natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I dom af 10. juli 1969 i sag Sayag/Leduc (op. cit. s. 335) foretog Domstolen ingen retssammenligning og afgjorde det omtvistede spørgsmål (om der er tale om „udøvelse af hverv" i den i Euratomtraktatens artikel 188 forudsatte betydning, når en af Fællesskabets ansatte under sit arbejde benytter sin private bil og er årsag til en ulykke) uden at anvende „almindelige retsgrundsætninger" ved fortolkningen af Euratomtraktatens artikel 188.
The Court in its judgment of 10 July 1969 in Sayag ν Leduc refrained from making any reference to comparative law and determined the question in issue (the meaning of 'performance of duties' under Article 188 of the EEC Treaty if a servant of the Community uses his car in the performance of his duties and causes an accident) by interpreting the text of Article 188 of the EEC Treaty without relying on the 'general principles'.
I et andet spørgsmål, nemlig om Fællesskabets ansvar for ulovlige generelle (i modsætning til konkrete) retsakter, forventedes det, at Domstolen foretog mere intensive retssammenlignende undersøgelser.
In another case concerning the Community's liability for its legislative (as opposed to its executive) activities, the Court was required to undertake more intensive comparative law examination.
I dom af 2. december 1971 (Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt, 5/71, Sammlung s. 975, 984 f.) antog Domstolen, at søgsmål på grundlag af EØF-traktatens artikel 215 om erstatning i forbindelse med Fællesskabets lovgivning, kunne antages til realitetsbehandling.
The Court in its judgment of 2 December 1971 in Case 5/71, Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt, ([1971] ECR at p. 984 et seq.) held that applications, based on Article 215 of the EEC Treaty, claiming compensation for legislative acts of the Community were admissible.
Efter fast praksis omskriver Domstolen nu de betingelser, hvorunder Fællesskabet hæfter i sådanne tilfælde, således: »Da den kritiserede retsakt er generel og indebærer en foranstaltning af erhvervspolitisk karakter, kan Fællesskabet efter traktatens artikel 215, stk. 2 kun ifalde ansvar for den skade, som private har lidt gennem denne retsakt, såfremt der foreligger en tilstrækkelig præcist beskrevet krænkelse af en højere retsregel til beskyttelse af private« (se f.eks. dom af 14. maj 1975, C.N.T.A., 74/74, Sml. s. 546).
The Court describes the circumstances in which the Community is liable in such cases and which have been constantly repeated in the Court's case­law, as follows: 'Where legislative action involving measures of economic policy is concerned, the Community does not incur non­contractual liability for damage suffered by individuals as a consequences ofthat action, by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 215, second paragraph, of the Treaty, unless a sufficiently flagrant violation of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual has occurred', (see, for example, judgment of 14 May 1975 in Case 74/74, CNTA ν Commission [1975] ECR at p. 546).
i en række medlemsstater, tales om en yderligere formindskelse af afstanden mellem »retssystemer, som i det her relevante spørgsmål overvejende er negative«, og — om man vil — »mere progressive retssystemer«, henvises til den særlige struktur i Fællesskabets retssystem med et parlament, der kun deltager i retsfastsættelsen i begrænset omfang, og til slut udtrykkeligt fremhæver tanken om at styrke retssikkerheden i Fællesskaberne gennem Domstolen.
The opinion of Mr Advocate-General Roemer in this case is instructive ([1973] ECR 1255). He draws attention -1 limit myself to the key expressions — to the need for evaluative comparative law ('wertende Rechtsvergleichung'), emphasizes a certain tendency to further development in some Member States, mentions a further narrowing of the gap between 'the legal systems, which on the point of interest in the present case are largely negative' and the, if you like, 'more progressive legal systems', refers to the structure of Community law with Parliament only playing a small part in the legislative process and finally lays special stress on the concept of the strengthening by the Court of legal protection within the Community.
Det er umuligt at finde ud af, hvilken af disse overvejelser fra generaladvokaten Domstolen har lagt vægt på.
It is impossible to ascertain which of these views of its Advocate-General the Court considered important.
Sikkert er kun, at Domstolen ikke har ændret sin praksis, hvorefter også generelle retsakter kan udløse ansvar for Fællesskabet uden for kontraktsforhold.
The fact remains that it has not altered its caselaw according to which legislative acts can also fall within the Community's noncontractual liability.
b) Hvis fællesskabsretten anvender begreber, der åbenbart er lånt fra et eller flere nationale retssystemer, bliver det første spørgsmål, om fællesskabsretten herved kan antages at indeholde en henvisning til national ret — om begrebet altså skal tillægges den specifikke betydning, som det har i det nationale rets system — eller om det drejer sig om et fællesskabsretligt begreb, hvis indhold — som fastlagt af fællesskabsretten — kan afvige fra, hvad et eller flere nationale retssystemer lægger i det.
(b) If Community law uses concepts which have clearly been borrowed from one or more of the legal systems of individual Member States, the first question which arises is whether this is to be regarded as a reference by Community law to national law — that is that the concept has the specific meaning which it has under national law — or whether it is a concept of Community law the meaning of which — as defined by Community law — can differ from that by which it is understood under one or several national legal systems.
Henvisninger til national ret, der udelukker en retssammenlignende fortolkning, er sjældne (eksempel: begrebet »selskab«, EØF-traktatens artikel58).
Reference to national law excluding a comparative law interpretation is rare (for example the expression 'companies or firms' in Article 58 of the EEC Treaty).
Som regel tilkommer der også inden for rammerne af Fællesskabets retsorden de begreber, som er overtaget fra de nationale retssystemer, en særlig, fra national ret afvigende betydning, der fremgår af fællesskabsrettens system og Fællesskabets mål sætninger.
In general the concepts taken from the laws of individual Member States have within the framework of Community law specific meanings different from their meaning under the national legal systems, which spring from the system of Community law and the objectives of the Treaty.
Dette gælder — for kun at nævne nogle få eksempler — begrebet »arbejdstager« (EØFtraktatens artikel 48-51, dom af 19. marts 1964, Unger, 75/63, Sml. 1954-1964, s. 471) samt udtrykket »tilbud« inden for markedsordningen for korn.
This applies —to mention only a few examples —to the concept 'worker' (Articles 48 to 51 of the EEC Treaty, judgment of 19 March 1964 in Case 75/63, Unger, [1964] ECR 177) and also'offer'in the organization of the market in cereals.
I henhold til denne markedsordning er interventionsorganerne under bestemte betingelser forpligtet til at opkøbe det korn, »der tilbydes« dem.
In this organization of the market the intervention agencies are bound in certain circumstances to buy in cereals which are 'offered' to them.
Domstolen har fastslået, at interventionsorganerne ikke kan afvige fra det fælles skabsretlige tilbudsbegreb og har blandt andet begrundet dette med, at de i fællesskabsretten anvendte begreber, undtagen hvor der foreligger en udtrykkelig eller stiltiende henvisning til national ret, skal fortolkes og anvendes ensartet i hele Fællesskabet (dom af 1. februar 1972, Hagen, 49/71, Sammlung s. 35) (23).
The Court held that intervention agencies cannot derogate from the Community concept of an offer and gave as its reason, inter alia, that terms used in Community law must be uniformly interpreted and applied throughout the Community except where an express or implied reference is made to national law (judgment of 1 February 1972, Case 49/71, Hagen, [1972] ECR 35).
ske en begrænsning, således at der ses bort fra det statsborgerskab, som automatisk, og uden at hun kan give afkald på det, tildeles en kvindelig tjenestemand ved hendes indgåelse af ægteskab med en statsborger fra en anden stat (2. afdelings dom af 20. februar 1975, Jeanne Airola, 21/74, Sml. s. 228-229).
It is therefore necessary to exclude nationality imposed by law on a female official upon her marriage with a national of another State and which she was unable to renounce (judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), of 20 February 1975, Case 21/74, Airola [1975] ECR 221).
Foreligger der ingen henvisning til national ret, og anvender fællesskabsretten specifikke begreber, der er velkendte i de nationale retssystemer, bliver det nær liggende at foretage en fortolkning af det fællesskabsretlige begreb gennem en retssammenlignende undersøgelse af dets betydning i de pågældende staters rets systemer.
If there is no reference to national law and Community law uses specific concepts with which the national legal systems are familiar, then an interpretation of the concept in Community law has much to recommend it, which traces its meaning in the laws of the individual Member States on a comparative law basis.
En sådan retssammenlignende fortolkning, der skal præcisere begrebet og give det skarpere konturer, findes kun sjældent i Domstolens domme men hyppigere i generaladvokaternes forslag til afgørelse.
However, such an interpretation based on a comparison of the relevant legal systems, which is intended to define the concept and make outlines more clear­cut, is only rarely found in the judgments of the Court although more frequently in the opinions of its Advocates­General.
Som eksempel skal anføres de detaljerede og indgående undersøgelser, som blev foretaget af generaladvokat Lagrange i sag ASSIDER mod Den Høje Myndighed, 3/54, Sml.
For an example reference should be made to the detailed and exhaustive examination by Mr Advocate­General Lagrange in the case of Assider ν High Authority, (Case 3/54, 1954/55 Ree. p. 157 et seq.) 'misuse of powers' ('Ermessensmißbrauch', 'détournement de pouvoir', 'sviamento di potere') which is found in Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty and Article 173 of the EEC Treaty.
c) En retssammenlignende fortolkning eller udfyldning bliver endvidere relevant, når fællesskabsretten er tavs om bestemte spørgsmål, der længe har været kendt i de nationale retsordener og er blevet løst i disse.
(c) Interpretation or supplementation on a comparative law basis is also called for if Community law is silent on particular questions, with which the legal systems of individual Member States have for a long time been familiar and which they have answered.
I dom af 12. juli 1957 (Algera o.a., 7/56, 3-7/57, Sml.
In its judgment of 12 July 1957 in Cases 7/56 and 3 to 7/57, Algcra and others, [1957] Ree. p.
1954-1964, s. 45) tog Domstolen »under hensyntagen til de i medlemsstaternes love, teori og retspraksis anerkendte regler« stilling til, om begunstigende forvaltningsakter kan tilbagekaldes.
115) the Court, on the question whether the revocation of measures creating subjective rights was admissible, gave its judgment 'with due regard to the legal rules acknowledged by the laws, legal writings and case­law of the Member States'.
Herpå følger en »retssammenlignende undersøgelse« på knap 2 trykte sider.
An 'examination based on comparative law' of just under two pages follows.
Det er med rette blevet fastslået, et en så udførlig retssammenligning aldrig senere har fundet plads i Domstolens praksis (24).
It has been correctly stated that a comparative examination in such detail has never since then been carried out in any of the Court's decided cases.24
Senere domme indskrænker sig til at fastholde resultatet af de retssammenlignende overvejelser. Der kan eksempelvis henvises til dom af 4. juli 1963 (Alvis, 32/62, Sml.
Later judgments confine themselves to recording the result of the comparison of the various legal systems.
I mellemafgørelsen af 15. juni 1976 (Mills mod Den europæiske Investeringsbank, sag 110/75, endnu ikke offentliggjort) gik Domstolen ud fra, at retsforholdet mellem Banken og dens ansatte er af kontraktsmæssig art. Herefter skulle det opklares, om Domstolen i tilfælde af en eventuelt kontraktstridig afskedigelse kun kan give den afskedigede erstatning for den materielle og ideelle skade, der er påført ham ved den retsstridige afskedigelse, eller om den kan annullere afskedigelsen.
In Kampffmeyer and others ν the Council and the Commission (judgment of 2 June 1976, Joined Cases 56 to 60/74, not yet published) the issue was whether, under Articles 178 and 215 of the EEC Treaty, the Court could be asked to determine the noncontractual liability of the Community for imminent damage foreseeable with sufficient certainty.
Domstolen betoner, at det afhænger af parternes vilje, om en kontrakt fortsat skal bestå, men at kontraktsretten, ligesom arbejdsrettens almindelige retsgrundsætninger, som bankens personalevedtægt henviser til, sætter visse grænser for parternes vilje, og at Domstolen derfor i tilfælde af, at afskedigelsen er groft retsstridig, kan annullere denne — og ved mellemafgørelsen skulle der kun tages stilling til, om en sådan klage kan antages til realitetsbehandling.
The Court affirmed that an application for such a declaration was admissible and substantiated its view with reference to the legal systems of the Member States: most, if not all, of these legal systems recognize an action for declaration of liability based on future damage, which is sufficiently certain. The judgment does not indicate what degree of certainty is required.
Dommens henvisning til en »almindelig retsgrundsætning i arbejdsretten«, der ikke udtrykkes nærmere i dommen, er så meget mere bemærkelsesværdig, som generaladvokat Warner i sit forslag til afgørelse af 6. maj 1976 havde undersøgt retsstillingen i medlemsstaterne med hensyn til dette spørgsmål indgående med det resultat, at der ikke bestod en almindelig fælles retsgrundsætning i medlems staternes ret, hvorefter en retsinstans kan erklære en afskedigelse for ugyldig.
In its interlocutory judgment of 15 June 1976 (Mills ν European Investment Bank, Case 110/75, not yet published) the Court proceeded on the basis that the legal relations between the Bank and its servants are of a contractual nature. The next point to be clarified was whether, in the event of a possibly wrongful dismissal, the Court can only award the dismissed servant compensation for the material and non-material damage which he suffered as a result of the wrongful dismissal, or whether the Court can make a declaration to the effect that the dismissal is void.
Domstolens afgørelse må forstås derhen, at den, med henblik på en udvikling, som kan skelnes i alles medlemsstater, og gennem en vurderende retssammenligning på baggrund af det soicale fremskridt, er kommet til den overbevisning, at der i grove tilfælde også må være mulighed for, at en afskedigelse erklæres for uvirksom. I nogle medlemsstater er dette ifølge sagens natur allerede udtrykke ligt hjemlet, medens domstolene i andre, i henhold til nyere lovbestemmelser, i hvert fald kan anbefale, at den, som uretmæssigt er afskediget, ansættes på ny — med tilsvarende økonomiske konsekvenser, dersom denne anbefaling ikke efterkommes.
The reference in the judgment to 'the general principles of the law of master and servant' which are not further specified, is all the more remarkable because Mr Advocate-General Warner in his opinion of 6 May 1976 examined the legal situation in the Member States with reference to this question in greater detail and came to the conclusion that there was no general principle common to the laws of the Member States that a court may declare a dismissal to be void.
d) Til fællesskabsretten hører også de almindelige retsgrundsætninger, som ikke indeholder grundregler for enkelte snævrere retsområder (f.eks. forvaltningsretten, arbejdsretten eller procesretten) men snarere i vidt omfang er bindende for hele fællesskabsrettens område.
The Court's decision must be understood as meaning that, having regard to the development which is evident in every Member State and from an evaluative comparative law approach in line with social progress, it came to the conclusion that in serious cases it can declare that the dismissal has no legal effect.
Til dem hører frem for alt de grundlæggende rettigheder (se ovenfor I 2 a), hvortil dog — ud fra nogle medlemsstaters synspunkt — også skal henregnes forbudet mod ne bis in idem, kravet om dommerens høring af en part i retssager og grundsætningerne om forholdsmæssighed og beskyttelse af den berettigede tillid.
Some Member States have already expressly made provision to this effect, while in others the courts, on the strength of more recent legal provisions, can in any case recommend reinstatement of the wrongfully dismissed employee with its corresponding financial consequences if the recommendation is not followed.
I de domme fra Domstolen, hvori det fastslås, at disse almindelige retsgrundsætninger er en bestanddel af fællesskabsretten, findes der ingen mere indgående retssammenlignende undersøgelser.
(d) Those general legal principles, not being the legal principles for the narrower sphere of particular legal areas (for example administrative law, labour law or
ninger anerkendte og beskyttede grundrettigheder, følgelig ikke kan anerkendes.
Above all they comprise fundamental rights (see 12 (a) above) which moreover — at all events in the view of some Member States -include the prohibition ne bis in idem, the right to be heard in legal proceedings and the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations.
Af dommene i sagerne Nold og Rutili (se ovenfor I 2 a) ses endvidere, at beskyttelsen af de grundlæggende rettigheder ved den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention, for så vidt denne beskyttelse ratione matcriae griber ind i relation til fællesskabsretten, også for fællesskabsretten fastlægger mindstestandarden for beskyttelsen af de grundlæggende rettigheder — men netop kun en mindste standard, som ikke må misagres, men som Domstolen meget vel kan over skride og undertiden er forpligtet til at overskride.
Furthermore the judgments in the Nold and Rutili cases (see I 2 (a) above) show that the protection of fundamental rights by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, to the extent to which it ratione materiae applies to Community law, also sets the minimum standard for the protection of fundamental rights for Community law -but it is only to be regarded as a minimum standard, which must not be lowered and which the Court can indeed, and is obliged on occasion, to raise.
På dette område har Domstolen indtil nu kun pådømt sager, hvori der ikke for alvor har været tale om krænkelse af grundlæggende rettigheder, således at det ikke har været påkrævet, med henblik på et specielt problem, at undersøge ved hjælp af retssammenligninger, hvad der er foreneligt med de fælles forfatnings mæssige traditioner i medlemsstaterne, og hvad der ikke er foreneligt hermed.
In this field the Court has so far only had to decide cases where infringement of a fundamental right was not a serious issue, so that it was unnecessary with reference to a specific problem to consider on a comparative law basis what is or is not compatible with the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.
I hvert fald ses der indtil nu ikke at foreligge nogen sag, i hvilken Domstolen har anerkendt en ordning eller foranstaltning, som om også kun efter én medlems stats forfatning må anses for uforenelig med de grundlæggende rettigheder.
At all events there has so far been no known case where the Court has held that a provision or measure was valid which the constitution of any Member State regarded as incompatible with fundamental rights.
B. a) Den varsomhed, hvormed Domstolen i henseende til retssammenligning går frem med i sine domsbegrundelser, kan ikke skjule, at det interne retssammenlignende arbejde — også selv om det ikke klart kommer til udtryk i dommene — er betragteligt.
Β (a) The Court's abstention from references to comparative law in the grounds of its judgments should not obscure the fact that within the Court a considerable amount of time and energy is devoted to comparative law, although it is not specifically reflected in the judgments.
Ofte findes der i parternes skriftlige indlæg, særlig i Kommissionens, retssammenlignende undersøgelser af de relevante problemer, som Dom stolen ikke sjældent får suppleret gennem sin dokumentationstjeneste.
The pleadings of the parties, particularly those of the Commission, often contain a discussion of the relevant problems from the point of view of comparative law and the Court frequently supplements this through its Research Department.
Lejlighedsvis bliver Kommissionen anmodet om at undersøge, på hvilken måde be stemte spørgsmål reguleres i medlemsstaterne (således f.eks. spørgsmålet, hvilke frister der gælder for klage over afgiftspålæg, og hvorledes erstatningsordningen vedrørende uretmæssigt opkrævede afgifter reguleres; Rewe-sagen, 33/76, skrivelse af 15. juli 1976).
From time to time the Commission is requested to state how certain questions are dealt with in the Member States (for example the question what time-limits apply for challenging notices imposing charges and how the reimbursement of charges which have been imposed illegally is arranged: the Rewe case 33/76, letter of 15 July 1976).
I generaladvokaternes forslag til afgørelse forelægges ofte resultater, der skyldes retssammenlignende undersøgelser, som er samlet og vurderet med stor sagkundskab.
The Advocates-General frequently set out in their opinions expertly compiled and evaluated comparative statements of the laws of the Member States.
Med hensyn til en domstol, der er sammensat af dommere fra alle medlemsstater, kan man gå ud fra, at vigtige clementer i samtlige nationale retssystemer flyder ind i dommene, skønt dommerne måtte foretrække — måske med henblik på de almindelige retsgrundsætningers generelle karakter — for så vidt at begrænse sig til en mundtlig drøftelse under voteringen og give afkald på mere indgående retssammenlignende bemærkninger i domspræmisserne.
It can be assumed that in a court composed of judges from all the Member States, important strands of all the national legal systems are woven into its judgments, even if the judges may prefer — particularly having regard to the generality of the general principles - to limit themselves in this
Domstolen skal foretage afvejninger og vurdere og søge den løsning, som for det konkrete problem er »den bedste« eller »mest hensigtsmæssige«.
connexion to oral discussion during the deliberation and to forego more detailed comparisons of the law of Member States in the grounds of judgment.
Som den optimale løsning må anses den, der passer bedst til Fællesskabets specifikke mål og strukturelle principper — hvortil også hører beskyttelsen af borgernes grund rettigheder (27).
(b) There is complete agreement that when the Court interprets or supplements Community law on a comparative law basis it is not obliged to take the minimum which the national solutions have in common, or their arithmetic mean or the solution produced by a majority of the legal systems as the basis of its decision.
Således må man forstå Domstolens fastslåelse af, at sikringen af grundrettighederne må indføje sig i Fællesskabets struktur og mål (dom i sagen Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, ovenfor I 2 a).
The Court has to weigh up and evaluate the particular problem and search for the 'best' and 'most appropriate' solution. The best possible solution is the one which meets the specific objectives and basic principles of the Community — of which the protection of fundamental rights of citizens is an integral part — in the most satisfactory way.27This is the meaning which must be attached to the Court's finding that the protection of fundamental rights must be ensured within the framework of the structure and objectives of the Community (judgment in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Case, see I a (a)).