natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sag C-226/97 forskellen mellem den egentligt optjente minearbejderpension og eventuelle andre belgiske eller udenlandske pensioner
Case C-226/97 Procédure pénale Martinus Lemmens
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdelingl den 12. februar 1998.
By virtue of Article 2 in conjunction with Article l(b)(i) of Decision No 3/80, a Turkish national resident in the territory of a Member State possesses the status of a •worker' during the whole period in which, under that State's legislation, compulsory contributions to invalidity insurance and pension schemes are deemed to have been paid.
Præjudiciel — Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht -Fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 83/189/EØF af 28. marts 1983 om en informationsprocedure med hensyn til tekniske standarder og forskrifter (EFTL 109, s. 8) — ingen anvendelse i forhold tilprivate af en teknisk standard eller forskrift, der ikke er meddelt Kommissionen — konsekvenserne for en straffesag af anvendelsen af et oleometer, hvis specifikationer er fastsat i nationale regler, der ikke er meddelt
Preliminary ruling — Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht — Interpretation 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 — Inapplicability to individuals of a technical standard or regulation which has not been notified to the Commission — Consequences for the purposes of criminal proceedings of the use of breath-sampling apparatus, the specifications of which are laid down by national standards which have not been notified
Generaladvokat N. Fennelly fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 12. februar 1998.
Advocate General N. Fennellv delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 12 February 1998.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålene således:
He recommended to the Court that it answer as follows:
»Rådets direktiv 83/189/EØF af 28. marts 1983 om en informationsprocedure med hensyn til tekniske standarder og forskrifter skal fortolkes således, at det ikke forhindrer en medlemsstat i at anvende nationale bestemmelser såsom Regeling Ademanalyse, som ikke er blevet meddelt Kommissionen i medfør af direktivets artikel 8, under strafforfølgning for overtrædelse af artikel 8, stk 2, litra a), i Wegenverkeerswet 1994.«
In particular, a Turkish worker who satisfies those conditions (or those in paragraph 2) also has the status of a 'worker' for the purposes of the grant of family benefits by a German institution where entitlement to those benefits is the direct result of a provision of the competent Member State's national law and where the person concerned does not rely on a provision coordinating the laws of the Member States as envisaged by Decision No 3/80.
Traktatbrudssøgsmål — konkurrence — tilsidesættelse af EF-traktatens artikel 5 og 85 —fastsættelse af bindende tariffer for toldklarerere
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 should be interpreted as not requiring a Member State to abstain from applying national provisions such as the Regeling Ademanalyse, which have not been notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 8 of the Directive, in criminal proceedings instituted for an offence contrary to Article 8(2)(a) of the Wegenverkeerswet 1994.
»a) at fastslå, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine pligter efter artikel 5 og 85 i Traktaten om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab, da den har vedtaget og opretholdt en lov, som pålægger Consiglio nazionale degli spedizionieri doganali (CNSD), der er tillagt besluttende myndighed, at træffe en beslutning om at sammenslutte virksomheder, som er i strid med nævnte
A Turkish worker who falls within the scope ratione persona: of Decision No 3/80 in accordance with Article 2 of that decision, cannot invoke Article 3(1) thereof in support of an application for the grant of a family benefit, such as the child benefit provided for under German law, for the period spent bringing up a child before the date of this judgment, except in respect of person who have before that date initiated proceedings or made an equivalent complaint against the decision of the
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålene således: b) at tilpligte Den Italienske Republik at betale sagens omkostninger.«
He proposed that the Court answer as follows:
Præjudiciel — Finanzgericht Köln —fortolkning af artikel 3, litra a), i direktiv 79/1072/EØF: Rådets ottende direktiv af 6. december 1979 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter — foranstaltninger til tilbagebetaling af merværdiafgift til afgiftspligtige personer, der ikke er etableret i indlandet (EFT L 331, s. 11) — pligt til at fremlægge originaldokumenter (faktura) —originaldokumentet bortkommet, uden at det kan lægges den berettigede til last
The concept of provision for reduction of benefits, in Articles 12(2), 46(3) and 46b of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, must be interpreted as applying to the law of a Member State which provides that the amount of oldage pension of a worker who has not completed 30 years of work but has completed at least 25 is to be increased by a supplement, and states that that supplement is to be equal to the difference between the amount of retirement pension he would have obtained if had actually been employed for 30 years and the total amount of the retirement pensions he can claim under a national scheme or the scheme of another Member State.
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling1) den 12.
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 12 February 1998.
Denne publikation udarbejdes af Domstolens Presse- og Informationsafdeling (L-2925 Luxembourg) med henblik på en hurtig orientering om arbejdet ved Domstolen og Retten i Første Instans.
Failure to fulfil obligations - Competition Breach of Articles 5 and 85 the EC Treaty - Fixing of compulsory tariffs for customs agents
Dommene og de fremsatte forslag til afgørelse offentliggøres senere i »Samling af Afgørelser«, som er eneste gyldige udgave.
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 12 February 1998.
Gengivelse kan ske med kildeangivelse.
He proposed that the Court should:
Ugen 16. - 20. februar 1998
16 to 20 February 1998 n° 06/98
Sag C-212/96 8 Paul Chevassus-March / Conseil régional de la Réunion Frie varebevægelser
Case T-105/96 Pharos SA v Commission of the European Communities Environment and consumers
Sag C-318/96
Case C-318/96
Sag T-91/96 Nicole Hankart / Rådet for Den Europæiske
Case T-91/96
Sag C-191/95 27 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland
Nicole Hankart ν Council of the European Union Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag T-107/96 Pantochim SA / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Statsstøtte
Case T-183/96 Ε ν Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag T-169/96 Jean-Pierre Pierard / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-169/96 Jean-Pierre Pierard ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag T-3/97 26 Anna Maria Campogrande / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-3/97 Anna Maria Campogrande ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag T-196/97 Donato Continolo / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case C-191/95 26 Commission of the European Communities ν Federal Republic of Germany
17. februar 1998 nægtelse af at yde reisebegunstigelser for samlevere
17 February 1998
Præjudiciel »Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder af samme køn« (Domstolens plenum) yde sådanne begunstigelser for en samlever af modsat køn.
Preliminary ruling (Equal treatment of men and women — Refusal of travel concessions to cohabitees of the same sex) (Full Court)
Ved kendelse af 19. juli 1996 har Industrial Tribunal, Southampton, forelagt Domstolen seks præjudideUespørgsmålvedrørendefortolkningen af traktatens artikel 119, Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF og Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår.
The essential point raised by the national tribunal is whether an employer's refusal to grant travel concessions to the person of the same sex with whom an employee has a stable relationship constitutes discrimination prohibited by Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117, where such concessions are granted to an employee's spouse or the person of the opposite sex with whom an employee has a stable relationship outside marriage.
Den nationale ret søger oplyst, om en arbejdsgivers nægtelse af at yde rejsebegunstigelser for en person af samme køn, som en ansat lever i et fast samlivsforhold med, er en forskelsbehandling i strid med traktatens artikel 119 og med direktiv 75/117, når sådanne rejsebegunstigelser ydes for den ansattes ægtefælle eller en person af modsat køn, som den ansatte lever i et fast samlivsforhold med uden for ægteskab.
By decision of 19 July 1996, received at the Court on 22 July 1996, the Industrial Tribunal, Southampton, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty six questions on the interpretation of Article 119 of that Treaty, Council Directive 75/117/EEC and 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.
Spørgsmålene er rejst under en tvist mellem Lisa Jacqueline Grant og hendes arbejdsgiver, South-West Trains Ltd (herefter »SWT«), vedrørende dennes nægtelse af at yde rejsebegunstigelser for Lisa Grant's samleverske.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Ms Grant and her employer South-West Trains Ltd (hereinafter 'SWT) concerning the refusal by SWT of travel concessions for Ms Grant's female partner.
Lisa Grant er ansat ved SWT, et jernbaneselskab i Southampton-området.
Ms Grant is employed by SWT, a company which operates railways in the Southampton region.
Den 9. januar 1995 anmodede Lisa Grant om rejsebegunstigelser for sin samleverske, som hun erklærede at have levet med i et »fast samlivsforhold« i mere end to år.
Ms Grant applied on 9 January 1995 for travel concessions for her female partner, with whom she declared she had had a 'meaningful relationship' for over two years.
For det første bør det fremhæves, at der ifølge regulativet i den virksomhed, hvor Lisa Grant arbejder, ydes rejsebegunstigelser for arbejdstageren, hans »ægtefælle« — dvs. den person, arbejdstageren er gift med, og som han ikke er lovformeligt separeret fra — eller en person af modsat køn, som arbejdstageren har levet i et »fast« samlivsforhold med i mere end to år, hans børn, personer i hans familie, som han har forsørgerpligt overfor, samt hans efterlevende ægtefælle.
The refusal to allow Ms Grant the concessions is based on the fact that she does not satisfy the conditions prescribed in those regulations, more particularly on the fact that she does not live with a 'spouse' or a person of the opposite sex with whom she has had a 'meaningful' relationship for at least two years.
SWT afslog at yde rejsebegunstigelser med den begrundelse, at det for ugifte alene var muligt at
SWT refused to allow the benefit sought, on the ground that for unmarried persons travel concessions could be granted only for a partner of the opposite sex.
Denne sidste betingelse, som er, at arbejdstageren lever fast sammen med en person af det modsatte køn for at kunne få rejsebegunstigelser for denne, anvendes uden hensyn til arbejdstagerens køn, således som det i øvrigt er tilfældet med de øvrige alternative betingelser, der er fastsat i virksomhedens regulativ.
That condition, the effect of which is that the worker must live in a stable relationship with a person of the opposite sex in order to benefit from the travel concessions, is, like the other alternative conditions prescribed in the undertaking's regulations, applied regardless of the sex of the worker concerned.
Således nægtes en mandlig arbejdstager rejsebegunstigelser for en person, han lever sammen med, hvis denne er af samme køn som arbejdstageren, ligesom de nægtes en kvindelig arbejdstager for en person, hun lever sammen med, hvis denne er af samme køn som hende.
Thus travel concessions are refused to a male worker if he is living with a person of the same sex, just as they are to a female worker if she is living with a person of the same sex.
Den EuropæiskeMenneskerettighedsdomstol har i øvrigt i en anden sammenhæng fortolket konventionens artikel 12 således, at denne bestemmelse kun sigter til traditionelle ægteskaber mellem to personer af forskelligt biologisk køn.
Since the condition imposed by the undertaking's regulations applies in the same way to female and male workers, it cannot be regarded as constituting discrimination directly based on sex.
Da den betingelse, som er fastsat i virksomhedens regulativ, gælder ens for kvindelige og mandlige arbejdstagere, kan den ikke antages at udgøre en direkte forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
Consequently, an employer is not required by Community law to treat the situation of a person who has a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex as equivalent to that of a person who is married to or has a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex.
For det andet bør det, hvad angår anvendelsen af en betingelse som den, der er omhandlet i hovedsagen, undersøges, om personer, der lever fast sammen med en partner af samme køn, er i samme situation som personer, der er gift, eller som lever i et fast samlivsforhold uden for ægteskab med en partner af modsat køn.
In those circumstances, it is for the legislature alone to adopt, if appropriate, measures which may affect that position.
Det fremgår af det anførte, at faste samlivsforhold mellem to personer af samme køn ikke efter gældende ret i Fællesskabet ligestilles med forhold mellem gifte personer eller med faste samlivsforhold uden for ægteskab mellem personer af modsat køn.
Second, the Court must consider whether, with respect to the application of a condition such as that in issue in the main proceedings, persons who have a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex are in the same situation as those who are married or have a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex.
Følgelig er en arbejdsgiver ikke efter fællesskabsretten forpligtet til at ligestille en person, der lever i et fast samlivsforhold med en partner af samme køn, med en person, som er gift, eller som lever i et fast samlivsforhold uden for ægteskab med en partner af modsat køn.
Finally, Ms Grant submits that it follows, from Ρ ν S that differences of treatment based on sexual orientation are included in the 'discrimination based on sex* prohibited by Article 119 of the Treaty.
Under disse forhold tilkommer det i givet fald lovgiver at vedtage foranstaltninger, som kan ændre den foreliggende situation.
While the European Parliament, as Ms Grant observes, has indeed declared that it deplores all forms of discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation, it is nevertheless the case that the Community has not as yet adopted rules providing for such equivalence.
I den forbindelse bemærkes, at det ganske vist må medgives Lisa Grant, at Europa-Parlamentet i en erklæring har beklaget enhver forskelsbehandling beroende på en persons seksuelle tilbøjelighed, men at Fællesskabet ikke indtil nu har vedtaget nogen bestemmelser med henblik på en sådan ligestilling.
As for the laws of the Member States, while in some of them cohabitation by two persons of the same sex is treated as equivalent to marriage, although not completely, in most of them it is treated as equivalent to a stable heterosexual relationship outside marriage only with respect to a limited number of rights, or else is not recognised in any particular way.
For det tredje har Lisa Grant gjort gældende, at det fremgår af Domstolens dom af 30. april 1996 i sagen P. mod S., at en forskelsbehandling på grundlag af seksuel orientering er en »forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn« i strid med traktatens artikel 119.
The Court stated that the provisions of the directive prohibiting discrimination between men and women were simply the expression, in their limited field of application, of the principle of equality, which is one of the fundamental principles of Community law.
Domstolen bemærkede, at de direktivbestemmelser, som forbyder forskelsbehandling af mænd og kvinder, blot, inden for det begrænsede område, hvor de gælder, er udtryk for lighedsprincippet, som er et af fællesskabsrettens grundlæggende principper. Domstolen fandt, at denne omstændighed talte
That reasoning, which leads to the conclusion that such discrimination is to be prohibited just as is discrimination based on the fact that a person belongs to a particular sex, is limited to the case of a worker's gender reassignment and does not therefore apply to differences of treatment based on a person's sexual orientation.
Hvad angår medlemsstaternes ret bemærkes, at visse af medlemsstaterne ganske vist ligestiller samliv mellem to personer af samme køn med ægteskab, omend ikke fuldt ud, men at de fleste medlemsstater kun ligestiller sådanne samlivsforhold med faste, heteroseksuelle forhold uden for ægteskab hvad angår et vist begrænset antal rettigheder eller ikke anerkender sådanne samlivsforhold særskilt.
The European Commission of Human Rights for its part considers that despite the modern evolution of attitudes towards homosexuality, stable homosexual relationships do not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention and that national provisions which, for the purpose of protecting the family, accord more favourable treatment to married persons and persons of opposite sex living together as man and wife than to persons of the same sex in a stable relationship are not contrary to Article 14 of the
at Fællesskabets retsakter er lovlige, kan disse rettigheder dog ikke i sig selv medføre, at de udvider anvendelsesområdet for traktatens bestemmelser ud over de gældende rammer for Fællesskabets kompetence.
the considerations set out above that Community law as it stands at present does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings.
mod en indskrænkende fortolkning af disse bestemmelsers anvendelsesområde og førte til, at de måtte anvendes på den forskelsbehandling, der udspringer af den pågældende arbejdstagers kønsskifte.
The Covenant is one of the international instruments relating to the protection of human rights of which the Court takes account in applying the fundamental principles of Community law.
Under disse omstændigheder må betydningen af traktatens artikel 119 ligesom enhver anden bestemmelse i fællesskabsretten fastlægges under hensyn til dens ordlyd og formål samt dens plads i traktatens opbygning og den juridiske sammenhæng, den indgår i. Det fremgår af de foregående betragtninger, at fællesskabsretten ikke på sit nuværende stadium omfatter en forskelsbehandling på grundlag af seksuel orientering som den, der er omhandlet i hovedsagen.
However, although respect for the fundamental rights which form an integral part of those general principles of law is a condition of the legality of Community acts, those rights cannot in themselves have the effect of extending the scope of the Treaty provisions beyond the competences of the Community.
Domstolen fandt, at en sådan forskelsbehandling i det væsentlige, hvis ikke udelukkende, finder sted på grundlag af den pågældendes køn.
That being so, the scope of Article 119 of the Treaty, as of any provision of Community law, is to be determined only by having regard to its wording and purpose, its place in the scheme of the Treaty and its legal context. It follows from
Denne betragtning, som fører til at antage, at en sådan forskelsbehandling bør forbydes på samme måde som en forskelsbehandling, der beror på, at den pågældende tilhører et bestemt køn — og hvilken forskelsbehandling den har en meget tæt forbindelse med — er dog begrænset til det tilfælde, hvor en arbejdstager skifter køn, og gælder derfor ikke i det tilfælde, hvor den forskellige behandling skyldes en persons seksuelle orientering.
It should be observed, however, that the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, signed on 2 October 1997, provides for the insertion in the EC Treaty of an Article 6a which, once the Treaty of Amsterdam has entered into force, will allow the Council under certain conditions (a unanimous vote on a proposal from the Commission after consulting the European Parliament) to take appropriate action to eliminate various forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Det påpeges, at den internationale konvention om borgerlige og politiske rettigheder af 19. december 1966 hører til de internationale bestemmelser om beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder, som Domstolen tager hensyn til ved anvendelsen af fællesskabsrettens generelle principper.
'The refusal by an employer to allow travel concessions to the person of the same sex with whom a worker has a stable relationship, where such concessions are allowed to a worker's spouse or to the person of the opposite sex with whom a worker has a stable relationship outside marriage, does not constitute discrimination prohibited by Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member Suites relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women.'
Selv om overholdelsen af de grundlæggende rettigheder, der indgår som en integrerende del af disse generelle principper, er en betingelse for,
Advocate GeneralM.B. Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 30 September 1997.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
In the light of the foregoing, I would suggest that the Court reply to the questions referred by the Industrial Tribunal, Southampton, as follows:
»En arbejdsgivers afslag på at yde en rejsebegunstigelse for en person af samme køn, som en arbejdstager lever i et fast samlivsforhold med, når der indrømmes en sådan begunstigelse for en arbejdstagers ægtefælle eller en person af modsat køn, som arbejdstageren lever i et fast samlivsforhold med uden for ægteskab, er ikke en forskelsbehandling i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 119 etter Rådets direktiv 751117¡EØF af 10. februar 1975 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivninger om gennemførelse af princippet om ugeløn til mænd og kvinder.·
(1) A provision in an employer's pay regulations under which the employee is granted a pay benefit in the form of travel concessions for a cohabitee of the opposite gender to the employee, but refused such concessions for a cohabitee of the same gender as the employee, constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender, which is contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty.
Generaladvokat M.B. Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum1) den 30. september 1997.
(2) Such discrimination on the basis of gender cannot be justified by reference to the fact that the employer's intention is to confer benefits on heterosexual couples as opposed to homosexual couples.
»Fiskeri — Haag-præferencerne —TAC — torsk og hvilling —fællesskabslovgivers skøn — relativ stabilitet —proportionalitetsprincippet og princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling« (Domstolens plenum) hvilken NIFPO fik tildelt fangstkvoterne for torsk og hvilling i Det Irske Hav for 1995.
(Fisheries — Hague Preferences — TACs — Cod and whiting — Discretion of the Community legislature — Relative stability — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination) (Full Court)