natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Nogle dage før Landgericht Koblenz afsagde afgørelse af 17. november 1998 havde Italian Leather fremsat begæring om foreløbige retsmidler for retten i Bari. I sin kendelse af 28. december 1998 bedømte retten i Bari betingelsen om uopsættelighed anderledes og udtalte i den forbindelse, at »[ujopsætteligheden (periculum in mora) skal ses i lyset af rekvisiti økonomiske tab og den dermed forbundne mulighed for, at retten »dør«, for hvilken der ikke kan ydes erstatning.«
Preliminary ruling (Directive 831189IEEC — Procedure for the provision ofinformation in the field of technical standards and regulations — Obligation to communicate draft technical regulations — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Waste — Obligation to make notification of planned measures — National regulations on disposal of packaging waste — Obligation on producers or importers to identify packaging to be disposed of by an approved undertaking — Obligation on the approved undertaking to ensure that packaging for which it is responsible meets technical requirements) (Fifth Chamber) subscribed to a system for the disposal of waste operated by Eco-Emballages.
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, for det første om Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 27, nr. 3, skal fortolkes således, at en udenlandsk afgørelse om foreløbige retsmidler, hvorved rekvisitus pålægges en forpligtelse til at undlade at foretage bestemte handlinger, er uforenelig med en afgørelse om foreløbige retsmidler -hvorved et sådant retsmiddel er blevet afslået, og som er truffet i fuldbyrdelsesstaten vedrørende de samme parter selv om de forskellige
By judgment of 18 April 2000, received at the Court on 28 April 2000, the French Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC three questions on the interpretation of Articles 1 and 10 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988, Article 3(2) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).
retsvirkninger af afgørelserne skyldes forskelle i de processuelle betingelser, som i national ret gælder for, at et forbud kan nedlægges i henholdsvis domsstaten og fuldbyrdelsesstaten.
Eco-Emballages is a company incorporated under private law in 1992.
I bekræftende fald ønsker den forelæggende ret for det andet oplyst, om retten i fuldbyrdelsesstaten skal afslå at anerkende den udenlandske afgørelse, eller om konventionen tillader, at retten kun afslår at anerkende afgørelsen, hvis den finder, at retstilstanden i den stat, som begæringen rettes til, faktisk og tilstrækkeligt tungtvejende bliver forstyrret som følge af, at der samtidig består to modstridende afgørelser.
Its object is, inter alia, the organisation of systems for disposal of waste and recovery of materials and, in particular, the collection of packaging from undertakings which are subject to the obligations laid down in Law No 75-633 of 15 July 1975 relating to the disposal of waste and the recovery of materials, as amended, and its implementing decrees.
WECO indbragte denne kendelse for Oberlandesgericht, som ændrede eksekvaturkendelsen, idet den fandt, at den af retten i Bari afsagte kendelse var uforenelig, i Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 27, nr. 3's forstand, med Landgericht Koblenz' afgørelse af 17. november 1998, ved hvilken Landgericht Koblenz havde afvist Italian Leathers begæring om at forbyde WECO at anvende mærket LongLife i markedsføringen af sine læderprodukter.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Sapod Audic ('Sapod') and Eco-Emballages SA ('Eco-Emballages') concerning payment of a fee claimed by Eco-Emballages from Sapod under a contract by which, in order to comply with certain legal obligations, Sapod
Det skal indledningsvis bemærkes, at Domstolen tager udgangspunkt i, at retten i Bari er den ret, som har kompetence til at påkende sagens realitet, og at Landgericht Koblenz ikke ved afgørelsen af 17. november 1998 har overskredet
By joint ministerial decision of 12 November 1992, Eco-Emballages was granted the approval provided for in Article 6 of Decree No 92377 to organise the collection and recovery of waste resulting from the discarding of used packaging from products intended for household consumption or use, in respect of which
stater, og som gælder for, hvordan sådanne afgørelser kan træffes.
Preliminary observations producers or importers entered into contracts with Eco-Emballages.
Det må herefter konstateres, at afgørelser om foreløbige retsmidler som dem, der er genstand for hovedsagen, er uforenelige.
Sapod is a French undertaking which markets poultry packaged in plastic wrappings.
grænserne for sin kompetence i medfør af konventionens artikel 24, således som disse grænser er fortolket af Domstolen (jf. dom af 17.11.1998, sag C-391/95, Van Uden, præmis 3747. og af 27.4.1999, sag C-99/96, Mietz, præmis 42, 46 og 47).
By its first and second questions, the national court is seeking an interpretation of Directive 83/189 in the version in force both before and after the entry into force of Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time Directive 83/189/EEC.
Retten i Bari har imødekommet den begæring, som Italian Leather har indgivet mod WECO, hvorefter der over for WECO skulle nedlægges forbud mod at anvende mærket LongLife i forbindelse med afsætning af WECO's læderprodukter, efter al Landgericht Koblenz havde afslået en identisk begæring indgivet af samme rekvirent mod samme rekvisitus.
On 19 September 1993, Sapod entered into a contract with Eco-Emballages on Eco-Emballages's standard terms. Under that contract Sapod stated that, in order to satisfy certain legal obligations imposed on it by Decree No 92377, it subscribed to the system for the disposal of waste operated by Eco-Emballages.
Det fremgår for det første af Domstolens praksis, at for at afgøre, om der består en uforenelighed i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 3's forstand, skal det undersøges, om retsafgørelserne har retsvirkninger, som gensidigt udelukker hinanden (dom af 4.2.1988, sag 145/86, Hoffmann, præmis 22).
Under that contract, Eco-Emballages granted to Sapod a non-exclusive licence to use a logo (the 'Green Dot logo') which was to be affixed to the packaging of Sapod products in accordance with the detailed rules set out in an annex to the contract.
For så vidt angår anden del af første spørgsmål, der vedrører virkningerne af uforeneligheden mellem en udenlandsk retsafgørelse og en retsafgørelse truffet af en ret i fuldbyrdelsesstaten, bemærkes indledningsvis, som det udtales i Jenard-rapporten vedrørende Bruxelles-konventionen, at »[retstilstanden i en stat ville blive alvorligt forstyrret, såfremt man kunne påberåbe sig to modstridende domme«.
In that regard, it must be observed, first, that, if the relevant provisions of Decree No 92377 constitute technical regulations, the drafts of those regulations should have been notified to the Commission pursuant to Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 88/182 and, second, that the amendments effected by Directive 94/10 to the provisions relevant to this case are material amendments and do not merely clarify the teims which appeal in Directive 83/189 (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-33/97 Colim [1999], paragraphs 25 and 26, and Case C-314/98 Snellers [2000], paragraphs 31 to 33).
Følgelig er afgørelser om foreløbige retsmidler omfattet af konventionens regler om uforenelighed på samme måde som de øvrige former for retsafgørelser, som er omhandlet i artikel 25.
It then ceased to pay the fee and on 30 September 1996, the contract having been renewed, it owed an amount of FRF 60 791.
Endvidere skal det fremhæves, at det bestemmes i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 3, at en retsafgørelse ikke kan anerkendes, såfremt afgørelsen er uforenelig med en afgørelse mellem de samme parter truffet i den stat, som begæringen rettes til.
In those circumstances the national court's questions must be considered in the light of Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 88/182, but without reference to Directive 94/10.
Det er for det tredje ligeledes uden betydning, at de regler, som finder anvendelse i forbindelse med nationale procedurer om foreløbige retsmidler, i højere grad kan være forskellige fra den ene kontraherende stat til den anden end de regler, der finder anvendelse på realitetsbehandling af retssager.
Eco-Emballages then brought summary proceedings against Sapod before the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris (Commercial Court, Paris) (France) which, by order of 14 February 1997, ordered Sapod to pay to Eco-Emballages, on a provisional basis, the amount stated in the previous paragraph, plus interest at the statutory rate.
Den grund til at nægte anerkendelse af retsafgørelser, som er omhandlet i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 3, er således af bindende karakter i modsætning til, hvad der er tilfældet for så vidt angår artikel 28, stk. 2, i konventionen om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, indgået i Lugano den 16. september 1988, hvorefter en retsafgørelse kan nægtes anerkendt, hvis der foreligger tilfælde, som omfattes af Lugano-konventionens artikel 54b, stk. 3, eller artikel 57, stk. 4.
Second, as regards the first and second questions, it should be pointed out that it is apparent from the order for reference that the provisions of Decree No 92377, in respect of which the national court is asking whether Directive 83/189 applies are the second paragraph of Article 4 -in so far as it imposes an obligation on the producer to identify the packaging which he arranges to be collected for disposal by an approved body or undertaking — and the fourth paragraph of Article 6 — in so far as it imposes an obligation on that approved body or undertaking to ensure that the used packaging complies with certain technical requirements.
Konventionen har nemlig ikke til formål at gøre de processuelle regler i de forskellige kontraherende stater ensartede, men at give regler for fordelingen af retternes kompetence i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, i retsforhold inden for Fællesskabet, og at lette fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser (jf. dom af 15.5.1990, sag C-365/88, Hagen, præmis 17, og af 7.3.1995, sag C-68/93, Sheviìl m.fl., præmis 35).
In those appeal proceedings, Sapod claimed, inter alia, that Decree No 92377 was a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 83/189 which had not been notified to the Commission and which could not therefore be relied upon against third parties, and that the obligation to belong to an approved system of the kind operated by Eco-Emballages was a measure having equivalent effect which was incompatible with Article 30 of the Treaty.
Endelig ville det være i modstrid med princippet om varetagelse af hensynet til retssikkerheden, som Domstolen gentagne gange har fastslået er et af Bruxelleskonventionens formal (jf. dom af 4.3.1982, sag 38/81, Effer, præmis 6, af 28.9.1999, sag C-440/97, GIE Groupe Concorde m.fl., præmis 23, og af 19.2.2002, sag C-256/00, Besix, præmis 24), at fortolke artikel 27, nr. 3, på en
By its first question, the national court is essentially asking whether provisions of national law such as the second paragraph of Article 4, and the fourth paragraph of Article 6, of Decree No 92377 constitute technical regulations within the meaning of Directive 83/189, in particular inasmuch as they permit producers not to use an approved system for the disposal of their used
Desuden angår uforeneligheden, som det følger af præmis 22 i Hoffmann-dommen, retsvirkningerne af retsafgørelser, men derimod ikke betingelserne for antagelse til realitetsbehandling og processuelle regler, som eventuelt kan variere mellem de kontraherende
Sapod appealed against the judgment of the Cour d'appel de Paris, and the Cour de Cassation decided to stay the proceedings and refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
sådan måde, at retten i fuldbyrdelsesstaten skulle have mulighed for at anerkende en udenlandsk retsafgørelse, selv om den er uforenelig med en retsafgørelse truffet i fuldbvrdelsesstaten.
The national court's specific question whether the fact that producers are not obliged to comply with the obligations contained in those national provisions if they decide to arrange for themselves the disposal of their waste has a bearing on their classification as 'compulsory' within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Directive 83/189, must be answered in the negative.
Hvis retten i fuldbyrdelsesstaten finder, at en retsafgørelse truffet af en ret i en anden kontraherende stat er uforenelig med en retsafgørelse, der er truffet mellem de samme parter af en ret i fuldbyrdelsesstaten, skal retten afslå at anerkende den udenlandske afgørelse.*
In that regard, it should be observed that, in the light of the wording and the context of the second paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92377, as well as the documents before the Court, that article does not in itself seem to require the placing of a sign on the product or its packaging for the purposes of the identification of the packaging for which it provides.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 21. februar 2002.
In such an event, it would have to be held that that provision is in fact a technical specification within the meaning of Directive 83/189 and, consequently, that, since the obligation is imposed by deciee in the case of maiketing of packaged products throughout the national territory, that provision constitutes a technical regulation.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
In addition, having regaid
Sag C-159/00 Sapod Audic / Eco-Emballages SA Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
to the aim of Directive 83/189, namely the protection of free movement of goods by means of preventive control (see, in particulai, Case C194/94 CIA Security International [1996], paragraphs 40 and 48), such a control, implemented in accordance with the procedure prescribed by that diiective, would be both appropriate and possible.
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 83/189/EØF informationsprocedure med hensyn til tekniske standarder og forskrifter forpligtelse til at underrette om udkast til tekniske forskrifter direktiv 75/442/EØF og 91/156/EØF affald forpligtelse til at undeirette om de påtænkte foranstaltninger nationale bestemmelser om bortskaffelse af emballageaffald forpligtelse for producenter og importører til at identificere den emballage, som skal aftages af en godkendt virksomhed forpligtelse for den godkendte virksomhed til at sikre, at emballagen opfylder de tekniske forskrifter* (Femte Afdeling) virksomheder, som er undergivet de forpligtelser, der følger af lov nr. 75-633 af 15. juli 1975 om bortskaffelse af affald og genindvinding af materialer, med senere ændringer, og af lovens gennemførelsesdekreter.
Second, as regaids the question whether the fourth paragraph of Article 6 of Decree No 92377 can be classified as a technical specification within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 83/189 it follows from the wording of that provision as well as from the other documents before the Court, in particular the replies to a written question from the Court, that the obligation under that provision is imposed on the approved bodies and undertakings responsible for collecting the packaging waste and lays down the minimum technical requirements which packaging waste must meet in order to be admitted to the waste treatment processes.
Ved dom af 18. april 2000, indgået til Domstolen den 28. april 2000, har Cour de cassation i medfør af artikel 234 EF forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 1 og 10 i Rådets direktiv 83/189/EØF af 28. marts 1983 om en informationsprocedure med hensyn til tekniske standarder og forskrifter, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 88/182/EØF af 22. marts 1988. og af artikel 3. stk. 2, i Rådets direktiv 75/442/EØF af 15. juli 1975 om affald, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991, samt af EF-traktatens artikel 30 (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF).
First, in the event that a provision of national law such as the second paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92377 were to be regarded as a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 83/189, the national court is essentially asking whether, under Article 10 of that directive, that provision is nevertheless not required to be notified to the Commission under Article 8 of that directive on the ground that, by adopting it, the Member State concerned has discharged an obligation under a Community directive or regulation, in particular, under Directive 75/442.
Ved fællesministeriel bekendtgørelse af 12. november 1992 opnåede Eco-Emballages den i artikel 6 i dekret nr. 92377 nævnte godkendelse til at aftage brugt emballageaffald fra produkter bestemt til forbrug eller anvendelse i husholdninger, som producenter eller importører har indgået en kontrakt med Eco-Emballages om.
The documents before the Court do not contain anything to show that the fourth paragraph of Article 6 of Decree No 92377 can be interpreted as imposing an obligation on producers and importers of products marketed in packaging to ensure that the packaging meets specific technical requirements.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst i forbindelse med en tvist mellem selskabet Sapod Audic (herefter »Sapod«) og selskabet Eco-Emballages SA (herefter »Eco-Emballages«) vedrørende et beløb, som Eco-Emballages har afkrævet Sapod i henhold til en kontrakt, hvorved Sapod med henblik på at opfylde visse retlige forpligtelser har erklæret at tiltræde den af Eco-Emballages oprettede ordning for bortskaffelse af affald.
Accordingly, that provision differs from the regulations which, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, can be applied to producers of products marketed in packaging (see, in particular, Case C-226/97 Lemmens [1998], paragraph 34).
Eco-Emballages er et privatretligt selskab, som blev oprettet i 1992.
It is appropriate to examine those directives consecutively.
Selskabet har bl.a. til formål at oprette ordninger med henblik på bortskaffelse af affald og videreudnyttelse af materialer, samt mere specifikt, at aftage emballage fra
The answer to the first part of the second question, in so far as it concerns Directive 83/189, must be that Article 10 of that directive is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a
og af 12.10.2000, sag C-314/98. Snellers, præmis 31-33).
may be invoked in legal proceedings between individuals concerning, inter alia, contractual rights and duties (see Unilever, paragraph 49).
Under disse omstændigheder skal spørgsmålene gennemgås i lyset af direktiv 83/189. som ændret ved direktiv 88/182. uden at tage hensyn til direktiv 94/10.
— Enforceability of technical regulations not notified to the Commission
Eco-Emballages indstævnede derfor Sapod for tribunal de commerce de Paris (Frankrig), som ved kendelse af 14. februar 1997 pålagde Sapod midlertidigt at betale det beløb, som er anført i foregående præmis, med renter efter loven, til Eco-Emballages. Cour d'appel de Paris stadfæstede denne afgørelse ved dom af 23. januar 1998.
Accordingly, if the national court were to interpret the second paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92377 as establishing an obligation to apply a mark or label and, hence, as constituting a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 83/189, it would be incumbent on that court to refuse to apply that provision in the main proceedings.
Dernæst skal det, for så vidt angår det første og andet spørgsmål, understreges, at det fremgår af forelæggelsesdommens præmisser, at den forelæggende ret er i tvivl om, hvorvidt direktiv 83/189 finder anvendelse på følgende bestemmelser i dekret nr. 92-377, nemlig artikel 4, stk. 2 — for så vidt som den indebærer en forpligtelse for producenten til at identificere den emballage, som skal aftages af et godkendt organ eller af en godkendt virksomhed med henblik på bortskaffelse — og artikel 6, stk. 4 — for så vidt som den indebærer en forpligtelse for det nævnte godkendte organ eller den nævnte godkendte virksomhed til at sikre, at den brugte emballage opfylder de tekniske forskrifter.
Second, if a provision of national law such as the second paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92377 must be regarded as a technical regulation which, contrary to the rules laid down in Directive 83/189, was not notified to the Commission and, taking account of the fact that, in that case, as observed above, that provision would not be exempted from the notification requirement under Article 10 of that directive, the national court asks whether the failure to make the notification required under that directive can be invoked by an individual in a case such as that in the main proceedings in order to have that provision declared unenforceable.
Sapod gjorde i forbindelse med denne procedure bl.a. gældende dels, al dekret nr. 92377 er en teknisk forskrift i henhold til direktiv 83/189, som ikke er blevet meddelt Kommissionen, hvorfor den ikke kan gøres gældende over for tredjemand, dels at forpligtelsen til at tilslutte sig en godkendt ordning, som den Eco-Emballages har indført, er en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning, som er uforenelig med traktatens artikel 30.
It should, however, be observed that the question of the conclusions to be drawn in the main proceedings from the inapplicability of the second paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92377 as regards the severity of the sanction under the applicable national law, such as nullity or unenforceability of the contract between Sapod and Eco-Emballages, is a question governed by national law, in particular as regards the rules and principles of contract law which limit oi adjust that sanction in oidei to rendei its severity proportionate to the particular defect found.
Sapod appellerede cour d'appel de Paris' dom, og Cour de cassation har besluttet at forelægge Domstolen tre præjudicielle spørgsmål.
According to Sapod, it follows from, in particular, CIA Security International, that it is foi the national court to refuse to apply a technical regulation which was not notified to the Commission in accoidance with Directive 83/189.
Med sit første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om nationale bestemmelser, såsom artikel 4, stk. 2, og artikel 6, stk. 4, i dekret nr. 92-377, udgør tekniske forskrifter i direktiv 83/189's forstand, for så vidt som disse bestemmelser bl.a. giver producenterne mulighed for ikke at anvende en godkendt ordning for bortskaffelse af deres brugte emballage, som den Eco-Emballages har oprettet, såfremt producenterne selv sørger for bortskaffelse af deres emballageaffald.
The Commission submits that the national court's question has no purpose since the answer to the first question must be that the national regulations at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as technical regulations.
Indledningsvis bemærkes for det første, at den forelæggende ret med sit første og andet spørgsmål ønsker en fortolkning af direktiv 83/189 i den affattelse, som var gældende såvel før som efter ikrafttrædelsen af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 94/10/EF af 23. marts 1994 om anden væsentlige ændring af direktiv 83/189.
In that regard, it should be observed, first, that according to settled case-law Directive 83/189 must be interpreted as meaning that a failure to observe the obligation to notify laid down in Article 8 of that directive constitutes a substantial procedural defect such as to render the technical regulations in question inapplicable and thus unenforceable against individuals (see, in particular, CIA Security International, paragraphs 48 and 54, and Lemmens, paragraph 33).