natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er således åbenbart, at undladelsen af, i strid med vedtægtens artikel 5, at afgive erklæring om ægtefællens beskæftigelse — såfremt denne i øvrigt må anses for godtgjort — ikke i sig selv kan begrunde en så alvorlig sanktion som en afskedigelse, navnlig i betragtning af karakteren af de funktioner, som Hautem varetager i Banken.
Clearly, the failure to declare his wife's activity, contrary to Article 5 of the Staff Regulations of the Bank, even supposing it to be established, cannot justify a penalty as serious as dismissal, having regard in particular to the nature of Mr Hautem's duties within the Bank.
Andet anbringende
Second plea in law
Det er tilstrækkeligt på det omhandlede punkt at fastslå, at det første anbringendes tredje led er betinget af en faktisk forudsætning, nemlig at Hautem deltog i fremsendelsen af to af de dokumenter, som var fundet i Yasse's computer, hvilken forudsætning imidlertid, strider mod den vurdering, som Retten foretog i den anfægtede doms præmis 70, og hvorom den har et uindskrænket skøn.
It is sufficient in that regard to state that the third branch of the first plea rests on a factual premiss, namely that Mr Hautem participated in sending two of the documents found on Mr Yasse's computer, which, runs counter to the definitive finding of the Court of First Instance in paragraph 70 of the judgment under appeal.
Fjerde led
Fourth branch
Banken har gjort gældende, at Retten har tilsidesat de kontraktlige regler for arbejdsforholdet mellem Banken og dens ansatte ved at fastslå, at den ud fra en analog anvendelse af EF-vedtægtens artikel 91, stk. 1, havde fuld prøvelsesret og følgelig kunne tilpligte Banken at efterbetale Hautem den resterende løn.
The Bank submits that, the Court of First Instance failed to take account of the contractual rules applicable to employment relations between the Bank and the members of its staff when it held that, applying Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities by analogy, it had unlimited jurisdiction and could therefore order the Bank to pay Mr Hautem his arrears of remuneration.
Hvad angår for det første spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Retten har begået en retlig fejl ved at anvende EF-vedtægtens artikel 91, stk. 1, analogt i en tvist mellem Banken og en af dens ansatte
As regards, first, the question as to whether the Court of First Instance erred in law in applying Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities by analogy in a dispute between the Bank and one of its employees in order to provide a basis for its unlimited jurisdiction, it is necessary to take Article 41 of the Staff Regulations of the Bank into consideration.
Det er herom tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at Retten i den anfægtede doms præmis 75 fastslog, at de af Banken fremlagt beviser hverken godtgjorde, at Hautem havde udøvet en erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse af handelsmæssig karakter eller udnvttet sit tilhørsforhold til
It is sufficient in that regard to observe that the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 75 of the judgment under appeal, that the evidence adduced by the Bank was incapable of establishing either that Mr Hautem had engaged in a professional activity of a commercial nature or that he had taken advantage of his connection with the Bank, involved the Bank or personally used the Bank's equipment.
og på dette grundlag slutte, at den havde fuld prøvelsesret, må vedtægtens artikel 41 tages i betragtning.
It follows that Article 41 of the Staff Regulations of the Bank does not remove disputes of a financial character between the Bank and its staff from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and therefore from that of the Court of First Instance, and that it does not limit the exercise of that jurisdiction according to the particular nature of a dispute.
Ifølge denne bestemmelse »[afgøres] alle individuelle tvister mellem Banken og dens ansatte [...] af De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol«.
Such reasoning appears to be legally flawed, because the contested decision might still, in the
Følgelig fratager vedtægtens artikel 41 ikke Domstolen, og dermed Retten, dens prøvelsesret i tvister mellem Banken og dens ansatte angående pengebeløb, og den fastsætter ikke nogen begrænsninger i udøvelsen af denne prøvelsesret, afhængig af tvistens særlige
logic of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, since an award of arrears of remuneration is the normal consequence of a finding that a dismissal decision is unlawful, including where the applicable system is one governed by contract, the contractual nature of the system applicable to the staff of the Bank when it ordered the Bank to pay Mr Hautem the arrears of the remuneration which he should have received since the date of his dismissal, it is clear that that decision of the Court of First Instance, contrary to the Bank's assertion, is not patterned on the
»— at appellen delvis afvises fra realitetsbehandling,
'— the appeal is in part inadmissible
- at de under appelsagen realitetsbehandlede anbringender forkastes, og
— although declared admissible in the appeal, the grounds are rejected
Sag C-517/99 Merz & Krell GmbH & Co. Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne 4. oktober 2001
Case C-517/99 Merz & Krell GmbH & Co. Approximation of laws 4 October 2001
Ved kendelse af 20. oktober 1999 har Bundespatentgericht stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), i Rådets første direktiv 89/104/EØF af 21. december 1988 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varemærker.
By an order of 20 October 1999, the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) referred for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 3(l)(d) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.
Bundespatentgericht har den opfattelse, at det i henhold til direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), er tilstrækkeligt til at afvise ordmærket Bravo fra registrering, at ordet »bravo« i daglig sprogbrug eller i redelig og almindelig markedsføringsskik udgør en sædvanlig betegnelse, uden at det konkret beskriver de pågældende varer.
But, the Bundespatentgericht says, on a literal interpretation of Paragraph 8(2)(3) of the Markengesetz, the claimed word must have become customary to designate the goods and services in respect of which the mark is sought to be registered in order for it to be refused registration under that provision.
Spørgsmålet er rejst i en sag anlagt af Merz & Krell GmbH & Co. (herefter »Merz & Krell«) til anfægtelse af et afslag fra Deutsche Patentund Markenamt (den tyske patent- og varemærkemyndighed) på at registrere ordmærket Bravo for skriveredskaber. Tvisten i hovedsagen og det præjudicielle spørgsmål
That question was raised in proceedings brought by Merz & Krell GmbH & Co. (hereinafter 'Merz & Krell') against a refusal by the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (German Patent and Trade Mark Office) to register the word mark Bravo in respect of writing implements. The main proceedings and the question referred to the Court
Den forelæggende ret har imidlertid anført, at en afvisning af et varemærke fra registrering ved en bogstavelig anvendelse af Markengesetz § 8, stk. 2, nr. 3, forudsætter, at det begreb, der søges registreret, udgør en sædvanlig betegnelse for de varer eller tjenesteydelser, for hvilke der er ansøgt om registrering af varemærket.
Furthermore, the wording of Paragraph 8(2)(3) of the Markengesetz does not specify- whether it is sufficient that there be a general connection with the goods or services covered by the mark in order for registration to be refused under that provision, or whether it is necessary for there to be a specific connection with those goods or services.
Det kan i øvrigt ikke udledes af ordlyden af Markengesetz § 8, stk. 2, nr. 3, om det er tilstrækkeligt med en generel forbindelse mellem de af varemærket omhandlede varer eller tjenesteydelser, for at registreringen af mærket kan afvises med hjemmel i denne bestemmelse, eller om det er nødvendigt med en specifik forbindelse med disse varer eller tjenesteydelser.
Taking the view that Paragraph 8(2)(3) of the Markengesetz should be interpreted in a manner compatible with Article 3(l)(d) of the Directive which it incorporates into German law, the Bundespatentgericht decided to stay proceedings and refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Spørgsmålets første del
The first part of the question
Den forelæggende ret har med den første del af sit spørgsmål nærmere bestemt spurgt, om direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), skal fortolkes således, at den alene er til hinder for registrering
Merz & Krell filed an application for registration of the word mark Bravo in respect of *writing implements'. That application was refused by the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt on the ground that the word Bravo is, for the class of persons to whom it is addressed, purely a term of praise. Those classes of persons view the claimed mark 'Bravo' as no more than a term of praise and an advertising slogan devoid of any distinctive character, thus rendering it ineligible for protection. Merz & Krell brought an action against that decision before the Bundespatentgericht which considers that the merits of the refusal to register the applicant's word mark must be assessed in the light of Paragraph 8(2)(3) of the Markengesetz. By the first part of the question the Bundespatentgericht is essentially asking if Article 3(1)(d) of the Directive must be interpreted as not precluding registration of a trade mark unless the signs or indications of which that trade mark is exclusively composed have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade to designate the goods or services for which the mark is sought to be registered.
Bundespatentgericht har anført, at ordet »bravo« på adskillige europæiske sprog har den samme betydning, nemlig som bifaldsytring i betydningen »god« eller »skøn«.
It points out that the term 'Bravo' has the same meaning in many European languages as a term of praise in the sense of "well done'.
Retten har ligeledes fastslået, at dette begreb i Tyskland og i flere andre europæiske lande faktisk anvendes i reklamer som et udtryk for anprisning i forhold
It also observes that that word is in fact used in advertising in Germany and various other European countries as a term of praise in respect of various goods and services.
Varemærkeretten er herved afgørende inden for rammerne af den ordning med loyal konkurrence, som skal gennemføres efter traktaten.
Trade mark rights constitute an essential dement in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty is intended to establish.
Direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), har til formål at hindre registrering af tegn eller angivelser, der er uegnede til at adskille en virksomheds varer eller tjenesteydelser fra andre virksomheders, og som således ikke opfylder den betingelse, der er fastsat i direktivets artikel 2.
The purpose of Article 3(l)(d) of the Directive is to prevent the registration of signs or indications that are not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings and so do not satisfy the criterion laid down in Article 2 of the Directive.
Ud fra dette synspunkt er varemærkets afgørende funktion at garantere oprindelsen af varen eller tjenesteydelsen, der er omfattet af varemærket, over for forbrugeren eller den endelige bruger, som dermed sættes i stand til uden risiko for forveksling at adskille varen eller tjenesteydelsen fra varer eller tjenesteydelser med en anden oprindelse (jf. bl.a. dom af 29.9.1998, sag C-39/97, Canon).
From that point of view, the essential function of the trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked goods or service to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or service from others which have another origin (see, inter alia, Case C-39/97 Canon).
Fællesskabslovgiver har anerkendt dette som varemærkets afgørende funktion ved i direktivets artikel 2 at bestemme, at tegn, der kan gengives grafisk, alene kan udgøre et varemærke, såfremt de er egnede til at adskille en virksomheds varer eller tjenesteydelser fra andre virksomheders.
That essential function of trade marks has been incorporated by the Community legislature into Article 2 of the Directive, which provides that signs which are capable of being represented graphically may only constitute a trade mark if they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.
Denne konstatering bekræftes i direktivets artikel 3, stk. 3.
That finding is corroborated by Article 3(3) of the Directive.
Som Domstolen har fastslået i præmis 44 i dom af 4. maj 1999, Windsurfing Chiemsee (forenede sager C-108/97 og C-109/97), er det ved brugen, at tegnet erhverver det særpræg, der er en betingelse for dets registrering i henhold til denne bestemmelse.
As the Court held at paragraph 44 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee, it is through the use made of it that such a sign acquires the distinctive character which is a prerequisite for its registration under that provision.
Den adskillelsesevne, der skyldes brugen af et tegn, kan imidlertid alene fastslås i forhold til de varer eller tjenesteydelser, som er udstyret med varemærket.
However, whether a sign does have the capacity to distinguish as a result of the use made of it can only be assessed in relation to the goods or services covered by it.
Spørgsmålets anden del
The second part of the question
Under disse betingelser kan tegn eller angivelser, der ikke er egnede til at opfylde varemærkets afgørende funktion, ikke drage fordel af den beskyttelse, som registreringen giver.
Accordingly, signs or indications that are not capable of fulfilling the essential function of a trade mark cannot enjoy the protection conferred by registration.
Som det fremgår af tiende betragtning til direktivet, er formålet med den af det registrerede varemærke ydede beskyttelse at sikre varemærkets funktion som angivelse af oprindelsen.
As is made clear by the tenth recital in the preamble to the Directive, the purpose of the protection afforded by the registered trade mark is in particular to guarantee that trade mark's function as an indication of origin.
Det er i lyset disse betragtninger, at direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), skal fortolkes.
Article 3(l)(d) of the Directive must be interpreted in the light of those considerations.
Det skal anføres, at ifølge direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), er varemærker, som udelukkende består af tegn eller angivelser, som i daglig
Under Article 3(l)(d) of the Directive, trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or trade practices are to be refused registration.
Den forelæggende ret har med anden del af sit spørgsmål spurgt, om direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), alene er til hinder for registrering af et varemærke, når de tegn eller angivelser, som dette varemærke udelukkende består af, beskriver egenskaber eller kendetegn ved de varer eller tjenesteydelser, for hvilke der er ansøgt om registrering af varemærket, eller også, når disse tegn eller angivelser er reklameslogans,
By the second part of its question, the national court is asking whether Article 3(l)(d) of the Directive precludes registration of a trade mark only where the signs or indications of which the trade mark is exclusively composed describe the properties or characteristics of the goods and services in respect of which the mark is sought to be registered or also where those signs or indications are advertising slogans, indications of quality or incentives to purchase even if they do not describe the properties or characteristics of those goods and services.
anden virksomheds, og de opfylder således ikke varemærkets afgørende funktion, medmindre den brug, der er gjort af disse tegn eller angivelser, har givet dem det fornødne særpræg i henhold til direktivets artikel 3, stk. 3.
interpretation is sought should not be limited solely to trade marks which describe the properties or characteristics of the goods or services covered by them.
Det er i så fald ikke nødvendigt at undersøge, om de pågældende tegn eller angivelser er beskrivelser af disse varers eller tjenesteydelsers egenskaber eller kendetegn.
In the signs or indications concerned have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade to designate the goods or services covered by the mark, it is of little consequence that they are used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or incitements to purchase those goods or services.
Det skal indledningsvis anføres, at selv om der en åbenbar overlapning mellem direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra c), og artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), bygger udelukkelsen af de omhandlede varemærker fra registrering i henhold til den sidstnævnte bestemmelse ikke på disse varemærkers beskrivende art, men på den aktuelle brug heraf i de forretningskredse, hvor der drives virksomhed med de varer og tjenesteydelser, for hvilke der er ansøgt om registrering af de pågældende varemærker.
In that regard it must be pointed out that signs or indications constituting a trade mark which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade to designate the goods or services covered by that mark are not capable of distinguishing the services of one undertaking from those .of other undertakings and do not therefore fulfil the essential function of a trade mark — unless the use which has been made of those signs or indications has enabled them to acquire a distinctive character capable of being recognised under Article 3(3) of the Directive.
I tilfælde, hvor de pågældende tegn eller angivelser i daglig sprogbrug eller i redelig og almindelig markedsføringsskik er en sædvanlig betegnelse for de varer eller tjenesteydelser, som varemærket vedrører, er det uden betydning, at de anvendes som reklameslogans, kvalitetsangivelser eller opfordringer til at købe varerne og tjenesteydelserne.
Registration of a trade mark which consists of signs or indications that are also used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or incitements to purchase the goods or services covered by that mark is not excluded as such by virtue of such use. It is for the national court to determine in each case whether the signs or indications have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade to designate the goods or services covered by that mark.
Det følger heraf, at rækkevidden af direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra d), ikke, hvis denne bestemmelse, som Domstolen er anmodet om at fortolke, skal have den tilsigtede virkning, skal begrænses til varemærker, der beskriver egenskaber eller kendetegn ved de varer og tjenesteydelser, de vedrører.
In such a case it is not therefore necessary to consider whether the signs or indications in question are descriptions of the properties or
Registrering af et varemærke, der består af tegn eller angivelser, der i øvrigt finder anvendelse som reklameslogans, kvalitetsangivelser eller opfordringer til at købe de varer eller tjenesteydelser, som dette varemærke vedrører, er ikke som sådan udelukket på grund af en sådan anvendelse.
Article 3(1 )(d) must also be interpreted as meaning that it subjects refusal to register a trade mark to the sole condition that the signs or indications of which the trade mark is exclusively composed have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade to designate the goods or services in respect of which registration of that mark is sought.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret i hvert tilfælde at afgøre, om sådanne tegn eller angivelser i daglig sprogbrug eller i redelig og almindelig markedsføringsskik er en sædvanlig betegnelse for de varer eller tjenesteydelser, som dette varemærke vedrører.
It is immaterial, when that provision is applied, whether the signs or indications in question describe the properties or characteristics of those goods or services.'
Denne samme bestemmelse skal fortolkes således, at afvisningen af at registrere et varemærke ifølge bestemmelsen afhænger af den ene betingelse, at de tegn eller angivelser, som dette varemærke udelukkende består af, i daglig sprogbrug eller i redelig og almindelig markedsføringsskik er en sædvanlig betegnelse for de varer eller tjenesteydelser, for hvilke der er ansøgt om registrering af varemærket. Det er ved anvendelsen af denne bestemmelse uden betydning om de pågældende tegn eller angivelser beskriver varernes eller tjenesteydelsernes egenskaber eller kendetegn.*
'Article 3(l)(d) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks requires that, for registration of a trade mark to be refused, or, where appropriate, for an existing registration to be declared invalid, the signs or indications of which it
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 18. januar 2001.
is composed must have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade relevant to the goods and services which the trade mark is intended to identify, it being sufficient that the mark evokes such goods or services in the mind of the average consumer.
Præjudiciel anvendelsesområde
- Article 1(3) - Scope -
»Tilrettelæggelse af arbejdstiden - direktiv 931104/EF — artikel 1, stk. 3 — — vejtransport* (Første Afdeling) direktiv med undtagelse af vej-, luft-, sø- og jernbanetransport, sejlads ad indre vandveje, havfiskeri, andre aktiviteter på havet samt aktiviteter, der udøves af læger under uddannelse«.
Preliminary ruling (Organisation of working transport) (First Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 6. april 2000 har Employment Appeal Tribunal, London, i medfør af artikel 234 EF forelagt fire præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 1, stk. 3, i Rådets direktiv 93/104/EF af 23. november 1993 om visse aspekter i forbindelse med tilrettelæggelse af arbejdstiden.
Directive, with the exception of air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and the activities of doctors in training'.
Tvisten i hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
The dispute before the national court and the questions on which a ruling is sought
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem på den ene side J. R. Bowden, J. L. Chapman og J. J. Doyle og på den anden side selskabet Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd (herefter »Tuffnells«), der beskæftiger dem på deltid, angående selskabets afslag på at yde dem en årlig betalt ferie.
Those questions arose in proceedings brought by Mrs Bowden, Mrs Chapman and Mrs Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd (Tuffnells'), which employs them on a parttime basis, concerning the latter's refusal to grant them paid annual leave.
Tuffnells driver i Det Forenede Kongerige en omfattende virksomhed med udbringning af pakker ved landevejstransport. Appellanterne i hovedsagen er ansat som kontorassistenter på deltid ved et af Tuffnells' mange lagre.
Tuffnells operates a major parcel delivery service, delivering goods by road in the United Kingdom.
Chaufførerne har ingen adgang til kontoret og kommer ikke i kontakt med de tre ansatte, der er appellanter i hovedsagen.
The van drivers are not allowed into the offices and the appellants have no contact with them.
Disse kan i henhold til deres ansættelsesaftale ikke beordres til at udføre transportydelser i egentlig forstand.
Under their contracts, they cannot be asked to work in actual transport operations.
Ud fra disse betragtninger har Employment Appeal Tribunal, London, besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål.
Employment Appeal Tribunal, London, stayed proceedings pending a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on certain questions: