natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvis man kaster et blik tilbage på den historiske erfaring, som vi allerede har erhvervet—igennem snart et kvart århundrede — undres man over den usædvanlige dynamik, hvormed fællesskabsretten er trængt ind i det nationale retssystem, især hvis man gør sig den ulejlighed at sammenligne med andre internationale retlige forhold.
Looking back on the experience we have acquired over the years — nearly a quarter-century of it — one is struck by the extraordinary dynamism with which Community law has penetrated into the internal legal systems, particularly if one takes the trouble to make a comparison with other sectors of international legal life.
Fællesskabsrettens gennemslagskraft er i sin art et enestående fænomen.
The penetrating force of Community law is a phenomenon sui generis.
Den er en følge af flere forskellige faktorer: de europæiske folks kulturelle lighed trods en ellers forhavsende forskellighed; viljen til atter at give Europa en verdensrolle — takket være en samlet indsats — og erkendelsen af den vigtige rolle retten spiller til gennemførelse af denne plan.
It can be explained by a whole number of factors: the cultural affinity of the European peoples in their amazing diversity; the will to restore to Europe a place in the world by dint of concerted effort, and the awareness of the essential contribution of the law in carrying out this process.
Desuden er der en mere praktisk forklaring, og det er den, som i denne forbindelse har større interesse.
There is also a more cogent explanation, which is of greater interest in the context which concerns us.
Fællesskabsrettens dynamik er for en stor dels vedkommende en følge af et vellykket samspil mellem fællesskabsdomstolens centrale retlige virksomhed og de nationale retters tilsvarende virk somhed, hver inden for deres nationale eller territoriale område.
To a large extent, the dynamism of Community law can be explained by the successful interaction between the jurisprudential activity of the Community Court, at the centre, and the corresponding activity of the courts and tribunals of the Member States, each within its own national or regional domain.
Altså den omstændighed, at de europæiske traktaters ophavsmænd ikke alene har sørget for at forsyne Fællesskabet med en selvstændig retlig myndighed, men også har sørget for at skabe en reel forbindelse mellem Fællesskabets Domstol og de nationale retter med henblik på en ensartet anvendelse og en sammen hængende udvikling af denne ret, som er fælles for os alle.
So it was that the authors of the European Treaties had the foresight not only to endow the Community with an autonomous judicial power, but also to set up an organic link between the Community Court and the courts and tribunals of the Member States with a view to harmonious application and coherent development of this our common system of law.
Dette er en af hovedårsagerne til, at fællesskabsretten er trængt så hurtigt og så dybtgående ind i vore staters indre.
That is one major reason explaining the deep and swift penetration of Community law within our States.
Alt i alt har disse to faktorers virksomhed — altså Fællesskabets domsmagt og de nationale domsagter — været parallelle og gensidige; de har haft til bøjelighed til gensidigt at styrke hinanden og have gavn af hinanden.
Broadly speaking, the action of these two factors — that is to say the Com munity Court and the national courts — has been concomitant and reciprocal; they have led to mutual stimulation and improvement.
For hvis det er korrekt, at retspraksis i vore forskellige medlemsstater ville være utænkelig uden den påvirkning, der udgår fra fællesskabsdomstolens domme, er det lige så korrekt, at også Domstolen har været påvirket af de nationale retter, og at man desuden ikke skal glemme de gensidige påvirkninger, der har fundet sted mellem de forskellige medlemsstaters retter.
Indeed, while the evolution of caselaw in our different Member States would be unimaginable without the stimulus emanating from the judgments of the Community Court, this Court has been subjected, in its turn, to the influence of the national courts; nor should the reciprocal influences exercised by the courts of the different Member States on one another be overlooked.
Denne vekselvirkningsproces, som normalt forløber diskret og umærkeligt, giver undertiden opsigtsvækkende resultater, der har langvarige og dybtgående virkninger: visse første domme
This process of interaction, which generally proceeds discreetly and almost imperceptibly, from time to time produces something quite outstanding
— hvoraf nogle er af sagt af Domstolen, medens andre, og heriblandt måske de mest interessante og dristige, hidrører fra de nationale retter — har haft afgørende virkninger.
which has profound, widespread repercussions: the decisive impulses have emanated from a small number of 'pilot' decisions, some of which were made by the Community Court while others, among them perhaps the boldest and most interesting ones, were made by national courts.
Jeg skal nedenfor forsøge at beskrive denne proces nøjere.
An attempt will be made hereafter to describe this process rather more precisely.
For nemheds skyld vil jeg først give en oversigt over Domstolens retspraksis, f or så vidt som denne angår fællesskabsrettens karakteristika og dens forhold til den nationale ret; dernæst vil jeg beskrive, hvorledes det på nuværende tidspunkt forholder sig med anvendelsen af fællesskabsretten i de forskellige medlemsstater.
For convenience, first of all a survey will be given of the caselaw of the Court in so far as it relates to the characteristics of Community law and to its relations with national law; this will be followed by an exposition on the stage reached in dealing with the problem of the application of Com munity law in the different Member States.
Man må dog ikke på noget tidspunkt under fremstillingen glemme den snævre vekselvirkning, der er mellem disse to rækker af faktorer, som det af klarhedshensyn — kunstigt — har været nødvendigt at adskille.
However one must not lose sight, at any point in this account, of the close interaction subsisting between these two classes of factors which have had to be separated — artifically — for clarity of presentation.
Blandt de søgsmål, som har givet Domstolen anledning til at udtale sig om fællesskabsrettens særlige kendetegn, om dens virkning og om dens krav i forhold til national ret, er især to: søgsmål om en stats ikkc-overholdelse og de præjudicielle søgsmål.
Among the forms of action, there are two which have given the Court occasion to pronounce upon the characteristics of Community law, on its effectiveness and on its requirements in regard to national law: the action for the failure of a State to fulfil its obligations and the reference for a preliminary ruling.
Anvendelsen af hver af disse retsmidler har effektivt bidraget til at klarlægge forholdet mellem fællesskabsret og national ret.
The use made of each of these procedures has made a powerful contribution to the definition of the relationships between Community law and national law.
a) Søgsmålene om en stats ikke-overholdels e er i fællesskabspraksis ret få.
(a) Proceedings for the failure of a State to fulfil its obligations are relatively few in Community practice.
Men de har i høj grad betydning for vores problem, da disse søgsmål netop drejer sig om at sanktionere medlemsstaternes overtrædelse af de krav, som følger af fællesskabsretten.
But they are highly significant in dealing with our problem, given that the purpose of these actions is precisely to impose a sanction on Member States which have failed to meet requirements of Community law.
Undertiden drejer det sig om medlemsstaternes undladelser og ikke-overholdelser ; oftere om deciderede overskridelser af fællesskabsforpligtelser; sidstnævnte forekommer ret regelmæssigt i form af indførelse eller opretholdelse af lovbestemmelser, der strider mod fællesskabs rettens krav.
Occasionally they raise the issue of the omissions and defaults of Member States; more often they concern positive violations of Community commitments; the usual form which these violations take is the introduction or the maintenance of legal provisions incompatible with the requirements of Community law.
I sådanne situationer har Domstolen undertiden kraftigt måttet hævde fællesskabsrettens forrang over for national ret.
In such situations the Court has had to affirm, sometimes forcefully, the overriding power of Community law in relation to national law.
fællesskabsretten og den nationale lovgivning: det er med henblik på at kunne bedømme den nationale lovgivnings forenelighed med fællesskabsretten, at dommeren anmoder Domstolen om ved fortolkning at definere de krav, som traktaten eller den afledede rets retsakter indebærer.
The national courts often seek interpretations in the context of a conflict between Community law and national law: the national court asks the European Court to specify, by way of interpretation, what are the requirements of the Treaty or of measures of secondary law, in order to decide on the compatibility of its own national law with Com munity law.
I en sådan situation er det ikke Domstolens opgave at afgøre, om den nationale lov er forenelig med fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser; f ællesskabsdommeren kan kun give præmissen for en afgørelse, som det er op til den nationale dommer at træffe.
In such a situation, it is not for the European Court to decide on the compatibility of the national law with the provisions of Community law; the European Court only supplies the premise for an appraisal which it is for the national court to make.
Men på dette punkt skal man ikke gøre sig nogen illusion: når først præmissen er klart stillet, giver afgørelsen om foreneligheden sig uvægerligt af sig selv.
But one must not be under any illusion about this matter: once the premise is clearly laid down, the decision on compatibility inevitably follows from it.
Domstolen har derfor i løbet af rækken af sager lidt efter lidt måttet fast lægge de væsentligste kendetegn for fællesskabsretten (se dommene i bilag I) Disse kendetegn kan gengives i et ord: fællesskabsrettens gyldighed. Domstolens domme vedrørende dette problem går alle ud fra den enkle sandhed, at et retssystem kun fungerer og virker for så vidt, som det anvendes i praksis.
Thus, as one case has followed another, the Court has been led step by step to define the main characteristics of Community law (see the judgments listed in Appendix I). These characteristics may be summed up in one phrase: the effectiveness of Community law.
Men at udtale, at det i praksis anvendes inden for medlemsstaterne, er uundgåeligt at hævde princippet om, at det i tilfælde af modstrid har forrang for national ret.
And to say that it is operative in practice within the Member States is, perforce, to postulate the principle of its precedence in cases of a conflict with national law.
De karakteristika og krav, som i særlig grad er blevet belyst i Domstolens retspraksis, er følgende.
More precisely, the caselaw of the Court has brought out the following characteristics and requirements.
a) I adskillige domme har Domstolen understreget fællesskabsrettens fulde virkning.
(a) In numerous judgments, the Court has stressed the fullness of the effect of Community law.
Sådanne begreber som »tilsigtet virkning« eller »fuld virkning« i fællesskabsretten går igen som en rød tråd i retspraksis.
Concepts such as the 'practical effect' or the 'full effect' of Community law run like a live wire through its decisions.
Over for forsøg fra den ene eller den anden medlemsstats side på at unddrage sig fra visse dele af fællesskabsretten har Domstolen kraftigt understreget helheden i dette retssystem, som er fuldstændigt, organiseret, uafhængigt; den tillader derfor intet særstandpunkt fra de staters side, som har til hensigt at tilegne sig for delene uden at påtage sig de tilsvarende byrder.
In the face of attempts by one or other of the Member States to evade certain parts of Community law, the Court has vigorously stressed the wholeness of the Community legal system, which is all of one piece, organized and coherent; consequently it does not tolerate any selective attitudes by States seeking to enjoy the benefits of it without assuming the corresponding burdens.
Gentagne gange har Dom stolen ofte heftigt understreget fællesskabsforpligtelsernes uafvendelighed, for at dæmme op for ethvert tilløb til, at staterne frigør sig fra forpligtelserne.
Several times over, and on occasion emphatically, the Court has affirmed the irreversibility of Community commitments in order to counteract any inclination on the part of Member States to withdraw from them.
sats af den nationale dommer, for at fællesskabsrettens fortrinsstilling anerkendes midt i en national retlig kompliceret situation, og at dens mål fuld stændigt gennemføres.
To this end, a constructive effort is required of the national court so that, in the midst of the complications of a national legal situation, the overriding power of Com munity law is recognized and its objectives fully attained.
c) Fællesskabsretten er en ufravigelig ret; i visse domme henvises der til det særdeles sigende, særdeles tankevækkende begreb »Fællesskabets ordre public« Denne ufravigelighed understreges i øvrigt i to klare synspunkter: dels har Domstolen uophørligt understreget den bindende karakter af de forpligtelser, som medlemsstaterne har påtaget sig; dels har den haft lejlighed til at under strege fællesskabsnormernes ufravigelige karakter over for private og organer, der er skabt på privat initiativ, inden for sådanne områder som forretningsverdenen, arbejdsforhold, og endog inden for sportsverdenen.
(c) Community law is mandatory law; in certain judgments reference is made to the concept of 'maintenance of Community law and order', a very meaningful and evocative concept. This mandatory nature is moreover asserted in two distinct perspectives: on the one hand, the Court has repeatedly asserted the binding nature of the commitments assumed by the Member States; on the other, it has had occasion to assert the mandatory nature of Community rules in regard to private individuals and organizations formed on private initiative, in such areas as the business world, relationships at work and even sporting life.
d) Fællesskabsretten har direkte virkning inden for medlemsstaterne; som sådan kan den påberåbes for Domstolen af private, og den giver dem rettigheder, som domstolene skal beskytte.
(d) Community law is directly applicable within the Member States; as such it can be relied upon in law by private individuals and it confers rights upon them which the courts are called upon to protect.
Jeg henviser her til en af de vigtigste og mest afgørende domme i Domstolens retspraksis.
I refer here to one of the largest and best consolidated bodies of law within the caselaw of the Court.
Fra og med den berømte dom Van Gend & Loos har Domstolen i de mest forskellige tilfælde uophørligt understreget, at fællesskabsretten ikke kun er en sag mellem stater, men at den samtidig direkte vedrører private. Denne retspraksis, som det vil tage for lang tid at referere i denne forbindelse, er virkelig slutstenen på hele den retspraksis, der,er opbygget vedrørende fællesskabsrettens gyldighed. e) Endelig har Domstolen ubøjeligt påpeget fællesskabsrettens ubetingede forrang over for national ret.
Starting with the wellknown Van Gend & Loos judgment, the Court has asserted repeatedly and in the most diverse circumstances that Community law is not merely a matter between States, but that at the same time it directly concerns private individuals. This body of case-law, which time does not permit me to go over here, is truly the cornerstone of the whole jurisprudential edifice for the effectiveness of Community law. (e) Finally the Court has resolutely maintained the unconditional precedence of Community law in relation to internal law.
Denne forrang er blevet statueret i de forskelligste sammenhænge: over for modstående national praksis, selv om der var tale om en langvarig tilsidesættelse, som var samordnet mellem medlemsstaterne; over for den på en måde klassiske konflikt mellem fællesskabsretten og den nationale lovgivning; over for uoverensstemmelser på grund af domstols systemet eller andre nationale forfatningsmæssige strukturer.
This precedence has been asserted in the most diverse contexts: in the face of contrary practices by Member States, even when it was a question of a prolonged and concerted failure by Member States to meet their obligations; in the face of the, in a sense, conventional conflict between Community law and national law; in the face of contradictions arising from the judicial organization or any other constitutional structure in a Member State.
I sådanne situationer har Domstolen bestandigt erklæret, at en medlemsstat ikke ensidigt kan svække fællesskabsrettens virkning, at den ikke ensidigt kan unddrage sig fællesskabsrettens forpligtelser; den kan ikke med henblik herpå dække sig ind under sine lovgivningsbestemmelser, sit politiske eller judicielle system, ikke engang under sine forfaltningsregler.
In such circumstances, the Court has consistently asserted that a Member State may not unilaterally attenuate the effect of Community law, that it may not unilaterally withdraw from its commitments; it cannot, for this purpose, rely on the provisions of its statutes, on its political or judicial organization, or even on its constitutional rules.
problemer, f.eks. i forbindelse med folkeretten, som retterne tidligere måtte afgøre helt alene, løses nu ved hjælp af et fælles grundlag, som er udgået fra Fællesskabets centrale domsmyndighed.
Legal problems, concerning for instance international law, which the national courts previously had to approach in total isolation are now resolved in the light of a common inspiration, emanating from the judicial centre of the Community.
II — De nationale retters reaktion på fællesskabs rettens krav
II — Response of thejtiational courts and tribunals to the requirements of Community law
Hvis man tæller de nationale domme op, der vedrører fællesskabsretlige emner, konstaterer man en klar forskel i den forstand, at i visse medlemsstater er domme, som vedrører problemer forbundet med fællesskabsrettens anvendelse sjældne, hvis de i det hele taget findes; i andre medlemsstater derimod finder man domme om dette problem og deriblandt principielle domme af den allerstørste vigtighed. Hvorfra stammer denne forskel ?
If we look at the decisions on questions of Community law taken by the national courts we see a clear disparity in that, in some Member States, legal decisions on the problems involved in the application of Community law are rare, even non-existent, whilst in other Member States such decisions are not wanting and some of them lay down principles of the highest importance.
Denne forskel skyldes den omstændighed, som jeg allerede har gjort opmærksom på, at de forskellige medlemsstater indtrådte i fællesskabsordningen med forskellige grader af forberedelse.
It follows from the fact, to which I have already referred, that the various Member States came into the Community system in very differing states of preparation.
I visse medlemsstater løstes de problemer, som fællesskabsrettens anvendelse rejser, og især de problemer, som skyldes overførelse af suverænitet, hvilket er enhver integrationsordnings kerne, al lerede før tilslutningen på forfatningsmæssigt plan, enten i lovgivningen eller i retspraksis.
In some States the problems posed by the application of Com munity law and, in particular, those raised by the transfers of sovereignty which are the essence of any system of integration were resolved on a constitutional, legislative or judicial level before accession.
Dette var tilfældet for de gamle medlemsstater Luxembourg og Nederlandene; dette er også tilfældet for de nye medlemsstater, hvor de problemer, som fællesskabsrettens anvendelse rejser i den nationale retsorden, er blevet løst udtrykkeligt og klart gennem lovgivningen.
This applied, as regards the original Member States, to Luxembourg and the Netherlands. It also applies to the new Member States, where the problems raised by the application of Community law in the internal legal system have been expressly and positively resolved by legislative measures.
Derfor gennem søger man forgæves disse staters retspraksis for at finde domme, som principielt vedrører problemet om fællesskabsrettens anvendelse.
As a result there are no legal decisions which rule in principle on the problem of the application of Community law to be found in the caselaw of these States.
Principielle domme, som angår sådanne problemer, findes derimod i fire medlemsstaters retspraksis: i Tyskland, i Belgien, i Frankrig og i Italien.
On the other hand, decisions of principle in connexion with this problem are to be found in the caselaw of four Member States: Germany, Belgium, France and Italy.
I disse fire stater har retterne både af historiske og forfatningsmæssige årsager, der er forskellige for hver enkelt af dem, været stillet over for mere principielle tvivlsspørgsmål, som de har taget stilling til.
In these four States historical and constitutional reasons peculiar to each have caused disputes of more fundamental importance to be
kunstigt, vil jeg først gennemgå de ukomplicerede tilfælde og dernæst de mere komplicerede, idet jeg vil give en oversigt over situationen, henholdsvis
Rather than going through the States in alphabetical order, which would be too artificial, I shall begin with those cases in which the position is simple and go on to the more complicated ones, describing in turn the position in:
I disse to medlemsstater finder man — bortset fra adskillige tilfælde om ukompliceret anvendelse — så godt som ingen retspraksis vedrørende fællesskabs rettens virkninger.
Apart from the many cases in which it has simply been applied, there is scarcely any case­law in these two Member States on the effects of Com­munity law.
Årsagen til dette er, at de problemer, der vedrører fælles skabsrettens anvendelse, i disse lande — i forskellige sammenhænge — var løst på fuld tilfredsstillende måde inden tilslutningen til De europæiske Fælles skaber.
This situation is explained by the fact that in these Member States the problems concerning the application of Community law were — in different contexts — resolved entirely satisfactorily before accession to the European Communities.
I Luxembourg har retternes anvendelse af internationale traktater, (det man nu omstunder kalder »den direkte virkning«) og traktatens forrang for den nationale lov altid været betragtet som indiskutable aksiomer.
In Luxembourg, the application of international treaties by the courts (what is now called 'direct effect') and the precedence of the treaties over national law have always been regarded as incontrovertible axioms.
Således har Cour supérieure de Justice i en dom af 13. juni 1890, Actien-Brauerei Coin Niedermendig mod Schwartz, statueret, at en toldunionstraktat havde for rang for en senere national lov, idet den erklærede, at sidstnævnte lov »hver ken har kunnet eller villet berøre internationale traktater«; den tilføjede, at »det er principielt således, at overholdelsen af aftaler er en af de væsentlige fortolkningsregler«.
Thus, in a judgment of 13 June 1890, in the case of Actien-Brauerei Coin Niedermendig ν Schwartz, the Cour Supérieure de Justice confirmed the precedence of the treaties governing the customs union over a subsequent national law by stating that 'that law could not affect international treaties and had not sought to do so'.
EØF- og Euratomtraktaterne er godkendt på grundlag af denne bestemmelse, således at det principielle problem, nemlig overførsel af suverænitetsbeføjelser til De europæiske Fællesskaber, positivt er løst i Luxembourg. — Det skal bemærkes, at de luxembourgske retter gentagne gange har anvendt den præjudicielle procedure i artikel 177, dog med undtagelse af Conseil d'Etat.
It went on to say that 'it is an established principle that the enforcement of conventions is one of the principal rules of interpretation'.