natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Idet Domstolen herefter udtalte sig om den konkrete anvendelse af forældelsesfristen, konkluderede den, at fællesskabsretten ikke kræver, at forældelsesfristen afbrydes eller suspenderes, når Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber har indledt en traktatbrudsprocedure i®medfør af artikel®226 EF.
In this instance, the enlargements which took place in 1995 and 2004 made it necessary to draw up a new schedule, including the 13 new Member States which until then had had their own schedules of commitments in relation to GATS.
Hvad endelig angår den adfærd, den skadelidte skal udvise, fastslog Domstolen, at det var foreneligt med fællesskabsretten at anvende en national lovgivning, hvorefter en borger ikke kan opnå erstatning for et tab, som han forsætligt eller uagtsomt har undladt at afværge ved hjælp af et retsmiddel, hvis det er rimeligt at kræve, at skadelidte anvender det omhandlede retsmiddel, hvilket det tilkommer den forelæggende ret at vurdere.
It therefore considered the Community’s competence to conclude the agreements at issue and the possible legal bases for such a conclusion, the two questions being inextricably linked. Having analysed Article 133(1), (5) and (6)°EC, the Court came to the conclusion that the agreements with the a¥ected WTO members fall within the sphere of shared competence of the European Community and the Member States.
En sandsynlighed for, at den nationale ret forelægger en anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse i®medfør af artikel®226 EF, eller et verserende traktatbrudssøgsmål for Domstolen er ikke i®sig selv en tilstrækkelig begrundelse for at fastslå, at det ikke er rimeligt at kræve anvendelse af et retsmiddel.
With regard to the appropriate legal basis, it stated that the ‘transport’ aspect of the agreements at issue falls, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 133(6)°EC, within the sphere of transport policy and not that of the common commercial policy.
Hvad angår retten vedrørende Fællesskabets eksterne relationer fortjener en udtalelse og tre sager at blive fremhævet.
Finally, the Court’s analysis led it to conclude that the Community act concluding the abovementioned agreements must be based both on Article 133(1), (5) and (6), second subparagraph, EC and on Articles 71°EC and 80(2)°EC, in conjunction with Article 300(2) and (3), ¤rst subparagraph, EC.
I®udtalelse 1/08 af 30. november 2009 udtalte Domstolen sig på Kommissionens begæring i®hen-hold til artikel®300, stk.®6, EF, om spørgsmålene, dels hvorvidt Det Europæiske Fællesskab råder over en enekompetence eller alene en delt kompetence med medlemsstaterne, når der med visse medlemmer af Verdenshandelsorganisationen (WTO) indgås aftaler, der har til formål at ændre listerne over Fællesskabets og dets medlemsstaters særlige forpligtelser i®henhold til den almindelige overenskomst om handel med tjenesteydelser (GATS-aftalen), dels om, hvilket retsgrundlag der skal anvendes, når disse aftaler indgås.
In Case C-205/06 Commission v Austria and Case C-249/06 Commission v Sweden (judgments of 3 March 2009) the Court held, in infringement proceedings brought by the Commission, that, by not having taken appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities between their obligations under Community law and provisions on transfer of capital contained in investment agreements entered into with certain third countries, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Austria had failed to ful¤l their obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307°EC. In the cases in point, the various investment agreements at issue contained provisions guaranteeing the free transfer,
Udviklingen og arbejdet
Proceedings in freely convertible currency, of payments connected with an investment.
I®det foreliggende tilfælde havde udvidelserne i®1995 og 2004 gjort det nødvendigt at udarbejde en ny konsolideret liste, der inkluderede de 13 nye medlemsstater, der indtil da havde deres egen liste over forpligtelser inden for rammerne af GATS-aftalen.
To that extent, those agreements were consistent with the wording of Article 56(1)°EC which prohibits any restriction on the movement of capital and of payments between Member States and between Member States and third countries.
Med henblik på at fusionere listen over forpligtelser for de 13 nye medlemsstater med Fællesskabets og medlemsstaternes aktuelle liste anmeldte Kommissionen den 28. maj 2004 listen over ændringer og tilbagekaldelser af forpligtelser.
However, the provisions of Articles 57(2)°EC, 59°EC and 60(1)°EC confer on the Council power to restrict, in certain speci¤c circumstances, movements of capital and payments between Member States and third countries.
I®henhold til GATS-aftalens artikel®XXI®indebar disse ændringer, som var blevet foretaget i®li-sterne over forpligtelser, dog krav om kompensation til de WTO-medlemmer, som var påvirkede af de forskellige tilpasninger af listerne som følge af fusionen.
The Court ¤rst of all observed that, in order to ensure the e¥ectiveness of those provisions, measures restricting the free movement of capital must be capable, where adopted by the Council, of being applied immediately with regard to the States to which they relate, which may include some of the States party to one of the agreements at issue with the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Austria.
Domstolen påpegede indledningsvis, at valget af rette hjemmel har forfatningsretlig betydning. Da Fællesskabet kun har de kompetencer, det er blevet tildelt, skal det kunne henføre den aftale, det har til hensigt at indgå, under en bestemmelse i®traktaten, der bemyndiger det til at godkende en sådan retsakt.
Those powers of the Council, which consist in the unilateral adoption of restrictive measures with regard to third countries on a matter which is identical to or connected with that covered by an earlier agreement concluded between a Member State and a third country, reveal an incompatibility with that agreement where, ¤rst, the agreement does not contain a provision allowing the Member State concerned to exercise its rights and to ful¤l its obligations as a member of the Community and, second, there is also no international law mechanism which makes that possible.
Domstolen undersøgte derfor Fællesskabets kompetence til at indgå de omhandlede aftaler og det påtænkte retsgrundlag for indgåelsen, idet disse to spørgsmål var uadskilleligt forbundet.
The Court stated, moreover, that the periods of time necessarily involved in any international negotiations which would be required in order to reopen discussion of the agreements at issue were inherently incompatible with the practical e¥ectiveness of those measures.
Efter at have analyseret artikel®133, stk.®1, 5 og 6, EF nåede Domstolen frem til den konklusion, at aftaler med de WTO-medlemmer, som var påvirkede, henhører under den mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og medlemsstaterne delte kompetence.
The possibility of relying on other mechanisms o¥ered by international law, such as suspension of the agreement, or even denunciation of the agreements at issue or of some of their provisions, was too uncertain in its e¥ects to guarantee that the measures adopted by the Council could be applied e¥ectively.
Hvad angår retsgrundlaget præciserede Domstolen, at det af de omhandlede aftaler omfattede afsnit »transport« i®henhold til artikel®133, stk.®6, tredje afsnit, EF henhører under området for transportpolitikken og ikke under området for den fælles handelspolitik.
In Case C-228/06 Soysal and Savatli (judgment of 19 February 2009) the Court ruled on the ‘stand-still’ clause provided for in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EEC–Turkey Association
I®de foreliggende sager indeholdt de forskellige pågældende investeringsaftaler bestemmelser, som sikrer fri®over-førsel af betalinger i®fri®omsættelig kapital forbundet med en investering.
), according to which the contracting parties are to refrain from introducing between themselves any new restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services as from the date of entry into force of the protocol.
Disse aftaler var således i®overensstemmelse med artikel®56, stk.®1, EF, som forbyder alle restriktioner for kapitalbevægelser og betalinger mellem medlemsstaterne indbyrdes og mellem medlemsstaterne og tredjelande.
The case concerned two Turkish nationals wishing to make use in the territory of a Member State of the right to freedom to provide services under the Association Agreement.
Imidlertid giver artikel®57, stk.®2, EF, artikel®59 EF og 60, stk.®1, EF Rådet beføjelser til i®visse bestemte tilfælde at begrænse kapital- og betalingsbevægelser mellem medlemsstaterne og tredjestater.
The Court observed, ¤rst of all, that that provision, which is laid down clearly, precisely and unconditionally, has direct e¥ect.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at for at sikre de nævnte bestemmelsers e©ektive virkning er det nødvendigt, at foranstaltninger om begrænsning af de frie kapitalbevægelser, såfremt Rådet vedtager dem, straks kan anvendes i®forhold til de stater, de vedrører, og som kan være en af de stater, der har indgået en af de omtvistede aftaler med Kongeriget Sverige og Republikken Østrig.
It went on to interpret the provision in question as prohibiting the introduction, as from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol to the EEC–Turkey Association Agreement in the Member State concerned, of a requirement that Turkish nationals must have a visa to enter the territory of a Member State in order to provide services there on behalf of an undertaking established in Turkey, since, on that date, such a visa was not required.
Rådets beføjelser til ensidigt at vedtage restriktive foranstaltninger over for tredjestater inden for et område, som svarer til eller er forbundet med det, der er reguleret ved en tidligere aftale indgået mellem en medlemsstat og en tredjestat, afslører en uforenelighed med nævnte aftale, dels når denne ikke indeholder bestemmelser, der giver den pågældende medlemsstat mulighed for at udøve sine rettigheder og opfylde sine forpligtelser som medlem af Fællesskabet, og dels når heller ingen folkeretlig mekanisme tillader det.
According to the Court, that conclusion cannot be called into question by the fact that the restriction arises from national legislation implementing a provision of secondary Community legislation, in view of the primacy of international agreements concluded by the Community over secondary Community legislation.
Domstolen fastslog desuden, at de frister, der er forbundet med alle internationale forhandlinger, og som er nødvendige for at genforhandle de pågældende aftaler, er uforenelige med disse foranstaltningers e©ektive virkning.
Case C-544/07 Rüer (judgment of 23 April 2009) is a good example of the application of European Union citizens’ right of movement and right to reside.
Muligheden for at anvende andre midler i®henhold til folkeretten, såsom ophævelse af aftalen, eller eventuelt opsigelse af de pågældende aftaler eller af visse af deres bestemmelser, har for usikker en virkning til at sikre, at Rådets foranstaltninger kan anvendes e©ektivt.
) Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and con¤rmed on be- half of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1977 L°361, p.°60).
I®sagen Soysal og Savatli®(dom af 19.2.2009, sag®C-228/06) tog Domstolen stilling til den »standstill«-klausul, som er fastsat i®artikel®41, stk.®1, i®tillægsprotokollen til associeringsaftalen
Mr Rü¶er, a German worker who took up residence in Poland on his retirement, received two pensions which were paid in Germany, one of which was taxed in Germany and the other in Poland.
I®den foreliggende sag®drejede det sig om to tyrkiske statsborgere, som på en medlemsstats område i®medfør af associeringsaftalen ønskede at gøre brug af retten til fri®udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
Unlike the applicant and the national court, whose arguments were founded on Articles 12°EC and 39°EC, the Court began by ruling out the application of Article 39°EC since it relates only to workers in active employment or in search of employment.
Domstolen bemærkede for det første, at denne bestemmelse har direkte virkning, hvilket var klart, præcist og ubetinget fastsat.
Nevertheless, Mr Rü¶er could rely on his status as a citizen of the Union, and thus on the right conferred on him by Article 18°EC to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
Herefter fortolkede Domstolen den omhandlede bestemmelse således, at den forbød, at der for tyrkiske statsborgere efter ikrafttrædelsen af tillægsprotokollen til associeringsaftalen EØF-Tyrkiet indføres en visumpligt for indrejse til en medlemsstats område med henblik på dér at levere tjenesteydelser for en virksomhed med hjemsted i®Tyrkiet, når et sådant visum ikke var påkrævet på dette tidspunkt.
Therefore, the Court analysed whether the Polish tax system is consistent with that article and decided that, to the extent to which it makes the granting of a tax advantage in connection with contributions conditional on those contributions having been paid to a Polish health insurance body and leads to that advantage being refused to taxpayers who have paid contributions to the body of another Member State, the Polish legislation disadvantages taxpayers who have exercised their freedom of movement by leaving the Member State in which they have carried out all their occupational activity in order to take up residence in Poland.
Ifølge Domstolen kunne denne konklusion ikke anfægtes af den omstændighed, at den nævnte restriktion fulgte af en national lovgivning til iværksættelse af en a¯edt fællesskabsbestemmelse, eftersom de internationale aftaler, Fællesskabet har indgået, har forrang for den a¯edte fællesskabsret.
Such a restriction of entitlement to a reduction of income tax amounts to a restriction on the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States which is not objectively justi¤ed.
Unionsborgerskab
Free movement of goods
Rüer-sagen (dom af 23.4.2009, sag®C-544/07) udgør et godt eksempel på anvendelsen af unionsborgernes ret til fri®bevægelighed og ophold.
In this area, three cases illustrate the diculty of de¤ning the parameters of a measure having equivalent e¥ect.
Uwe Rü»er, der er en tysk forhenværende arbejdstager, som efter at være gået på pension har bosat sig i®Polen, er modtager af to pensionsydelser, som han modtager i®Tyskland, hvoraf den ene er beskattet i®denne medlemsstat og den anden på polsk område.
In Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy (judgment of 10 February 2009), after reopening the oral procedure, the Court ruled on the Commission’s application for a ¤nding that, by maintaining rules which prohibit mopeds, motorcycles, tricycles and quadricycles from towing a trailer, the Italian Republic had failed to ful¤l its obligations under Article 28°EC.
Uwe Rü»er ansøgte de polske skattemyndigheder om, at den indkomstskat, som han skal betale i®Polen, nedsættes med de sygeforsikringsbidrag, som han har betalt i®Tyskland. Denne ansøgning blev imidlertid afslået med den begrundelse, at polsk lovgivning bestemmer, at der alene kunne foretages fradrag i®indkomstskat-ten for bidrag, som betales til en polsk sygeforsikringsinstitution.
According to the Court, a Member State which, for reasons of road safety, prohibits vehicles from towing a trailer specially designed for them and lawfully produced and marketed in other Member States has not failed to ful¤l its obligations under that article.
Sagen blev først indbragt for de nationale domstole og derefter for Fællesskabets retsinstanser.
However, that prohibition must, in this instance, be regarded as justi¤ed by reasons relating to the protection of road safety.
I®modsætning til sagsøgeren og den forelæggende ret, der baserede deres argumentation på artikel®12 EF og 39 EF, udelukkede Domstolen fra begyndelsen anvendelsen af artikel®39 EF, eftersom den kun kan vedrøre erhvervsaktive arbejdstagere og arbejdssøgende. Imidlertid kunne Uwe Rü»er støtte ret på sit unionsborgerskab og dermed på sin ret til frit at bevæge sig og opholde sig på medlemsstaternes område, sådan som det ifølge artikel®18, stk.®1, EF tilkommer ham.
Whilst it is for a Member State which invokes an imperative requirement as justi¤cation for the hindrance to free movement of goods to demonstrate that its rules are appropriate and necessary to attain the legitimate objective being pursued, that burden of proof cannot be so extensive as to require the Member State to prove, positively, that no other conceivable measure could enable that objective to be attained under the same conditions.
Domstolen analyserede følgelig, om den polske skatteordning var forenelig hermed, og fastslog, at eftersom den polske lovgivning gør indrømmelsen af en skattefordel for bidrag betinget af, at disse er blevet betalt til en polsk sygeforsikringsinstitution, og indebærer, at skattepligtige, som har betalt bidrag til en institution i®en anden medlemsstat, nægtes denne fordel, stiller den skattepligtige, der har udøvet retten til fri®bevægelighed og forladt den medlemsstat, hvor de haft hele deres beskæftigelse, for at bosætte sig i®Polen, mindre fordelagtigt. En sådan begrænset ret til
Although it is possible to envisage that measures other than the prohibition at issue could guarantee a certain level of road safety for the circulation of a combination composed of a motorcycle and a trailer, the fact remains that Member States cannot be denied the possibility of attaining an objective such as road safety by the introduction of general and simple rules which will be easily understood and applied by drivers and easily managed and supervised by the competent authorities.
I®sagen Kommissionen mod Italien (dom af 10.2.2009, sag®C-110/05) traf Domstolen, efter genåbning af den mundtlige forhandling, afgørelse vedrørende Kommissionens påstand om, at det fastsloges, at Den italienske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i®henhold til artikel®28 EF ved at forbyde knallerter, motorcykler, trehjulede motorcykler og quadricykler at trække en påhængsvogn.
Case C-531/07 Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft (judgment of 30 April 2009) related to Austrian provisions on the obligation to sell Germanlanguage books at a ¤xed price, according to which the publisher or importer was required to ¤x and publish a retail price and an importer was required not to ¤x a price below the retail price ¤xed or recommended by the publisher for the State of publication, less any value added tax included in it.
Ifølge Domstolen tilsidesætter en medlemsstat ikke de forpligtelser, der påhviler den i®med-før af artikel®28 EF, hvis den af hensyn til beskyttelsen af traksikkerheden fastsætter et forbud mod, at sådanne køretøjer trækker en påhængsvogn, der er særligt fremstillet hertil, og som er lovligt fremstillet og markedsført i®andre medlemsstater.
According to the Court, although the Austrian legislation concerned selling arrangements for books, by prohibiting importers from ¤xing a price below that charged in the State of publication, the legislation did not a¥ect the marketing of domestic books and of books from other Member States in the same manner.
Domstolen bemærkede, at et sådant forbud ganske vist udgør en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning som kvantitative indførselsrestriktioner, som er forbudt i®henhold til den nævnte artikel, for så vidt som det medfører, at påhængsvogne, som er særligt fremstillet til motorcykler, hindres adgang til det pågældende marked, da forbuddet har betydelig ind¯ydelse på forbrugernes adfærd og hindrer, at der på dette marked kan være efterspørgsel på sådanne påhængsvogne.
The Court explained that the legislation in question provided for less favourable treatment for Germanlanguage books from other Member States than for domestic books, since it prevented Austrian importers and foreign publishers from ¤xing minimum retail prices according to the conditions of the import market, whereas the Austrian publishers were free to ¤x themselves, for their goods, such minimum retail prices for the national market.
Imidlertid måtte det nævnte forbud i®det foreliggende tilfælde anses for begrundet i®hensynet til beskyttelse af traksikkerheden.
Such legislation therefore, according to the Court, constituted a restriction of the free movement of goods.
Selv om det i®denne forbindelse påhviler den medlemsstat, der påberåber sig tvingende hensyn for at begrunde en hindring for de frie varebevægelser, at bevise, at dens lovgivning er egnet og nødvendig for at nå det forfulgte formål, kan man ikke på grundlag af denne bevisbyrde gå så vidt som til at kræve, at medlemsstaten positivt skal bevise, at ingen anden tænkelig foranstaltning kan gøre det muligt at nå det nævnte formål på de samme vilkår.
The Court con¤rmed, moreover, that that restriction was not justi¤ed. It pointed out, in particular, that the protection of books as cultural objects can be considered as an overriding requirement in the public interest capable of justifying measures restricting the free movement of goods, on condition that those measures are appropriate for achieving the objective ¤xed and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them.
Skønt det nemlig ikke er udelukket, at andre foranstaltninger end det omhandlede forbud kan sikre et vist traksikkerhedsniveau for færdsel med en kombination af motorcykel og påhængsvogn, gælder det dog stadig, at medlemsstaterne ikke kan afskæres fra muligheden for at varetage formål såsom traksikkerhed ved at indføre almene og simple regler, som førerne let kan forstå og anvende, og som de kompetente myndigheder nemt kan forvalte og håndhæve.
In the present case, the objective of the protection of books as cultural objects could be achieved by measures less restrictive for the importer, for example by allowing the latter or the foreign publisher to ¤x a retail price for the Austrian market which took the conditions of that market into account. Consequently, the Court held that the Austrian provisions prohibiting importers of Germanlanguage books from ¤xing a price lower than the retail price ¤xed or recommended by the publisher in the State of publication constituted an obstacle to the free movement of goods which could not be justi¤ed under Community law.
Dom af 30. april 2009, Fachverband des Buch- und Medienwirtschaft (sag®C-531/07), vedrørte østrigske bestemmelser om faste priser for tysksprogede bøger, hvorefter forlæggeren eller importøren skulle fastsætte og o©entliggøre en detailpris, og importøren ikke måtte anvende en detailpris, der var lavere end den, som et forlag havde fastsat eller anbefalet i®forlagets hjemstat, med fradrag af merværdiafgift.
In Case C-142/05 Mickelsson and Roos (judgment of 4 June 2009) the Court was asked about the compatibility with, inter alia, Articles 28°EC and 30°EC of Swedish legislation prohibiting the use, except in certain waters, of certain types of jet-ski (personal watercraft), namely those‘of less than four metres in length … which … [have] an internal combustion engine with a water jet unit as [their] primary source of propulsion and … [are] designed to be operated by a person or persons sitting, standing or kneeling on, rather than within the con¤nes of, the hull’.
Ifølge Domstolen vedrørte den østrigske lovgivning bestemte former for salg af bøger, men idet den forbød importører at fastsætte en pris, der var lavere end prisen i®forlagets hjemstat, påvirkede den ikke afsætningen af indenlandsk fremstillede bøger og bøger fra andre medlemsstater på samme måde.
According to the Court, Articles 28°EC and 30°EC do not preclude national regulations which, for reasons relating to the protection of the environment, prohibit the use of such personal watercraft on waters other than designated waterways, provided that: (i) the competent national authorities are required to adopt the implementing measures provided for in order to designate waters other than general navigable waterways on which those watercraft may be used; (ii) those authorities have actually made use of the power conferred on them in that regard and designated the waters which satisfy the conditions laid down in the national regulations; and (iii) such measures have been adopted within a reasonable period after the entry into force of those regulations.