natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Da det drejer sig om klagens antagelse til realitetsbehandling ved appelkammeret, kan de omhandlede processuelle rettigheder, der skal beskyttes, kun være rettigheder, der følger af den forudgående administrative procedure, der førte til meddelelsen af sortsbeskyttelse.
As the admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal had to be determined, the procedural rights to be safeguarded in that appeal could only be those which arose from the earlier administrative procedure in which the plant variety right had been granted.
Da sagsøgeren ikke deltog i denne procedure, kan forbundet ikke påberåbe sig processuelle rettigheder, der følger af proceduren.
However, since the applicant did not take part in the procedure in which the right was granted, it cannot claim any procedural right related to that procedure which it could seek to have protected.
For det tredje påberåber sagsøgeren sig i denne sag også retspraksis på statsstøtteområdet, hvorefter de interesserede parter i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF ikke kun er de virksomheder, der modtager en støtte, men også personer, virksomheder og sammenslutninger, hvis interesser måtte være berørt af støtten, herunder konkurrerende virksomheder og erhvervsorganisationer (jf. præmis 68 ovenfor).
Thirdly, the applicant also relies on the application to the facts of the present case of the caselaw on State aid, to the effect that the parties concerned referred to in Article 88(2) EC are not only the undertakings which enjoy the benefit of aid but also persons, undertakings or associations the interests of which might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations (see paragraph 68 above).
Sagsøgerens henvisning til retspraksis på statsstøtteområdet er imidlertid ikke relevant for sagen her.
However, the applicant’s reference to the caselaw on State aid is not relevant in this case.
Der skal i den forbindelse erindres om, at denne retspraksis kun finder anvendelse, når den, der har anlagt sagen, med søgsmålet ønsker at beskytte de processuelle rettigheder, der tilkommer den pågældende ifølge artikel 88, stk. 2, EF (Domstolens dom af 13.12.2005, sag C-78/03 P, Kommissionen mod Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, Sml. I, s. 10737, præmis 35), og som Kommissionen angiveligt fratog den pågældende ved ikke at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
It must be borne in mind in this regard that that caselaw applies only where the person bringing the action is seeking, by instituting proceedings, to safeguard the procedural rights available to him under Article 88(2) EC (Case C-78/03 P Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum [2005] ECR I-10737, paragraph 35) of which the Commission deprived him during the formal phase of the examination.
Basisforordningens artikel 59, 67 og 68 giver imidlertid videregående rettigheder end dem, der er anerkendt i retspraksis, nævnt ovenfor i præmis 68, idet de indrømmer enhver, der har fremsat skriftlig indsigelse mod meddelelse af EF-sortsbeskyttelse under den administrative procedure, ret til at indgive klage til appelkammeret (jf. præmis 80 ovenfor).
However, Articles 59, 67 and 68 of the basic regulation confer broader rights than those recognised in the caselaw cited in paragraph 68 above inasmuch as they allow any person who has raised a written objection to the grant of the plant variety right in the course of the administrative procedure to lodge an appeal before the Board of Appeal (see paragraph 80 above).
Da udøvelsen af de processuelle rettigheder udelukkende er betinget af, at sagsøgeren handler rettidigt, finder retspraksis på statsstøtteområdet ikke anvendelse i denne sag.
Thus, since the exercise of procedural rights depends solely on the applicant’s having taken the initiative in good time, the caselaw on State aid cannot be applied in this case.
For fuldstændighedens bemærkes vedrørende sagsøgerens henvisning til, at en påstået konkurrencemæssig situation begrunder en analog anvendelse af den i præmis 68 ovenfor nævnte retspraksis, at sagsøgeren ikke har fremlagt beviser, der godtgør, at sagsøgeren er konkurrent til indehaveren af sortsbeskyttelsen.
For the sake of completeness, in so far as the applicant refers to an alleged competitive situation which justifies the application by analogy of the caselaw cited in paragraph 68 above, it must be pointed out that the applicant has produced no evidence that it had a competitive relationship with the holder of the right.
På grundlag af ovenstående må første led forkastes.
In the light of all of the foregoing, the first branch must be rejected.
Det andet led vedrørende mangel på effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse
The second branch: lack of effective judicial protection
Påklage i henhold til basisforordningens artikel 67 er ifølge sagsøgeren forbundets eneste effektive middel mod tildelingsafgørelsen.
According to the applicant, the appeal provided for in Article 67 of the basic regulation is the only effective remedy open to it against the decision granting the right.
Efter klagefristens udløb kan EF-Sortsbeskyttelsen ikke længere anfægtes af nogen myndigheder eller nationale domstole.
Once the period for lodging an appeal had expired, the Community plant variety right could no longer be contested by any authority or any national court.
I Van Zanten-sagen var dette en af de grunde, som appelkammeret udtrykkeligt lagde vægt på ved afgørelsen om at anerkende det nævnte selskab som klageberettiget.
In the case concerning Van Zanten, that was one of the grounds on which the Board of Appeal expressly based itself in finding that that company had locus standi.
Domstolen har fastslået, at borgerne skal have adgang til en effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse af de rettigheder, som tilkommer dem i medfør af fællesskabsretten, idet retten til en sådan beskyttelse hører til de almindelige retsgrundsætninger, der udspringer af medlemsstaternes fælles forfatningstraditioner.
The Court of Justice has held that individuals are entitled to effective judicial protection of the rights which they derive from the Community legal order, and that the right to such protection is one of the general principles of law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.
Domstolen har ligeledes fastslået, at overholdelsen af denne rettighed efter fællesskabsretten kræver, at fysiske og juridiske personer har mulighed for efter omstændighederne at gøre gældende, at almengyldige fællesskabsretsakter er ugyldige, enten indirekte for Fællesskabets retsinstanser eller for de nationale retter.
The Court of Justice has also held that respect for that right within the Community legal order requires that natural and legal persons must be able, depending on the case, to plead the invalidity of Community measures of general scope either indirectly, before the Community Courts, or before the national courts.
Spørgsmålet, om der eksisterer et sådant søgsmålssystem, er af afgørende betydning for bedømmelsen af betingelsen om, at en sagsøger skal være individuelt berørt, idet Domstolen har fastslået, at denne betingelse skal fortolkes i lyset af princippet om en effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse under hensyntagen til de forskellige omstændigheder, som kan individualisere en sagsøger.
The existence or non-existence of a system of remedies is an essential factor in considering whether an applicant is individually affected inasmuch as the Court of Justice has ruled that that condition must be interpreted in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection by taking account of the various circumstances that may distinguish an applicant individually.
Sagsøgeren anser sig for individuelt berørt, fordi der ikke findes nogen anden adgang til søgsmål for nationale domstole og Fællesskabets retsinstanser end basisforordningens artikel 67.
The applicant considers that it is individually affected by reason of the lack of any remedy before the national or Community courts other than that provided for in Article 67 of the basic regulation.
Den anfægtede afgørelse har således ifølge sagsøgeren frataget forbundet den eneste effektive domstolsbeskyttelse, det råder over.
In the applicant’s view, the contested decision deprived it of the only effective judicial protection available to it.
Efter EF-Sortsmyndighedens opfattelse havde sagsøgeren mulighed for at gøre indsigelse mod ansøgningen om sortsbeskyttelse, og forbundet ville sandsynligvis have været individuelt berørt, hvis det havde deltaget i indsigelsessagen.
The CPVO takes the view that the applicant could have opposed the grant of the plant variety right and that, if it had taken part in the opposition procedure, it would in all probability have been individually concerned.
Det følger i øvrigt af retspraksis, at Fællesskabets retsinstanser ikke kan antage en sag til realitetsbehandling på grund af manglende søgsmålsadgang ved en national ret.
Moreover, it is clear from the caselaw that the Community Courts cannot declare an action admissible on the ground that there is no remedy before a national jurisdiction.
Fællesskabets retsordens interesse består i at garantere eksistensen af et system til retlig prøvelse af administrative afgørelser.
The interest of the Community legal order requires that there should be a system of judicial review of administrative decisions.
Tildelingsafgørelsen er imidlertid ikke fritaget for enhver retlig kontrol, eftersom alle, der er umiddelbart og individuelt berørt, kan anfægte afgørelsen ved appelkammeret.
However, the decision granting the right is not exempt from judicial review inasmuch as any person directly and individually affected by it may challenge it before the Board of Appeal.
Det bemærkes i øvrigt, at efter basisforordningens artikel 59, 67 og 68 er enhver, der har fremsat en skriftlig indsigelse mod meddelelsen af sortsbeskyttelse under den administrative procedure, berettiget til at klage til appelkammeret (jf. præmis
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that, according to Articles 59, 67 and 68 of the basic regulation, any person who has raised a written objection to the grant of the plant variety right in the course of the administrative procedure may lodge an
80 ovenfor). Basisforordningens artikel 68 indrømmer endvidere samme klagemulighed for enhver, der ganske vist ikke har deltaget i denne procedure, og som ikke er adressat for afgørelsen, der er truffet ved afslutningen af proceduren, men som er berørt umiddelbart og individuelt af afgørelsen.
In addition, Article 68 of the basic regulation makes the same remedy available to persons to whom the decision adopted at the end of that procedure is not addressed but to whom it is of direct and individual concern.
Eftersom klage til appelkammeret tillader efterfølgende indbringelse for Fællesskabets retsinstanser, har sagsøgeren fejlagtigt påberåbt sig manglende effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse i den foreliggende sag.
Consequently, since an appeal before the Board of Appeal permits a further appeal to the Community Courts, the applicant is mistaken in alleging a lack of effective judicial protection in this case.
Det følger af det ovenstående, at det andet anbringende må forkastes.
It follows from all of the foregoing that the second plea in law must be rejected.
Det tredje anbringende om tilsidesættelse af begrundelsespligten
The third plea in law: failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons
Sagsøgeren har erindret om, at Domstolen har fastslået, at for en retsakt kan anses for begrundet, skal den klart og utvetydigt angive de betragtninger, som den institution, der har udstedt den anfægtede retsakt, har lagt til grund, således at de berørte parter kan få kendskab til grundlaget for den trufne foranstaltning, og således at den kompetente ret kan udøve sin prøvelsesret.
The applicant points out that the Court of Justice has ruled that for the statement of the reasons on which a measure is based to be regarded as adequate, it must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review.
Den anfægtede afgørelse opfylder ikke dette krav, idet appelkammeret ikke har taget stilling til, om kooperativet Anecoop var klageberettiget, selv om dette udøver en aktivitet, der er alvorligt berørt af den anfægtede afgørelse, hvilket appelkammeret har erkendt.
The contested decision, it argues, does not fulfil that requirement inasmuch as the Board of Appeal did not consider the locus standi of the Anecoop cooperative, notwithstanding the fact that, as the Board of Appeal accepts, its activities will be seriously affected by the decision granting the right.
Ifølge sagsøgeren skal dette forhold sammenholdes med appelkammerets afgørelse om ikke at tillade fremlæggelse af yderligere dokumenter til dokumentation for, at forbundets medlemmer var
The applicant points out that that fact must be taken together with the Board of Appeal’s refusal to permit further documents to be placed on the file with a view to proving
Appelkammeret har ikke taget stilling til, om sagsøgerens medlemmer i denne egenskab var individuelt berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen.
The Board of Appeal did not consider whether its members were individually concerned in that capacity by the decision granting the right.
I øvrigt er appelkammerets konstatering af, at et stort antal personer kan være leverandører af plantemateriale af den sortsbeskyttede plante, og at sagsøgeren ikke adskiller sig fra andre operatører på området, ikke understøttet af dokumenter eller oplysninger.
Moreover, the claim by the Board of Appeal that the situation of a dealer in reproductive material of the protected variety could be held by many people and does not differentiate the applicant from any other operator in the sector concerned is, the applicant argues, supported by no documentation or information.
Hertil kommer, at appelkammeret ved afvisningen af, at sagsøgeren var klageberettiget som producent, begrænsede sig til at konstatere, at sagsøgeren repræsenterede producenternes interesser, uden at gøre sig yderligere overvejelser.
In addition, in order to refute the applicant’s locus standi as a grower, the Board of Appeal merely stated that it represented the interests of growers, without having carried out any further consideration.
Følgelig har appelkammeret ikke begrundet denne del af sin afgørelse.
Consequently, the Board of Appeal has not stated the reasons on which its decision is based in regard to that point.
Endelig har appelkammeret tilsidesat sin begrundelsespligt derved, at det ikke har begrundet, hvori forskellene mellem procedurerne på statsstøtteområdet og reglerne i basisforordningen består, eller begrundet, hvorfor disse forskelle er så vigtige, at de er til hinder for, at principperne på statsstøtteområdet kan finde analog anvendelse i denne sag.
Finally, by failing to demonstrate in what manner the procedure in regard to State aid differs from the procedure under the basic regulation and why those differences are so important that they prevent the application by analogy to this case of the principles established in regard to State aid, the Board of Appeal, the applicant argues, failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.
EF-Sortsmyndigheden og intervenienten har anfægtet sagsøgerens argumenter.
The CPVO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.
Det bemærkes, at begrundelsespligten udgør et væsentligt formkrav, som bør adskilles fra begrundelsens materielle indhold, der henhører under spørgsmålet om lovligheden af den anfægtede retsakt (jf. Domstolens dom af 22.3.2001, sag C-17/99, Frankrig mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 2481, præmis 35).
The obligation to state reasons is an essential procedural requirement, as distinct from the question whether the reasons given are correct, which goes to the substantive legality of the contested measure (Case C-17/99 France v Commission [2001] ECR I-2481, paragraph 35).
Det fremgår af det foregående, at den anfægtede afgørelse i denne sag gør det muligt for sagsøgeren at forsvare sine rettigheder og for Retten at foretage sin prøvelse.
In the present case, it is clear from all of the foregoing that the contested decision permits the applicant to safeguard its rights and enables the Court to exercise its power of review.
Appelkammeret har i øvrigt taget stilling til, om sagsøgeren var klageberettiget i forhold til Anecoops påståede aktiviteter (punkt 3, fjerde og femte afsnit, i den anfægtede afgørelses begrundelse), samt til muligheden for, om sagsøgeren kunne anses for repræsentant for de individuelle mandarinproducenter (punkt 3, ottende til tiende afsnit, i den anfægtede afgørelses begrundelse), og til muligheden for, at retspraksis på statstøtteområdet kan finde anvendelse i sagen (punkt 3, ellevte afsnit, i den anfægtede afgørelses begrundelse).
Moreover, the Board of Appeal considered the applicant’s locus standi in the light of the alleged activities of the Anecoop cooperative (point 3, 4th and 5th paragraphs, of the grounds for the contested decision), of the possibility that the applicant might represent individual mandarin growers (point 3, 8th to 10th paragraphs, of the grounds for the contested decision) and of the possible application of the caselaw on State aid to the facts of the case (point 3, 11th paragraph, of the grounds for the contested decision).
Appelkammeret har redegjort for, hvorfor det ikke fandt, at disse tre forhold fandt anvendelse eller var tilstrækkelige til at gøre sagsøgeren klageberettiget.
The Board of Appeal set out the reasons why it considered that the three hypotheses were not applicable or were insufficient to establish the applicant’s locus standi.
Det følger heraf, at sagsøgerens påstand om, at den anfægtede afgørelse er utilstrækkeligt begrundet, ikke kan tiltrædes.
It follows that the applicant is not justified in arguing that the contested decision is vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons.
I denne sag fremgår det af analysen af det andet anbringende, at sagsøgeren ikke har fremført noget argument, der kan bevise, at forbundet er klageberettiget i basisforordningens artikel 68’s forstand, og derfor vil en annullation af den anfægtede afgørelse på grund af manglende begrundelse kun medføre, at der træffes en ny identisk afgørelse.
In the present case, it is clear from an analysis of the second plea in law (see paragraphs 77 to 110 and 116 to 119 above) that the applicant has put forward no argument establishing that it had locus standi under Article 68 of the basic regulation and that, consequently, the annulment of the contested decision for want of a sufficient statement of reasons could only give rise to another, substantially identical, decision.
Det må derfor konstateres, at sagsøgeren ikke har retlig interesse i, at den anfægtede afgørelse annulleres på grund af en eventuel manglende begrundelse.
It must therefore be concluded that the applicant has no legitimate interest in the annulment of the contested decision on ground of the possible lack of an adequate statement of reasons.
På denne baggrund skal EF-Sortsmyndigheden frifindes.
Under those circumstances, the action must be dismissed.
Ifølge Rettens procesreglements artikel 87, stk. 2, pålægges det den tabende part at betale sagens omkostninger, hvis der er nedlagt påstand herom.
Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
Da sagsøgeren har tabt sagen, bør det pålægges forbundet at betale sagens omkostninger i overensstemmelse med EF-Sortsmyndighedens og intervenientens påstande herom.
Since both the CPVO and the intervener have applied for costs and the applicant has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
RETTEN (Anden Afdeling):
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) hereby:
Afsagt i offentligt retsmøde i Luxembourg den 31. januar 2008.
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 31 January 2008.
Fungerende afdelingsformand
For the President
Sagens faktiske omstændigheder .....................................................
Background to the dispute ..........................................................
Parternes påstande .................................................................
Forms of order sought ..............................................................
Retlige bemærkninger ..............................................................
Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Det første anbringende vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesforordningens artikel 49 og 50 samt af principperne om påpasselighed og om god forvaltningsskik ..
The first plea in law: infringement of Articles 49 and 50 of the implementing regulation, of the principle of care and attention and of the principle of sound administration ...............................................................
Det første led vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesforordningens artikel 49 samt af principperne om påpasselighed og om god forvaltningsskik ...
The first branch: infringement of Article 49 of the implementing regulation, of the principle of care and attention and of the principle of sound administration .....
— Parternes argumenter .............................................
— Arguments of the parties .........................................
— Rettens bemærkninger ............................................
— Findings of the Court ............................................
Det andet led vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesforordningens artikel 50 samt principperne om påpasselighed og om god forvaltningsskik ...
The second branch: infringement of Article 50 of the implementing regulation, of the principle of care and attention and of the principle of sound administration ..
Det andet anbringende vedrørende fejlagtig bedømmelse af sagsøgerens klageberettigelse ......................................................................
The second plea in law: error on the part of the Board of Appeal concerning the applicant’s locus standi .......................................................
Det første led om, at sagsøgeren og dennes medlemmer er individuelt berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen .....................................................
The first branch: submission that the applicant and its members are individually concerned by the decision granting the plant variety right ....................
Det andet led vedrørende mangel på effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse ............
The second branch: lack of effective judicial protection ......................
— Parternes argumenter ............................................
— Arguments of the parties .........................................
Det tredje anbringende om tilsidesættelse af begrundelsespligten ..................
The third plea in law: failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons ................
Parternes argumenter ..................................................
Arguments of the parties .................................................
Rettens bemærkninger ..................................................
Findings of the Court ....................................................
Sag T-289/03
Case T-289/03
»Statsstøtte — risikoudligningsordning indført af Irland på markedet for privat sygeforsikring — støtteordning — tjenesteydelser af almindelig økonomisk interesse — artikel 86, stk. 2, EF — Kommissionens beslutning om ikke at rejse indsigelser — annullationssøgsmål — formaliteten — principperne om nødvendighed og proportionalitet«
(State aid — Risk equalisation scheme introduced by Ireland on the private medical insurance market — Aid system — Services of general economic interest — Article 86(2) EC — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Principles of necessity and proportionality)
Rettens dom (Tredje Udvidede Afdeling) af 12. februar 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), 12 February 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .