natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det følger af det anførte, at når en medlemsstat tillader overførsel af affald til affaldsanlæg i en anden medlemsstat, som foreslås af producenten eller indehaveren af affaldet, men ikke giver mulighed for en overførsel til de af medlemsstaten udpegede anlæg, er denne ikke efter forordningens artikel 4, stk. 3, berettiget til at fastsætte en betingelse, hvorefter den påtænkte bortskaffelse skal opfylde betingelserne i dens egen lovgivning.
However, the condition that the shipment of waste for disposal be authorised only if disposal is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the environmental protection legislation of the State of dispatch does not in any way contribute to the implementation of the principle of self-sufficiency, since it applies only in cases where, because the waste in question cannot be treated by an installation belonging to the approved body responsible for managing waste for disposal, it is sent in any event to a treatment establishment suggested by the producer or holder of the waste.
Hvad for det andet angår princippet om prioritering af nyttiggørelse, som fremgår af direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra b), og hvorefter medlemsstaterne skal træffe passende foranstaltninger for at fremme nyttiggørelse af affald, kan dette princip pr. definition ikke gennemføres ved en national ordning, hvis formål ikke er at fremme en sådan nyttiggørelse, men blot at udpege det affaldsanlæg, hvor affaldet kan destrueres.
It follows from the foregoing that, where a Member State authorises the shipment of waste to treatment installations in another Member State suggested by the producer or holder of the waste and not to installations designated by it,
Med det fjerde spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om forordningens artikel 3, 4 og 5 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat ved overførsel mellem medlemsstaterne af affald til bortskaffelse anvender en særskilt procedure for anmeldelse og henvisning af sådant affald forud for den i forordningen fastsatte anmeldelsesprocedure.
It follows that Articles 3 to 5 of the Regulation, which define the procedure to be applied to shipments between Member States of waste for disposal, preclude a Member State from applying, before implementing the notification procedure laid down in the Regulation, its own procedure concerning the delivery and allocation of the waste.
En national ordning, som pålægger producenten eller indehaveren af affaldet, der anmelder det til overførsel ved egen eller andres foranstaltning, forud for gennemførelsen af den fællesskabsprocedure, der indledes med den i forordningen foreskrevne anmeldelse, at følge en særskilt procedure for anmeldelsen og henvisningen, hvortil er knyttet særskilte formaliteter og frister, kan ikke anses for at være forenelig med proceduren ifølge forordningens artikel 3, 4 og 5.
'J. Where a national measure generally prohibiting exports of waste for disposal is justified by the principles of proximity, priority for recovery and self-sufficiency, in accordance with Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, it is not necessary for that national measure to be subject to a further and separate review of its compatibility with Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 29 EC and 30 EC).
Ganske vist kan gennemførelsen af dette princip som udgangspunkt gøre det berettiget at indføre en ordning med pligt til over for et godkendt organ at anmelde affald til levering, som skal bortskaffes, der henviser det til de affaldsanlæg, som det kontrollerer, såfremt denne forpligtelse er begrundet i nødvendigheden af at sikre det for affaldsanlæggenes drift nødvendige aktivitetsniveau og dermed muliggøre opretholdelsen af en bortskaffelseskapacitet, der
Article 4(3) of Regulation No 259/93 does not authorise a Member State which has adopted legislation introducing an obligation to offer waste for disposal to an approved body to provide that, where the waste is not allocated to a treatment centre f or which that body is responsible, its shipment to treatment installations in other Member States
den iværksætter anmeldelsesproceduren efter forordningen, af affald til bortskaffelse, er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat anvender en særskilt procedure for anmeldelse og henvisning af sådant affald, før
is authorised only on condition that the intended disposal satisfy the requirements of the environmental protection legislation of that Member State.
•1) Det er ikke nødvendigt, når et generelt nationalt udførselsforbud for affald til bortskaffelse er begrundet i de principper om nærhed, prioritering af nyttiggørelse og tilstrækkelig egenkapacitet, som er omhandlet i artikel 4, stk 3, litra a), nr. i), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 259/93 af 1. februar 1993 om overvågning af og kontrol med overførsel af affald inden for, til og fra Det Europæiske Fællesskab, også særskat at efterprøve, om den nationale foranstaltning er i overensstemmelse med EF-traktatens artikel 34 og 36 (efter ændring nu artikel 29 EF og 30 EF).
Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 259/93 preclude a Member State from applying to shipments between Member States of waste for disposal, before the implementation of the notification procedure laid down in the regulation, its own procedure in relation to the offer and allocation of the waste.'
3) Artikel 3, 4 og 5 i forordning nr. 259/93 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat ved overførsel mellem medlemsstaterne af affald til bortskaffelse anvender en særskilt procedure for anmeldelse og henvisning af sådant affald forud for den i forordningen fastsatte anmeldelsesprocedure.*
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations and veal) (Full Court)
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 20. september 2001.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 January 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by refusing to adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with:
»Traktatbrud — afvisning af at ophæve embargoen mod britisk oksekød* (Domstolens plenum)
11 October 1999 in order to permit the transit of beef and veal originating from the United Kingdom.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 4. januar 2000 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat udbredt i Det Forenede Kongerige på dette tidspunkt, vedtog Kommissionen beslutning 96/239/EF af 27. marts 1996 om visse hasteforanstaltninger til beskyttelse mod bovin spongiform encephalopati, hvorved Kommissionen forbød Det Forenede Kongerige at sende bl.a. levende kvæg, oksekød og produkter, der er fremstillet af kvæg, fra sit område til de andre medlemsstater og til tredjelande.
Following the discovery of a probable link between a variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a disease affecting human beings, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (hereinafter 'BSE') which was widespread in the United Kingdom at the time, the Commission adopted Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, prohibiting the United Kingdom from exporting from its territory to the other Member States and third countries, in particular, live bovine animals, meat of bovine animals and products obtained from bovine animals.
Rådets beslutning 98/256/EF af 16. marts 1998 om hasteforanstaltninger til beskyttelse mod bovin spongiform encephalopati, om ændring af beslutning 94/474/EF og om ophævelse af beslutning 96/239/EF i den affattelse, der fremgår af Kommissionens beslutning 98/692/EF af 25. november 1998, navnlig artikel 6 og bilag III, og
On 10 September 1999 the Commission wrote a letter to the French Republic in which it expressed its surprise at the referral to the Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (French Food Safety Agency, hereinafter 'the AFSSA') in connection with the implementation, in French law, of Decisions 98/256 as amended and 1999/514.
Rådet vedtog den 16. marts 1998 beslutning 98/256, hvorved Rådet under strenge betingelser ophævede embargoen for visse typer kød og kødprodukter, der hidrørte fra kvæg, som var slagtet i Nordirland i henhold til ordningen med besætninger, der opfylder betingelserne for eksport (»Export Certified Herds Scheme ECHS«, herefter »ECHS-ordningen«).
On 16 March 1998 the Council adopted Decision 98/256, by which it lifted the ban for certain meat and meat products from bovine animals slaughtered in Northern Ireland, subject to the strict conditions of a scheme based on the certification of herds (the Export Certified Herds Scheme, hereinafter 'the ECHS').
Kommissionens beslutning 1999/514/EF af 23. juli 1999 om fastsættelse af den dato, på hvilken forsendelse af kvægprodukter fra Det Forenede Kongerige under den datobaserede eksportordning kan indledes i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 5, i beslutning 98/256, navnlig artikel 1
By letter of 1 October 1999, the French Republic forwarded to the Commission the opinion issued by the AFSSA on 30 September 1999 and requested that the opinion and the data on which it was based be examined by the Scientific Steering Committee (hereinafter 'the SSC), set up by Commission Decision 97/404/EC of 10 June 1997.
Ved Kommissionens beslutning 98/692 blev princippet om udførselstilladelse til kvægprodukter inden for rammerne af den datobaserede eksportordning (»Date-Based Export Scheme DBES«, herefter »DBESordningen«) vedtaget ved ændring af artikel 6 i beslutning 98/256.
Under Decision 98/692, the principle of authorising the dispatch of bovine products under a Date-Based Export Scheme (hereinafter 'the DBES') was adopted by amendment of Article 6 of Decision 98/256.
DBES-ordningen er beskrevet i bilag III til beslutning 98/256, som blev tilføjet denne beslutning ved beslutning 98/692.
The DBES is set out in Annex III to Decision 98/256, which was inserted in that decision by Decision 98/692.
samt EF-traktaten, navnlig artikel 10 EF og 28 EF, idet den har nægtet at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at efterkomme beslutningerne, herunder navnlig afvist at tillade markedsføring af produkter, som er omfattet af den nævnte ordning i artikel 6 og bilag III til beslutning 98/256, som ændret ved beslutning 98/692, på sit område efter den 1. august 1999.
Article 6(5) of Decision 98/256 as amended states that the Commission, after having verified the application of all the provisions of that decision on the basis of Community inspections and after having informed the Member States, is to set the date on which dispatch of the products referred to in Annex III to the decision may commence.
Fællesskabsreglerne
Facts and procedure
Efter opdagelsen af en sandsynlig forbindelse mellem en variant af Creutzfeldt-Jacob-sygdom, der rammer mennesker, og bovin spongiform encephalopati (herefter »BSE«), der var vidt
Having examined the epidemiological data relating to BSE in the United Kingdom up to mid-October 1999, it found that the incidence of the disease was continuing to decline and that there was therefore no reason to suppose that there was a new route of infection.
Artikel 6, stk. 5, i beslutning 98/256, som ændret, bestemmer, at Kommissionen efter at have kontrolleret anvendelsen af alle bestemmelser i denne beslutning på grundlag af EF-kontrolbesøg og efter at have underrettet medlemsstaterne fastsætter den dato, på hvilken forsendelse af de pågældende produkter kan begynde.
In French law, the prohibition on the import of beef and veal from the United Kingdom results from the order of 28 October 1998 establishing specific measures applicable to certain products of bovine origin dispatched from the United Kingdom (hereinafter 'the order of 28 October 1998'). That order was amended by an order of
Beslutning 1999/514 fastsatte til gennemførelse af denne bestemmelse datoen til den 1. august 1999.
In view of the French Republic's reply to the reasoned opinion, the Commission brought the present action.
Komitéen konkluderede, at de af Det Forenede Kongerige trufne foranstaltninger bevirkede, at den risiko, den britiske DBES-ordning indebar for menneskers sundhed, i hvert fald var sammenlignelig med risikoen i de andre medlemsstater.
In that letter the Commission stated in particular that, by refusing to allow United Kingdom beef conforming to Community requirements to be marketed in its territory after 1 August 1999, the French Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
I fransk ret fremgår forbuddet mod indførsel af oksekød fra Det Forenede Kongerige af bekendtgørelse af 28. oktober 1998 om særlige foranstaltninger over for visse produkter, der er fremstillet af kvæg, fra Det Forenede Kongerige (herefter »bekendtgørelsen af 28.10.1998«).
The Commission contends that the article 1 of Decision 1999/514, which set 1 August 1999 as the date on which dispatch of products subject to the DBES could commence, allowed the Member States no discretion as to that date and the conditions governing dispatch.
Denne bekendtgørelse blev ændret ved en bekendtgørelse af 11. oktober 1999, der tillader transit af britisk oksekød.
A Member State cannot, by relying on the scientific opinion of a national body, substitute its own assessment of the risks for that carried out by the Commission in accordance with its powers.
Den 17. november 1999 sendte Kommissionen Den Franske Republik en åbningsskrivelse i medfør af artikel 226 EF.
On 24 November 1999 the French and United Kingdom authorities and the Commission drew up a protocol of understanding (hereinafter 'the protocol of understanding').
Kommissionen fastslog heri navnlig, at denne medlemsstat havde tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhvilede den i henhold til fællesskabsretten, idet den havde nægtet at tillade, at britisk oksekød, der overholdt de fællesskabsretlige krav, blev markedsført på dens område efter den 1. august 1999.
According to that protocol, the French authorities were satisfied with the clarifications provided by the United Kingdom authorities and the Commission with regard to traceability of products in the United Kingdom and on-the-spot controls in that Member State.
Kommissionen fremsendte den 10. september 1999 en skrivelse til Den Franske Republik, hvori den anførte, at den var overrasket over, at der inden for rammerne af gennemførelsen i fransk ret af beslutning 98/256, som ændret, og 1999/514 var rettet henvendelse til Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (herefter »AFSSA«).
By letter of 1 December 1999, the French Government requested a one-week extension for replying to the letter of formal notice, in order to enable it to submit the protocol of understanding to the AFSSA.
Kommissionen insisterede på, at Den Franske Republik hurtigt efterlevede beslutningerne med henblik på, at Kommissionen ikke blev tvunget til at indlede proceduren i artikel 226 EF.
The Commission maintains that the precautionary principle, which guides its actions, does not have the effect of obliging it to follow every scientific opinion without any power to carry out its own assessment, be it an opinion issued by a Member State body or by minority members of a Community working party.
Den 24. november 1999 udarbejdede de franske og de britiske myndigheder samt Kommissionen et aftalememorandum (herefter »aftalememorandummet«).
On 8 December 1999 the French Prime Minister's press office issued a press release announcing that 'France is not currently able to lift the ban on British beef and veal'.
Ifølge dette memorandum anser de franske myndigheder de tydeliggørelser, som de britiske myndigheder og Kommissionen er fremkommet med vedrørende sporbarheden af produkter fra Det Forenede Kongerige og den kontrol, der finder sted i denne medlemsstat, for tilfredsstillende.
By letter of 9 December 1999, the French Government replied to the Commission's letter of formal notice.
Ved skrivelse af 1. oktober 1999 sendte Den Franske Republik Kommissionen en udtalelse af 30. september 1999 fra AFSSA og anmodede om, at denne udtalelse og de oplysninger, den byggede på, blev undersøgt af Den Videnskabelige Styringskomite (herefter »VSK«), der blev oprettet ved Kommissionens beslutning 97/404/EF af 10. juni 1997.
The French Government essentially contends that the conditions for lifting the ban were not met because: (i) the DBES did not take account of new data such as the discovery of a suspected case of BSE; (ii) United Kingdom beef and veal did not comply with the conditions of the DBES; and (iii) there was no system for tracing products subject to the DBES and the Member States had refused to set up such a system, although this is a fundamental condition of the DBES.
Den franske regering anmodede ved skrivelse af 1. december 1999 om en yderligere frist på en uge til at besvare åbningsskrivelsen med henblik på at forelægge AFSSA aftalememorandummet.
Challenge to the DBES on the basis of the discovery of a suspected case of BSE
Den 8. december 1999 offentliggjorde den franske premierministers pressetjeneste en pressemeddelelse, der anførte, at »Frankrig i dag ikke er i stand til at ophæve embargoen på britisk oksekød«.
On 14 December 1999 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the French Republic referring io the press release of 8 December 1999 and calling on it to adopt, within five working days, the measures necessary in order for it to comply with its Community obligations.
Ifølge denne udtalelse rejste de seneste videnskabelige fremskridt og den faktiske sammenhæng fortsat spørgsmål om sikkerheden ved produkter henhørende under DBES-ordningen.
That reasoned opinion was replaced by a second one, of 16 December 1999, which also set a time-limit for compliance of five working days.
I øvrigt hviler pålideligheden af det program, der er sat i værk, ifølge eksperterne på pålideligheden af et system med identifikation og sporing af dyr, selv om sporbarheden i henhold til de gældende bestemmelser ikke er sikret for visse produkter.
At the request of the French Republic that time-limit was extended to 30 December 1999.
Den franske regering besvarede ved skrivelse af 9. december 1999 Kommissionens åbningsskrivelse.
Such circumstances call for appropriate means of control, such as tests.
Kommissionen sendte den 14. december 1999 Den Franske Republik en begrundet udtalelse, der tog hensyn til pressemeddelelsen af 8. december 1999, og opfordrede Den Franske Republik til inden for en frist på fem arbejdsdage
By letter of 29 December 1999, the French Government replied to the reasoned opinion.
VSK behandlede ligeledes udtalelsen under møder den 28. og 29. oktober 1999.
It pointed out that, under French law, the AFSSA had to be consulted before any amendment of the order of 28 October 1998.
Efter at have undersøgt epidemiologiske oplysninger om BSE i Det Forenede Kongerige indtil midten af oktober 1999 konstaterede komitéen, at
According to the opinions given by the AFSSA, serious doubts remained as to the risks presented by products subject to the DBES.
at træffe de foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at efterleve dens fællesskabsretlige forpligtelser.
As to those arguments, the French Government's questioning of the effectiveness of the DBES must be interpreted as a challenge, in the light of the precautionary principle, to the legality of the decision which established that scheme, namely Decision 98/692 which amended Decision 98/256 for that purpose.
mistænkeligt BSE-tilfælde, for det andet fordi det britiske oksekød ikke var i overensstemmelse med betingelserne i DBES-ordningen, og for det tredje fordi der manglede en ordning til sporing af produkter, der henhørte under denne ordning, og medlemsstaterne afviste at oprette en sådan ordning, selv om der var tale om en væsentlig betingelse for DBES-ordningen.
However, the system of remedies set up by the Treaty distinguishes between actions under Articles 226 EC and 227 EC, which are directed to obtaining a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations, and those under Articles 230 EC and 232 EC, which are directed to obtaining judicial review of measures adopted by the Community institutions or of failure to act on their part. Those remedies have different objectives and are subject to different rules.
Denne begrundede udtalelse blev erstattet af en anden udtalelse af 16. december 1999, der ligeledes fastsatte en frist på fem arbejdsdage for at efterkomme udtalelsen.
Given the lack of harmonisation regarding labelling and traceability, the French Government contends that it was entitled to rely on Article 30 EC in order to prevent the import of products subject to the DBES.
Denne frist blev på Den Franske Republiks anmodning forlænget til den 30. december 1999.
Its reaction was consistent with the principle of proportionality because it did not prevent transit of those products through its territory.
Anfægtelsen af DBES-ordningen på grund af fremkomsten af et mistænkeligt BSE-tilfælde
Challenge to the DBES on the basis of the alleged non-compliance of United Kingdom beef and veal with Community legislation
Ved skrivelse af 29. december 1999 besvarede Den Franske Republik den begrundede udtalelse.
However, the evidence submitted to the Court shows that such traceability was not fully guaranteed by the Community legislation existing at the time of adoption of Decision 1999/514, in particular so far as concerns meat and products subject to the DBES which had been cut, processed or rewrapped.
Den bemærkede, at høringen af AFSSA var påkrævet i henhold til den franske lov før enhver ændring af bekendtgørelsen af 28. oktober 1998.
The Commission acknowledged the existence of that legislative lacuna, since point 5 of the protocol of understanding stated that, at the time of signature of that document, traceability was not very transparent or rapid.
Der var imidlertid ifølge udtalelserne fra AFSSA alvorlig tvivl om risiciene ved produkter henhørende under DBES-ordningen.
In contrast to the ECHS laid down by Decision 98/256, which is based on the certification of herds, the basis for the DBES is that each animal considered individually must comply with the conditions prescribed.
Kommissionen har på baggrund af Den Franske Republiks besvarelse af den begrundede udtalelse anlagt denne sag.
It should nevertheless be reiterated that, in the absence of a provision of the Treaty expressly permitting it to do so, a Member State cannot properly plead the unlawfulness of decisions addressed to it as a defence to infringement proceedings arising out of its failure to implement those decisions.
Man må tage hensyn til et BSE-tilfælde hos en britisk ko, der var født efter den 1. august 1996, på hvilken dato de samlede foranstaltninger, der skulle garantere anvendelsen af DBES-ordningen, blev antaget for at være fuldt ud virksomme, hvilket er et forhold af væsentlig betydning.
State and subsequently exported to France without the affixing of a distinct mark in order, in particular, to enable consignments to be recalled.
Det forhold, at de britiske myndigheder ikke var i stand til at forklare dette tilfælde og præcisere årsagen til, hvorfor moderen til det smittede kreatur var død, rejser alvorlig tvivl om effektiviteten af det samlede britiske overvågningssystem, som DBES-ordningen hviler på.
As the Court has recorded in its judgment delivered today in Case C-93/00 Parliament ν Council [2001], at paragraphs 8 and 10, it was, however, not until 13 October 1999 that the Commission presented to the European Parliament and the Council two proposals for regulations, the first designed to establish a compulsory labelling system with effect from 1 January 2003 and the second temporarily to prolong the validity of Regulation No 820/97.
En sådan situation kræver passende kontrolmidler, såsom tests.
It follows that the application for a finding of failure to fulfil obligations must be dismissed in so far as it concerns that category of products.