foretaget.
In the area of non-contractual liability, the context in which the questions referred have arisen, the sole object of the Convention is to determine which court or courts have jurisdiction to hear the dispute by reference to the place or places where an event considered harmful occurred.
Derimod angives det ikke nærmere i konventionen, under hvilke omstændigheder den skadegørende handling kan betragtes som en skadetilføjelse i forhold til den skadelidte, eller hvilke beviser sagsøgeren skal fremføre for den ret, ved hvilken sagen er anlagt, for at den kan træffe afgørelse om, hvorvidt der skal gives ham medhold.
It does not, however, specify the circumstances in which the event giving rise to the harm may be considered to be harmful to the victim, or the evidence which the plaintiff must adduce before the court seised to enable it to rule on the merits of the case.
I overensstemmelse med de retsplejehensyn, der ligger til grund for den specielle kompetenceregel i artikel S, nr. 3, er retsinstanserne i hver enkelt kontraherende stat, hvor det ærekrænkende skrift er blevet udbredt, og hvor den fornærmede hævder, at hans omdømme har lidt skade, nemlig i territorial henseende bedst egnede til at tage stilling til ærekrænkelsen og fastslå skadens omfang.
In accordance with the requirement of the sound administration of justice, the basis of the rule of special jurisdiction in Article 5(3), the courts of each Contracting State in which the defamatory publication was distributed and in which the victim claims to have suffered injury to his reputation are territorially the best placed to assess the libel committed in that State and to determine the extent of the corresponding damage.
Selv om det er forbundet med ulemper, at forskellige retter pådømmer forskellige aspekter af samme sag, kan sagsøgeren dog altid indbringe hele sit krav for retten på det sted, hvor sagsøgte har bopæl, eller på det sted, hvor udgiveren af det ærekrænkende skrift har hjemsted.
Those questions must therefore be settled solely by the national court seised, applying the substantive law determined by its national conflict of laws rules, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired.
Disse spørgsmål skal derfor afgøres af vedkommende nationale retsinstans alene, under anvendelse af den materielle lov, der finder anvendelse i medfør af lovkonfliktreglerne i den nationale lovgivning, der er gældende for den, idet der dog ikke ved anvendelsen heraf må gøres indgreb i konventionens tilsigtede virkning.
Although there are admittedly disadvantages to having different courts ruling on various aspects of the same dispute, the plaintiff always has the option of bringing his entire claim before the courts either of the defendant's domicile or of the place where the publisher of the defamatory publication is established.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således :
The Court ruled:
Udtrykket 'det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået i artikel 5, nr. 3, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, som ændret ved konventionen af 9. oktober 1978 om Kongeriget Danmarks, Irlands og Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirlands tiltrædelse og ved konventionen af 25. oktober 1982 om Den Hellenske Republiks tiltrædelse, skal, når der er tale om en ærekrænkelse i en avisartikel, der er blevet udbredt i flere kontraherende stater, fortolkes således, at den fornærmede kan anlægge erstatningssag mod udgiveren enten ved retterne i den kontraherende stat,
On a proper construction of the expression 'place where the harmful event occurred" in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, the victim of a libel by a newspaper article distributed in several Contracting States may bring an action for damages against the publisher either before the courts of the Contracting
hvor udgiveren af det ærekrænkende skrift har hjemsted, således at disse har kompetence til at tilkende erstatning for hele den skade, ærekrænkelsen har forvoldt, eller ved retterne i hver enkelt kontraherende stat, hvor skriftet er blevet udbredt, og hvor den fornærmede hævder, at hans omdømme har lidt skade, således at disse kun har kompetence til at tage stilling til den skade, der er forvoldt i den stat, for hvis retter sagen er indbragt
State of the place where the publisher of the defamatory publication is established, which have jurisdiction to award damages for all the harm caused by the defamation, or before the courts of each Contracting State in which the publication was distributed and where the victim claims to have suffered injury to his reputation, which have jurisdiction to rule solely in respect of the harm caused in the State of the court seised