natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For at få udbetalt en eksportrestitution — efter reglerne inden for svinekødsektoren — skal der indgives en ansøgning.
Let me further cite the opinion of Mr Advocate-General Reischl in Case 63/ 75: 'My basic view on this is that Article 4 (2) of Regulation No 17 must not have too wide an interpretation since it is a provision constituting an exception' (it should be recalled that he is referring to Article 4 (2) of Regulation No 17 on competition.
I dom af 22. februar 1975 (3) ud talte Domstolen: »skønt (forordningens) artikel 15 af hensyn til den kom plekse eksportrestitutionsordnings gnidningsløse funktion må fortolkes således, at begæringen skal være skriftlig, må en formalisme, der går ud over, hvad en effektiv kontrol forlanger, undgås ...
Article 4 (1) provides that agreements, decisions and concerted practices etc. which come into existence after the entry into force of the said regulation and in respect of which the persons concerned seek the application of Article 85 (3) must be notified to the Commission . ..
Derfor [skal] ... kontroleksemplaret ... betragtes som en begæring om restutition, såfremt nævnte eksemplar ... «
Paragraph 2 provides that paragraph 1 shall not apply to agreements, decisions or concerted practices where ...).'
I sag 66/74 skulle Domstolen tage stilling til indhold og rækkevidde af ordene »direkte meddelelse« i artikel 56, stk. 2 i forordning nr. 3 — det drejer sig om en meddelelse fra den sociale sikringsinstitution til en ansøger, der bor i en anden medlemsstat.
1 wish to conclude these citations with the finding that strict interpretation does not exclude the need to accord to the provision, even one which requires to be restrictively interpreted, the entire scope which constitutes the justification and aim of its existence.
2. »af den europæiske integration« inden for dette sagsforhold, der kræver, at ordene »direkte meddelelse« gives et indhold, der i praksis lever op til denne integration, hvorfor forkyndelses­måder, som traditionelt benyttes ved forkyndelse af administrative afgørelser i udlandet, gives fortrin i1).
The Court was required to settle whether a decision addressed to a Member State must be considered under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, as a decision addressed 'to another person' which is of direct and individual concern to one of the natural or legal persons referred to by the said second paragraph.
hvortil en for­gennemførelsesbe­ b) Fortolkning i lyset af den traktatbestemmelse, ordning —■ fortolkningens genstand — er stemmelse
The Court considered on the one hand that the words and natural meaning of the said provision justify the broadest interpretation, and on the other hand that the 'provisions of the Treaty regarding the right of interested parties to bring an action must not be interpreted restrictively.
I dom af 9. juni 1964 (2) gives en fortolkning af artikel 12 i forordning nr. 3 om social sikring af vandrende arbejdstagere.
Therefore, the Treaty being silent on the point, a limitation in this respect may not be presumed'.
Artiklen bestemmer: »Med­mindre andet er bestemt i nærværende afsnit, er arbejdstagere og dermed lige­stillede personer, der er beskæftiget på en medlemsstats territorium, omfattet af dennes stats lovgivning ... «.Domstolen blev spurgt, om denne artikel skulle fortolkes således, at alene lovgivningen i den stat, på hvis territorium de af artiklen omfattede personer arbejder, kunne anvendes.
It certainly cannot be disputed that the authors of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty intended to limit the opportunities of the persons referred to by the second paragraph of that provision to submit to the Court of Justice applications disputing the legality of measures of the Council or of the Commission, and that they have thus established a restricted right of application.
Forordningens forfattere kan kun have haft en sådan indskrænkning i den nationale lovgivers frihed til hensigt, i det omfang hvor denne samtidige lovs anvendelse klart vil stride mod traktatens ånd, bl.a. i artiklerne 48—51,4.
The Court was asked whether reduction cards issued by a national railway agency to large families constitutes for the workers of the Member States a social advantage and whether an advantage which is conferred after the death of the worker constitutes such an advantage.
De sidstnævnte bestemmelser er ikke til hinder for, at de nationale lovgivninger fremmer en yderligere beskyttelse af de vandrende arbejdstagere.
In its judgment of 30 September 1975 in Case 32/75 the Court of Justice replied to those questions in the affirmative.
(') Den internationale Domstol i Den Haag såvel som De europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol og i øvrigt også de nationale retter må nødvendigvis søge konteksten ud fra de samlede regler.
It had been claimed before the Court of Justice that the advantages provided for by that Community provision were only accorded by reason of the beneficiary's status as a worker and that they were connected with the contract of employment itself.
Herefter kendte Domstolen for ret: a) artikel 12 i forordning nr. 3 forbyder ikke medlemsstater, på hvis område arbejdstagere eller deres pårørende ikke er beskæftiget, at anvende deres sociale sikringslovgivning på de pågældende; b) det forholder sig kun anderledes, hvis en medlemsstat, på hvis område arbejderen ikke er beskæftiget, pålægger denne at bidrage til finansieringen af en institution, som ikke over for samme risiko og i samme tidsrum sikrer ham en ekstra social beskyttelse.
therefore follows that, in view of the equality of treatment which the provision seeks to achieve, the substantive area of application must be delineated so as to include all social and tax advantages, whether or not attached to the contract of employment, such as reductions in fares for large families'.
I sag 50/75 måtte Domstolen på ny fortolke artikel 12 i forordning nr. 3, og i dommen af 21. november 1975 blev det gentaget, at denne forordning hvad angår indhold og rækkevidde skal fortolkes under hensyntagen til traktatens artikel 48—51, der udgør rammerne, grundlaget og grænserne for de forord ninger, der udstedes vedrørende den sociale sikring (*).
This undoubtedly constitutes a wide interpretation but one which follows from the regulation to be interpreted viewed as a whole.
Domstolen konkluderede: »artikel 10 i forordning nr. 234/68 ... udelukker enhver national ordning, der til sigter kvantitativt at begrænse dyrkningen af et af de produkter, der hører ind under den fælles markedsordning«.
Consequently provisions which permit, as an exception, exportations to be effected on other conditions than those laid down by that tariff cannot be accorded a wide interpretation, that is to say they must be strictly interpreted if this 'foundation of the Community' is not to be set at naught.
(') Ved en fortolkning af artikel 27 og 28 i forordning nr. 3 angav Domstolen i dom af 5. juli 1967 — sag 1/67 (Ree.
Freedom of establishment and freedom of movement also constitute fundamental 'principles' of the Treaty.
1967, s. 236) — indhold og omfang af artikel 27 og 28 i forordning nr. 3 således: »Vanskeligheden ved fortolkningen af disse bestemmelser byder, at de under søges under hensyntagen til traktatens artikel 48—51, som udgør grundlaget, ramme og grænser for de forordninger, der udstedes for social sikring ...
Those principles would be frustrated if a wide instead of a strict interpretation were placed upon the exception with regard to freedom of establishment concerning public offices as well as to the exception with regard to freedom of movement concerning the powers retained by the Member States in order to maintain public security, public order and public health.
Af disse bestemmelser (artikel 51) følger umiddelbart, at disse forordninger i det hele har til formål at stille de vandrende arbejdstagere bedre, end de ellers ville være stillet udelukkende i medfør af intern ret; i tvivlstilfælde skal disse forordninger fortolkes i lyset af dette formål«.
Similar considerations might be advanced with regard to the strict interpretations (which I have already quoted) by the Court of the provisions on competition or proceedings instituted by officials.
Artikel 10 i Fællesskabets forordning nr. 234/68 forbyder bl.a. »enhver kvantitativ begrænsning eller foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning« i Fællesskabets interne handel.
The judgment of 25 June 1975 1underlines the need to consider a scheme of regulations in its entirety and to discover how 'it fits together'. This
c) Reglernes genstand, formål, sigte — deres ånd
judgment concerned the interpretation of Regulation No 3 on migrant workers.
»Genstand og formål« — Ch. de Visscher (*) skriver, at de to ord ofte opfattes som synonymer. Imidlertid må man, anfører han, være forsigtig med at drage slutninger fra benyttelsen af disse udtryk.
When required to determine the extent of the Commission's powers and duties in implementing a Council regulation and, thus, to decide whether or not a commission regulation was 'valid' the Court of Justice held in its judgment of 18 March 1975 ' that: 'When considered in the context of the system in which it took effect, the discontinuance of the increase in the premium' ordered by the regulation of the Commission Obviously has the purpose ... of avoiding the disturbances which the Council Regulation has in mind'. d'.
En traktats genstand er udtryk for de ydelser, der er aftalt, for dens retsvirkning.
In order to obtain an export refund — under regulations governing the pigmeat sector — an application must be submitted by the person concerned.
Formålet er et teleologisk element, det angår de kontraherende parters fælles hensigt. De Visscher advarer også mod faren ved uden videre at henholde sig til konventionens genstand eller formål.
In its judgment of 22 January 1975 2the Court said that 'Although, having regard to the necessities of the proper functioning of the complex system of export refunds, Article 15' (of the regulation) 'must be interpreted as implying a written application, formalism which would go beyond the necessities of efficient control must be avoided' .. .
Den såkaldte teleologiske metode kan herved blive overdrevet.
The Court was called upon to determine the meaning and scope, as regards Article 56 (2) of Regulation No 4, of the words 'direct notification' — that is, notification of a decision of a social security body to a claimant who is resident in another State.
Selv med denne nødvendige forsigtighed viser retspraksis ved de to domstole (de to internationale domstole), at fastlæggelsen af konventionens genstand og undertiden af en for denne grundlæggende ide spiller en afgørende rolle i de afgørelser, hvor fortolkning har været anvendt (2).
The judgment given on 18 February 19753provides an interpretation which does not necessarily flow directly from the terms used, but rather, first, from the aim and the purpose of the provision in question when considered in the light of the Community rules on social security as a whole .. . and, secondly, from the European 'harmonization' in social security matters which requires that the words 'direct notification' be given a meaning which coincides with a practice corresponding to such 'harmonization' and necessarily preferable to the other traditional means of notifying administrative decisions which must be sent abroad.4
Det er grunden til, at den er forvist til sidste pladsen blandt de tilladelige fortolkningsmetoder.
As regards the International Court of Justice at The Hague cf. in particular the Etude by V. D. Degan, in the Revue Trimestrielle dc Droit Européen for 1966, pages 188 et seq.
d) den omstændighed, at en sådan adgang faktisk er indrømmet, viser i virkeligheden i sig selv, at de interesser, som berettiger de afvigelser fra princippet om ikke-forskelsbehandling, der er tilladt i stykke 4, ikke foreligger i sagen.
The Court was asked whether this article must be construed to mean that the persons to whom it refers are subject only to the legislation of the Member State in whose territory they are employed.
Ved afgørelsen af, hvad en medlemsstat kan foretage sig efter en fællesskabs forordning, tager Domstolen hensyn til fællesskabsreglernes formål.
The Court of Justice considered that: (1) Regulation No 3 was made pursuant to Article 51 of the EEC Treaty, according to which . . .
I dom af 22. januar 1976 — sag 60/75 (endnu ikke offentliggjort på dansk) udtalte den, at »et af de vigtigste formål med den fælles markedsordning for korn er at sikre producenterne en pris, der ligger omkring indikativprisen, og dette formål trues, når det statslige organs virksomhed er af en sådan art, at den påvirker markedsvilkårene og fremkalder en tendens til, at priserne falder under det nævnte niveau ...
The Court concludes from this that the Treaty has thus placed upon the Council the duty to lay down rules preventing those concerned, in the absence of legislation applying to them, from remaining without protection in the matter of social security.
Det må derfor konkluderes, at en medlemsstats virksomhed, som består i at købe hård hvede på verdensmarkedet og dernæst videresælge dette på Fællesskabets marked til en pris, der ligger under indikativprisen, er uforenelig med den fælles markedsordning for korn ...
(2) With a view to achieving this object it was necessary to make provision for the mandatory application of specific legislation. (3) Article 12 includes no provision prohibiting the simultaneous application of several systems of legislation.
For ordning nr. 120/67 skal netop beskytte udviklingen i Fællesskabets landbrugsproduktion mod verdensmarkedets prissvingninger og herved sikre landbrugsbefolkningen en rimelig levestandard og stabilisere markederne ved fællesskabsafgifter og - restitutioner, som skal beskytte det fælles landbrugsmarkeds funktion mod verdensmarkedernes risici ...
In the circumstances the intention of the authors of the regulation to impose such a restriction on the freedom of the national legislature should be presumed only to the extent that such simultaneous application is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Treaty and particularly of Articles 48 to 51.
Den enkelte producent af landbrugsvarer kan følgelig ikke påstå, at han bedømt efter fællesskabs retten har lidt et tab, hvis den pris, han faktisk har opnået på markedet, er højere end indikativprisen ...
(4) These provisions do not preclude legislation by the Member States designed to bring about additional protection by way of social security for the benefit of migrant workers.
Såfremt et sådant tab er opstået som følge af en overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, påhviler det den pågældende stat i for hold til skadelidte at påtage sig de heraf følgende konsekvenser på grundlag af de nationale retsregler om statens erstatningsansvar«.
(a) Article 12 does not prohibit Member States other than those in the territory of which wage-earners or assimilated workers are employed from applying their social security legislation to such persons,
På et spørgsmål angående forordning nr. 3 om vandrende arbejdstagere an førte Domstolen i dom af 30. juni 1966 i1), at den fortolkning, der gives det stillede spørgsmål, »svarer til den i traktatens artikel 48 og 51 samt i forordning nr. 3 indeholdte ånd, der udover beskyttelsen stricto sensu af den vandrende arbejdstager skal forhindre, at territorialhøjhedens regler gøres gældende mod arbejdstageren eller dennes efterladte på det socialsikringsmæssige om råde«.
(b) it is otherwise only if a Member State, other than that in the territory of which the worker is employed, requires him to contribute to the financing of an institution which would not accord him supplementary protection by way of social security in respect of the same risk of the same period.
I dom af 13. juli 1966 (2) anføres, at »den forbedring af produktionen eller distributionen af den pågældende vare, der udkræves for fritagelse (efter artikel 85, stk. 3), skal fortolkes under hensyntagen til ånden i artikel 85«.
When called upon again in Case 90/75 to interpret Article 12 of Regulation No 3, the Court of Justice repeated in its judgment of 25 November 1975 that, in order to define its meaning and scope, this regulation must be
O Sag 61/65, Ree. 1966, s. 377.
Case 92/63, [1964] ECR 281.
Da en vandrende arbejdstager fortsatte med at arbejde og betale bidrag for at kunne opnå højere pension, anså den nationale pensionskasse i medfør af artikel 27 og 28 i forordning nr. 3 sig for berettiget til ex officio at fastsætte hans pension på samme dag, som en også ham tilkommende pension blev fastsat i en anden medlemsstat.
In its judgment delivered on 30 October 1974 2in reply to the question of: 'Whether a regulation such as the Hyacinth Cultivation Regulation, 1971, in a Member State is consistent with Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 234/ 68 of the Council of 27 February 1968 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage' (Netherlands Decree).3
Domstolen antog i dom af 5. juli 1967 (x), at »løsningen af dette spørgsmål (fortolkning af forordninger) kan kun ske i lyset af de omhandlede traktat bestemmelsers formål (artikel 48—51) ... den for de vandrende arbejdstagere gældende sociale sikringsordning, der skal sikre de vandrende arbejdstagere de fordele, der svarer til deres forskellige beskæftigelsesperioder, kan ikke, bortset fra undtagelser, der er præcise og i overensstemmelse med traktatens formål, have til følge, at de pågældende berøves de i en del af en med lemsstats lovgivning hjemlede fordele«.
The Court considered that: 'In the absence of express provisions as to the compatibility of a national regulation restricting production with the organization of the market set up by Regulation No 234/68, it is necessary to seek the solution to the question referred in the light of the objects and the purposes of the Regulation within the framework of the principles laid down by the Treaty itself'.
Der er ikke i fællesskabsretten nogen almindelig pligt til, at den berettigede på samme tidspunkt skal begære fast sættelse af sine forskellige pensionskrav, fortsatte dommen.
The Court concluded: 'Article 10 of the regulation ... excludes any national system having the purpose of quantitatively restricting the cultivation of one of the products falling within the common organization of the market'.
I sagerne 37 og 38/73, dom af 13. december 1973 (3), blev Domstolen spurgt, om det efter den fælles toldtarifs ikrafttræden var lovligt at indføre eller op retholde afgifter med tilsvarende virkning som told i forholdet til tredjelande.
Object and aim' — Ch. de Visscher4writes that the two terms are often regarded as synonymous.
Definitionen af disse ensartede principper indebærer som selve den fælles toldtarif afskaffelsen af de nationale skatte- og handelsmæssige forskelle, som påvirker samhandelen med tredjelande.
However, he writes that one must beware of the conclusions which may be drawn from their use.
ensidigt at indføre nye afgifter eller at hæve niveauet for de allerede gældende ... følgelig påhviler det Fællesskabets institutioner at begrænse eller afskaffe bestående afgifter på import direkte fra tredjelande«.
In its judgment of 12 February 1974,2in reply to the question of whether paragraph (4) [of Article 48] permits discrimination to be practised in the public service between the nationals of a State who are employed in the public service of that State and the nationals of other States, where both types of nationals are employed in that public service, the Court rightly replied in the negative. It considered that:
I sag 71/74 (*) var der blevet anlagt sag mod Kommissionen ved Domstolen.
For this reason the meeting placed it in the lowest category of proper methods of interpretation. Case 152/73, [1974] ECR 153.
Sagsøgeren anfægtede en beslutning fra Kommissionen og gjorde gældende, at en omstridt aftale ikke var blevet indgået mellem virksomheder, men mellem sammenslutninger af virksomheder, hvorfor den ikke kunne være omfattet af artikel 85.
It must therefore be concluded that the action of a Member State in purchasing durum wheat on the world market and subsequently reselling it on the Community market at a price lower than the target price is incompatible with the common organization of the market in cereals . ..
Domstolen statuerede, at »artikel 85, stk. 1 finder anvendelse på sammenslutninger i det omfang, deres egen aktivitet eller den, der udøves af de virksomheder, der er tilsluttet dem, tilsigter at fremkalde de virkninger, som den omhandler; en anden fortolkning ville medføre, at artikel 85, stk. 1 blev frataget reel betydning« (2).
Regulation No 120/67 is in fact intended to shield the develop ment of Community agricultural production from fluctuations in market prices and thereby to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural Community and to stabilize markets by means of Community levies and refunds, protecting the operation of the common agricultural market against the risks of the world market . . .
Domstolen har således især fortolket reglerne ud fra deres genstand eller formål, således som disse i almindelighed har fundet udtryk i præcise vendinger i en traktat, eller som de simpelthen kan udledes af denne traktat.
As regards Regulation No 3 concerning migrant workers, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 June 1966 2stated that its interpretation of the question submitted to the Court 'conforms with the spirit oí Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty as well as with that of Regulation No 3, which is, in addition to protecting the migrant worker strido sensu, to prevent territorial provisions from being applied against workers or their survivors in matters of social security'.
Dette er særligt sket udfra traktatens kapitelbetegnelser (3), udfra de formål, som udtrykkeligt er tillagt Fællesskabet i traktaterne (4), eller udfra formålene med traktaterne i deres helhed (5
Furthermore the judgment of 13 July 19663stated that: 'The question whether there is an improvement in the production or distribution of the goods in question, which is required for the grant of exemption, is to be answered in accordance with the spirit of Article 85'.
Fastlæggelse af det europæiske bygningsværks natur, væsentligste indhold og nødvendige virkninger — »Juridiske konstruktioner«
Overall view — Determination of the nature, essence and necessary consequences of the European structure — 'Construction by the courts'
Domstolen må naturligvis overskue hele det europæiske bygningsværk, så ledes som dette fremgår af traktaterne.
The Court must, of course, take an overall view of the European structure as it is shown by the Treaties.
Et sådant overblik tillader den at præcisere indhold og omfang af de fundamentale »begreber«, somFællesskaber-
This view enables it to define in detail the meaning and scope of the fundamental 'concepts' on which the Communities
0) Dom af 15. maj 1975, Sml. 1975, s. 563. (!)
Case 71/74, [1975] ECR 563.
Ved en fortolkning af artikel 3, stk. 2 i Lausanne-traktaten (grænserne mellem Tyrkiet og Irak) udtalte Den faste domstol for mellemfolkelig Retspleje: »Det er altså i denne tekst, Domstolen først og fremmest skal søge de kontraherende parters vilje, for først senere — i givet fald og i fornødent omfang — at undersøge andre elementer, der udover traktat teksten kan komme i betragtning herved« (serie B, nr. 12, s. 19).
In interpreting Article 3 (2) of the Treaty of Lausanne (frontiers between Turkey and Iraq) the Permanent Court of International Justice considered in its advisory opinion given on 21 November 1925 that: 'Thus, it is in the wording that the Court must first seek to discover the intention of the contracting parties, although it may, if necessary, consider later the extent to which factors other than the wording of the Treaty should be taken into account in pursuing this objective' (Series B, No 12, p. 19).