natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Suveræniteten som begrundelse for en indskrænkende for tolkning gør sig ikke gældende i så tilfælde.
Τ have already stated that the Court of Justice obviously refrains drawing unreasonable conclusions.
Da denne Domstol derhos er supranational, foretrækker den en udvidende frem for en indskrænkende fortolk ning af fællesskabsretten, hvad de normale internationale retter ikke kan til lade sig. Dette er forklaringen på nævnte fænomen under en praktik synsvinkel.
The Court rightly states, in its judgment of 29 November 1956:1'The Court considers that it is proper, without resorting to a wide interpretation, to apply a rule of interpretation generally acknowledged in national and international law in accordance with which the rules laid down by an inter­national treaty or by a law imply those provisions without which those rules would be meaningless or could not be reasonably and correctly applied'.
Fra et rent teoretisk synspunkt synes ingen udvidende eller indskrænkende for tolkning berettiget af nogen grund ... Disse kunstige konstruktioner med dels en udvidende dels en indskrænkende fortolkning har altid forekommet mig at være en misforståelse af fortolkningens væsentlige funktion, som jeg har an ført ovenfor, hvorfor de aldrig kan være berettiget, uanset begrundelse«!
I should like to recall that, in its judgment of 9 February 1925,2the Cour de Cassation of Belgium held that: '.. . it is sometimes necessary to establish what the legislator meant rather than what he literally said; it is preferable as a general rule to assume that the legislator employed wording which imperfectly communicated his thoughts rather than arbitrarily to attribute thoughts to him'.
Talrige andre sager, der forelægges dels nationale retter dels Fællesskabernes høje Domstol, gøres til genstand for en udvidende eller indskrænkende fortolkning, hvor det er nødvendigt. Det er normalt, at når traktaten indeholder et generelt princip ... vil retterne kun gøre undtagelser fra dette almindelige princip på en indskrænkende måde.
In its judgment of 8 July 1965,3the Court declared: 'It appears from Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, read together, that appeals though official channels to the administration are subject to the same timelimit as applies to appeals to the Court of Justice, provided that they were themselves instituted within the timelimit laid down for appeals to the Court.
En gennemgang af Domstolens praksis viser utallige tilfælde, hvor en snart udvidende snart indskrænkende fortolkning har vist sig berettiget.
In fact the intention of the authors of these regulations cannot have been to compel officials to commence simultaneously an administrative appeal through official channels and an appeal to the Court of Justice in order to avoid being out of time'.
Det er rigtigt, at princippet om ikke-forskelsbe-handling er omfattende, men det er først og fremmest traktatforfatternes vilje, traktatens ånd, rækkevidden af bestemmelserne og endog af et princip, der er væsentligt i traktaten.
The courts apply reason and make deductions... without which they could not give a ruling.
Det er dens ånd og formål.
Joined Cases 27 and 30/64 [1965] ECR 481.
giver de nationale retter, der spørger den. Ikke-forskelsbehandling er princip pet, hvorfor undtagelserne nødvendigvis må fortolkes snævert ... i modsat fald ville dette princip blive tilsidesat eller gjort illusorisk.
In this connexion i must quote from the opinion of Mr Advocate-General Warner in Case 9/75 (Meyer — Burckhardt): 'In his Opinion in Case 48/65 Mr Advocate-General Gand convincingly demonstrated why it was impossible for a private person to have any right to challenge the validity or a decision of the Commission declining to take action against a Member State under Article 169.
I øvrigt ses det ikke, hvad der nærmere menes med bemærkningen om, at »Domstolen har udvidet sin praksis vedrørende traktatbestemmelsernes direkte virkning til begrebet ikke-forskelsbehandling«.
Much of Mr Advocate-General Gand's reasoning seems to me to lead also to the conclusion that such a person cannot sue the Commission for damages in respect of such a decision.
Traktaten indeholder talrige bestemmelser, der har direkte virkning i relation til alle de sagsforhold, traktaten omfatter. Dette er EØF-traktatens karakter.
In particular, for the Court to entertain such an action would involve that it should, in the absence of that Member State as a party, and without affording it any of the safeguards afforded to a Member State under Article 169, decide whether or not it was in, breach of the Treaty'.
Der ligger selvfølgelig velbegrundede overvejelser bag, når Domstolen finder det nødvendigt at anvende en udvidende eller indskrænkende fortolkning.
It is clearly impossible to recount all the other examples which might be cited.
Domstolen henter begrundelserne i fællesskabsretten, dennes genstand, formål, natur ... begrundelser, der selvfølgelig også støttes på ræsonnementer, på deduktioner ...
I have placed some emphasis on this point because in certain quarters which ought to be involved in rather more scholarly activity, and in certain publications which arrogate to themselves the right to keep the public informed about the administration of justice, the role played therein of logical thought is not only forgotten, but is regarded as futile, feeble, even harmful.
i) Indskrænkende fortolkning
(a) In general
Domstolen antog i dommen af 4. juli 1963 (*), at denne artikel må fortolkes indskrænkende ... idet den udgør en undtagelse fra den fælles toldtarif, der er et af Fællesskabets grundlag.
To refrain from conferring on certain rules or concepts an interpretation which is sometimes wide and at others strict would distort their meaning, scope, subject-matter and aim ...
Dommen fortsætter, at advokaterhvervets mest typiske former for virksom hed, såsom rådgivning og juridisk bistand samt repræsentation og forsvar af parter i retten, ikke kan antages at være forbundet med udøvelse af offentlig myndighed, heller ikke selv om advokatens mellemkomst eller bistand er pligt mæssig eller undergivet en lovbestemt eneret.
This method of interpretation sometimes gives rise to comments, findings ot conclusions with which it is not always easy to agree. Thus V. D. Degan writes: '2'Whilst the Court of Justice of the European Communities frequently employs such 'processes' of interpretation, the International Court of Justice never does so'.
I sag 67/74 i1) skulle Domstolen fortolke direktiv nr. 64/221 af 25. februar 1964 om foranstaltninger, som gælder for udlændinge, og som er begrundet i hen synet til den offentlige orden, sikkerhed og sundhed.
The explanation which he provides for this difference is a little difficult to follow: 'This marked difference in the practice of the two courts is perfectly understandable when one bears in mind that they are different in nature.
Spørgsmålet var, om direktivet — særligt artikel 3 — gav ret til at udvise en statsborger i en med lemsstat for at afskrække andre udlændinge fra at begå sådanne lignende eller tilsvarende strafbare handlinger, som den udviste var tiltalt for, eller andre overtrædelser af den offentlige sikkerhed og orden, dvs. en generalpræventiv udvisning.
The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is based on a special agreement between the parties to the dispute, unless they have agreed in advance to submit to the jurisdiction under Article 36 of the Statute of that Court. In either case, the States which ate parties to the dispute have brought the matter before the coutt of their own free will; the Court must always take formal note of this.
kan træffes til at imødegå sådanne trusler imod den offentlige orden og sikkerhed, som kan hidrøre fra den pågældende person.
has established a general principle ... the courts will apply only restrictive derogations from this general principle.
En udvisning kan altså ikke støttes på generalpræventive grunde (,1).
A study of the decisions of the Court reveals countless cases in which a sometimes strict, sometimes wide, interpretation is wholly justified.
EØF-traktatens artikel 90, stk. 2 bestemmer: »Virksomheder, der har fået overdraget at udføre tjenesteydelser af almindelig økonomisk interesse, eller som har karakter af fiskale monopoler, er underkastet denne traktats be stemmelser, navnlig konkurrencereglerne, i det omfang anvendelsen af disse bestemmelser ikke retligt eller faktisk hindrer opfyldelsen af de særlige op gaver, som er betroet dem.
Alain Fresia1refers in an interesting study to 'the enlargement' by the Court of Justice of the concept of discrimination and of its scope, 'the liberal interpretation by the Court', the fact that the Court of Justice has laid down that derogations from principle must be strictly interpreted, and, finally, to the fact that 'the Court has extended the caselaw on direct effect to the free movement of persons'.
En national ret havde i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 forespurgt Dom stolen, om en forening, der af sine medlemmer havde fået overdraget udøvelsen af deres ophavsrettigheder (virksomheden SABAM), var omfattet af dette udtryk (altså virksomhed, der har fået overdraget at udøve tjenesteydelser af almindelig økonomisk interesse).
The principle of non-discrimination is, indeed, wide but that was, essentially, the intention of the authors of the Treaty, the spirit of the Treaty, the effect of its provisions and even of a 'principle' which is of the essence of the Treaty.
Tjenestemandsvedtægten indeholder regler om løntillæg for personer, der har forsørgerpligter.
It is the Treaty which is liberal in the sense in which I understand it here.
En tjenestemand med børn vil normalt være omfattet af disse bestemmelser.
That constitutes its spirit and its raison d'être.
Efter vedtægten kan visse personer ligestilles med et barn, over for hvem der er forsørgerpligt; dette gælder f.eks. en fraskilt ægtefælle.
It is the spirit which the Court must reflect when required to ensure the application of the principle of non-discrimination, in particular when it provides an interpretation requested by the national courts.
I dom af 21. november 1974 (3) udtalte Domstolen, at det er vigtigt at fastslå, at ligestilling med et barn, over for hvem der er forsørgerpligt, har en ekstra ordinær karakter, der understreges af selve ordlyden i artikel 2, stk. 4 i ved tægtens bilag VII, som bestemmer, at ligestillingen kun sker undtagelsesvis og ved særlig begrundet afgørelse.
Indeed it is difficult to understand the relevance of the comment that 'the Court has extended its caselaw on the direct effect of the provisions of the Treaty to the field of non-discrimination'.
(2) Sag 127/73, Sml. 1974, s. 313.
Let, us now consider some of those judgments.
Efter at have understreget, at beslutningens tekst skal fortolkes i lyset af hvert sprogs version, antog Domstolen i dom af 12. november 1969 i1), at hvor det forholder sig som i denne sag »må den mindst byrdefulde fortolkning foretrækkes, hvis denne er tilstrækkelig til at opfylde de mål, den pågældende beslutning har for øje«.
Article 25 of the EEC Treaty enables the Council of Ministers to grant a Member State, in respect of imports of certain products from third countries, tariff, quotas at a reduced rate of duty or duty-free.
Uden tvivl står vi ikke her over for en ægte indskrænkende fortolkning, men tankegangen er den samme; jurister med den uddannelse, der gives dem, vil give enhver tekst, der kan krænke menneskets frihed eller værdighed en indskrænkende fortolkning, eller mere nøjagtigt, giver ikke bestemmelsen større rækkevidde end nødvendigt, for at den kan opfylde sit formål.
In its judgment of 4 July 1963 ' the Court of Justice held that this article must be interpreted restrictively ... because it contains derogations from the common external tatiff, which constitutes one of the 'foundations' of the Community.
I dom af 15. juli 1960 — sag 20/59, der angik EKSF-traktatens artikel 88 i for bindelse med spørgsmålet, om en medlemsstat havde undladt at opfylde en den påhvilende forpligtelse — antog Domstolen, at den i artikel 88 hjemlede procedure til sikring af, at stater opfylder deres forpligtelser, var langt videre gående end hidtil anerkendt i den klassiske folkeret, »hvorfor artikel 88 skal fortolkes snævert.«
The judgment of 21 June 1974:2this case had to settle whether the practice of the profession of 'avocat' by a national of a Member State but who was not a national of the State in which he was to practise, is covered by the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 55 of the EEC Treaty. As we know, this article provides as follows: 'The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply, so far as any given Member State is concerned, to activities which in that State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority...'.
Der kan ikke rejses alvorlige indvendinger mod grundlaget for dette ræsonnement og denne beslutning fra Domstolen.
The Court held: 'Having regard to the fundamental character of freedom of establishment and the rule of equal treatment with nationals in the system of the Treaty, the exceptions allowed by the first paragraph of Article 55 cannot be given a scope which would exceed the objective for which this exemption clause was inserted.
Nok har medlemsstaterne afgivet suverænitet, men kun i begrænset omfang.
The first paragraph of Article 55 must enable Member States to exclude non-nationals from taking up functions involving the exercise of official authority which are connected with one of the activities of self-employed persons provided for in Article 52.
Hvis Domstolen havde givet disse traktatbestemmelser om suverænitetsbegrænsning en udvidende fortolk ning, ville den være gået uden for sin opgave og i øvrigt have handlet klart retsstridigt.
This need is fully satisfied when the exclusion of nationals is limited to those activities which, taken on their own, constitute a direct and specific connexion with the exercise of official authority'.
Jeg skal igen citere fra generaladvokat Reischl's forslag til afgørelse i sag 63/75 : »Jeg er principielt af den opfattelse, at da artikel 4, stk. 2 i forordning nr. 17 er en undtagelsesbestemmelse, må den ikke fortolkes for vidt« (det vil erindres) at der er tale om forordning nr. 17 inden for konkurrenceretten.
The judgment states that the most typical activities of the profession of avocat such as consultation and legal assistance and also representation and the defence of parties in court, even when the intervention or assistance of the avocat is compulsory or is a legal monopoly, cannot be considered as connected with the exercise of official authority.
Forordningens artikel 4, stk. 1 bestemmer, at aftaler, vedtagelser og samordnet praksis osv. som er kommet i stand efter forordningens ikrafttræden, og med hensyn til
In its judgment of 26 February 1975 3the Court of Justice had to interpret Directive No 64/221 of the Council of 25 February 1964 on the coordination
) Sag 29/69, Ree. 1969, s. 419.
Case 24/62 [1963] ECR 63.
hvilke deltagerne agter at påberåbe sig bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, skal anmeldes til Kommissionen ... Stk. 2 bestemmer, at stk. 1 ikke gælder for aftaler, vedtagelser eller samordnet praksis, når . ..) i1).
The question was raised whether the directive, particularly Article 3 thereof, allows the deportation of a national of a Member State for the purpose of deterring other foreign nationals from committing such criminal offences as those with which the person deported was charged or similar offences or other infringements of public security or public policy, that is, for reasons of a general preventive nature.
Jeg skal slutte disse citater med at konstatere, at en indskrænkende fortolk ning ikke udelukker, at en bestemmelse, selv om den skal fortolkes ind skrænkende, skal tillægges hele det indhold, der følger af begrundelsen for og formålet med dens eksistens. Det samme gælder i strafferetten, der er karakteriseret af nødvendigheden af en indskrænkende fortolkning og under alle omstændigheder af et forbud mod analogi.
The Court of Justice replied in the negative: those provisions must be interpreted in the light of the objectives of the directive which "seeks in particular to coordinate the measures justified on grounds of public policy and for the maintenance of public security envisaged by Articles 48 and 56 of the Treaty, in order to reconcile the application of those measures with the basic principle of the free movement of persons within the Community and the elimination of all discrimination ...'.
Det netop anførte er ikke uden forbindelse med Domstolens afgørelse i sag 25/62 (2). Domstolen skulle afgøre, om en beslutning rettet til en medlemsstat skulle betragtes som en sådan beslutning rettet til »en anden person« i den i EØF-traktatens artikel 173, stk. 2 anførte betydning, som umiddelbart og individuelt kan berøre en af de fysiske eller juridiske personer, der omhandles i nævnte stk. 2.
The Court continued: 'Article 3 of the directive provides that measures adopted on grounds of public policy and for the maintenance of public security against the nationals of Member States of the Community cannot be justified on grounds extraneous to the individual case, as is shown in particular by the requirements set out in paragraph (1) that "only" the "personal conduct" of those affected by the measures is to be regarded as determinative'.
Domstolen antog først, at den førnævnte bestemmelses ordlyd og grammatiske betydning berettiger den bredest mulige fortolkning og dernæst, at »i øvrigt kan de bestemmelser i traktaten, som vedrører borgernes søgsmålsret, ikke fortolkes indskrænkende; følgelig kan man ikke, når traktaten er tavs ved rørende dette punkt, formode at der har været ønsket en begrænsning i denne henseende«.
The Court deduced from the foregoing that, as departures from the rules concerning the free movement of persons constitute exceptions which must be strictly construed, the concept of 'personal conduct' expresses the requirement that a deportation order may only be made for threatened breaches of the peace and public security which might be committed by the individual affected. A deportation order may not, therefore, be based on considerations of a general preventive nature. '
Det er ganske vist ubestrideligt, at forfatterne til EØF-traktatens artikel 173 har villet begrænse de i denne bestemmelses artikel 2 omhandlede personers mulighed for at anlægge sager ved Domstolen, hvorved lovligheden af rets akter fra Rådet eller Kommissionen bestrides, hvorfor de altså har indført en begrænset søgsmålsret. Dette er dog ikke til hinder for, at artikel 173, stk. 2 skal gives den fulde rækkevidde, som følger af selve bestemmelsen.
Article 90 (2) of the EEC Treaty provides that: 'Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them.
skal betragtes som en social fordel i den i artikel 7, stk. 2 i forordning nr. 1612/68 forudsatte betydning ... og i bekræftende fald, om dette også er tilfældet for ydelser efter arbejdstagerens død.
That is not the position in the case of an undertaking to which the State has not assigned any task and which manages private interests, including intellectual property rights protected by law'.
I dommen af 30. september 1975 svarede Domstolen bekræftende på disse spørgsmål.
The Staff Regulations treat certain persons, such as a divorced wife, as, a dependent child.
Det var blevet gjort gældende, at de i den omhandlede fællesskabsforordning hjemlede fordele udelukkende var sådanne, som er uadskilligt forbundet med status som arbejdstager, fordi de knytter sig til selve arbejdskontrakten.
In its judgment of 21 November 1974 - the Court held that it is necessary to bear in mind that treatment as a dependent child has an exceptional character which is emphasized by the very text of Article 2 (4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations which provides that this can only be done exceptionally and by special reasoned decision.
Domstolen antog: »selv om visse bestemmelser i denne artikel vedrører for hold, som udspringer af en arbejdskontrakt, indeholder den andre bestemmelser, som ikke vedrører sådanne forhold; det følger heraf, at på baggrund af den ligebehandling, der tilstræbes med denne bestemmelse, skal det saglige anvendelsesområde afgrænses således, at det omfatter alle sociale og skattemæssige fordele, uanset om disse, som f.eks. rabat på transportpriser for store familier, ikke er knyttet til en beskæftigelseskontrakt.«
Article 4 of this decision, which was addressed to the Member States, was drafted differently in the various languages of the European Communities. The Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgatt asked whether Article 4 of the decision of the Commission, making the sale of butter at a reduced price to beneficiaries under certain welfare schemes subject to the condition that the name of the beneficiaries shall be divulged to retailers, can be considered compatible with the general principles of Community law in force.
Her er utvivlsomt tale om en udvidende fortolkning, der dog er tilvejebragt ud fra den til fortolkning stående forordning betragtet i sin helhed.
After emphasizing that the wording of the decision must be interpreted in the light of the versions in all four languages, the Court, in its judgment of 12 November 19693held that: 'In a case like the present one, the most
Den fælles ydre tarif er et af Fællesskabets grundlag.
Case 6/74 [1974] ECR 1287. Case 29/69 [1969] ECR 419.
Tilsvarende betragtninger kan anføres hvad angår de ovenfor anførte for tolkninger fra Domstolen vedrørende konkurrencereglerne og sager anlagt af tjenestemænd.
liberal interpretation must prevail, provided that it is sufficient to achieve the objectives pursued by the decision in question'.
3) Fortolkning ud fra helheden, bestemmelsernes karakter og genstand, formål og sigte ordning, kon a) Helheden, reglernes karakter, den indeholdte teksten
No doubt this does not really constitute a restrictive interpretation but it is a similar process; lawyers of our background confer a strict interpretation on any provision which is capable of adversely affecting human liberty or dignity, more precisely they only confer upon it the scope which is indispensable for attaining its objective.
Dommen af 25. juni 1975 (*) fremhæver det nødvendige i, at en fællesskabs retlig ordning betragtes i sin helhed, og at det undersøges, »hvordan den er opbygget«. Det drejede sig i denne dom om fortolkning af forordning nr. 3 om vandrende arbejdstagere.
The Court held, in its judgment of 15 July 1960 in Case 20/59, commenting on Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty — which relates to the recording of the failure of a State to fulfil an obligation, that this constitutes a procedure far exceeding the rules previously acknowledged in classical international law in order to ensure that States fulfil their obligations and that 'Article 88 must therefore be interpreted strictly'.
Domstolen skulle afgøre, hvorledes det forholdt sig med Kommissionens ret, særligt omfanget af denne ret, men også pligt til at anvende en forordning fra Rådet, altså afgøre om en kommissionsforordning var »gyldig«.
It is impossible seriously to dispute that this line of reasoning and the decision of the Court are well founded. The Member States have indeed alienated their sovereignty but only to a limited extent.
I dom af 18. marts 1975 (2) antog Domstolen, at »set i sammenhæng med den ordning, som ophævelsen af præmieforhøjelsen er et led i, forfølger denne foranstaltning helt åbenbart det mål at imødegå de i Rådets forordning omhandlede markedsforstyrrelser ... «.
If the Court of Justice were to interpret widely the provisions of the Treaty establishing those alienations of sovereignty it would exceed its task and moreover clearly infringe the law.