natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved afgørelsen af, om den tyske lovgivning udgør en kvantitativ udførselsrestriktion eller en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning, påhviler det den nationale ret at efterprøve, om de nærmere bestemmelser i den i hovedsagen omhandlede lovgivning for udstedelse af de pågældende nummerplader er forenelige med fællesskabsretten i betragtning af de betingelser, der er fastsat i retspraksis.
As regards, first, the question whether the fact that a Member State prohibits a national of another Member State from driving a used car purchased on its territory where the vehicle is bearing temporary number plates issued, for the purpose of export to the other Member State, by the competent authorities of that State is a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports, it must be recalled that, as the Commission rightly maintains, there is no Community provision governing the putting into service of vehicles, whether generally or, more specifically, for export to another Member State.
Den nationale ret skal således sammenholde de nærmere bestemmelser i den tyske lovgivning for registrering af køretøjer til brug i Tyskland med bestemmelserne for registrering i Tyskland af køretøjer, der er bestemt til at blive eksporteret til en anden medlemsstat. For at kunne fastslå, om der foreligger en udførselsrestriktion, skal det først efterprøves, om køretøjer, der er bestemt til at køre i Tyskland, undergives andre registreringskrav end køretøjer, der er bestemt til eksport, og om denne forskelsbehandling kan hindre eksporthandelen.
Nor is there any Community provision that determines the national authorities competent to register motor vehicles.
Den nationale ret skal dernæst efterprøve, om den i hovedsagen omhandlede tyske lovgivning skaber en forskelsbehandling mellem handelen på det tyske hjemmemarked og den tyske udenrigshandel, og i givet fald om dette indebærer, at den nævnte lovgivning sikrer den indenlandske handel en fordel til skade for handelen i en anden medlemsstat.
As the Advocate General states at point 19 of his Opinion, that competence must none the less be exercised in compliance with the fundamental freedoms provided for in the EC Treaty, in particular in Article 29 EC.
Den nationale ret skal kun efterprøve, om den nationale lovgivning kan være begrundet ifølge artikel 30 EF, herunder om sanktionerne er forholdsmæssige, hvis den finder, at den nævnte lovgivning udgør en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning som en kvantitativ udførselsrestriktion.
In order to determine whether the German rules constitute a quantitative restriction on exports or a measure having equivalent effect to such a restriction, the national court must consider whether the detailed provisions established by the rules at issue in the main proceedings for the issue of temporary number plates are compatible with Community law, in the light of the conditions identified in the case-law.
Den nationale ret skal herved navnlig efterprøve, om den i hovedsagen omhandlede nationale lovgivning kan være begrundet i hensynet til den offentlig orden eller den offentlige sikkerhed.
The national court will thus have to compare the detailed provisions established by the German rules for the administrative procedure for the putting into service of vehicles in Germany with those laid down for the administrative procedure for the putting into service in Germany of vehicles intended for export to another Member State.
Det påhviler den nationale ret i givet fald at fastslå, om den nationale lovgivning er nødvendig for at nå det tilsigtede mål og ikke er en vilkårlig forskelsbehandling eller en skjult begrænsning af samhandlen mellem medlemsstaterne.
In order to be able to conclude that there is a restriction on exports, it is necessary first of all to ascertain whether there is a difference in treatment between the administrative procedure for the putting into service of a vehicle intended for use in Germany and that for a vehicle intended for export, and whether that difference in treatment is of such a kind as to restrict export patterns. Next, the national
Hvis en lovgivning som den i hovedsagen omhandlede derimod findes at være i strid med artikel 29 EF, kan de deri fastsatte sanktioner ikke anvendes, hvorfor det er ufornødent at efterprøve spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt de er forholdsmæssige med overtrædelsens grovhed.
court must ascertain whether the German regulations in issue in the main proceedings give rise to a difference in treatment between trade within Germany and its external trade and, if appropriate, whether it follows that the regulations favour national trade at the expense of that of another Member State.
Det påhviler den nationale ret at efterprøve, om dette er tilfældet i hovedsagen.«
If so, it will have to establish whether they are necessary in order to achieve the object pursued and do not constitute arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction of trade between Member States.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling') den 15. maj 2003.
As regards, second, the proportionality of the criminal penalties provided for in the national rules at issue in the main proceedings, it should be noted that, if those rules are not held to be contrary to Article 29 EC, the question of proportionality does not arise.
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 1999/13/EF« (Første Afdeling)
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 15 May 2003.
I det foreliggende tilfælde var der endnu ikke på tidspunktet for udløbet af fristen i den begrundede udtalelse truffet foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af direktivet i den italienske retsorden.
Case C-348/02 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Environment and consumers
Generaladvokat L.A Geelhoed har ikke fremsat forslag til afgørelse i sagen.
In the present case, it is established that no measure transposing Directive 1999/13 into national law had been taken when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired.
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 93/15/EØF« (Første Afdeling)
Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.'
Efter etableringen af denne kompetencefordeling er et lovforslag om gennemførelsen af nævnte direktiv under udarbejdelse.
The Court (First Chamber) decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion.
•1) Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 93/15/EØF af 5. april 1993 om harmonisering af bestemmelserne om markedsføring af og kontrol med eksplosivstoffer til civil brug, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget aüe de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 93/15/EEC) (First Chamber)
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer har ikke fremsat forslag til afgørelse i sagen.
This having now been completed, a draft law intended to implement the directive is being drawn up.
»Appel — aftaler og samordnet pratets — europæiske producenter af stålbjælker — meddelelse af klagepunkter« (Femte Afdeling)
Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.'
Det fremgår af den appellerede dom, at den europæiske jern- og stålindustri fra 1974 gennemgik en krise, der var karakteriseret ved et fald i efterspørgslen, som skabte problemer i form af overudbud og overkapacitet såvel som lave priser.
The Court (First Chamber) decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion.
Kommissionen i 1980, at der forelå en åbenbar krise i EKSF-traktatens artikel 58's forstand, og fastsatte bindende produktionskvoter, bl.a. for stålbjælker.
In 1980, after having attempted to manage the crisis by way of unilateral voluntary commitments given by undertakings as regards the amount of steel put on the market and minimum prices ('the Simonet Plan') or by fixing guide and minimum prices ('the Davignon Plan', the 'Eurofer Γ agreement), the Commission declared that there was a manifest crisis within the meaning of Article 58 of the ECSC Treaty and imposed mandatory production quotas for, inter alia, beams.
Denne fællesskabsordning ophørte den 30. juni 1988.
That Community system came to an end on 30 June 1988.
I god tid før denne dato havde Kommissionen meddelt, at kvotaordningen ville blive afviklet i en række meddelelser og beslutninger, hvori den mindede om, at denne ordnings ophør betød, at der på ny ville være et marked med fri konkurrence mellem virksomhederne.
Long before that date, the Commission had announced in various communications and decisions that the quota system was to be abandoned, pointing out that the end of that system would mean a return to a market characterised by free competition between undertakings.
Branchen var dog stadig præget af overskudsproduktion, som efter eksperternes opfattelse burde nedskæres omfattende og hurtigt for at gøre det muligt for virksomhederne at klare sig i konkurrencen på verdensmarkedet.
However, the sector continued to be affected by excess production capacity which, according to expert opinion, had to undergo a sufficient and rapid reduction to enable undertakings to meet world competition.
Ved kvotaordningens ophør indførte Kommissionen en overvågningsordning, i medfør af hvilken der blev indsamlet statistikker vedrørende produktion og leverancer, foretaget en overvågning af udviklingen på markederne samt gennemført en regelmæssig konsultation af virksomhederne vedrørende situationen og tendenserne på markedet.
From the end of the quota system, the Commission set up a surveillance system involving the collection of statistics on production and deliveries, monitoring of market developments and regular consultation with undertakings on the market situation and trends.
Branchens virksomheder, hvoraf nogle var medlemmer af brancheorganisationen Eurofer, havde således regelmæssige kontakter med Kommissionens GD III (Generaldirektoratet for »Det Indre Marked og Industri«) som led i konsultationsmøderne.
The undertakings in the sector, some of which were members of the Eurofer trade association, thus maintained regular contact with DG III (DirectorateGeneral for the 'Internal Market and Industrial Affairs') of the Commission by way of consultation meetings.
Overvågningsordningen udløb den 30. juni 1990 og blev erstattet med et informationssystem på individuel og frivillig basis.
The surveillance system came to an end on 30 June 1990 and was replaced by an individual and voluntary information scheme.
I begyndelsen af 1991 gennemførte Kommissionen en række kontrolundersøgelser i et vist antal jern- og stålvirksomheder og i to virksomhedssammenslutninger i branchen.
At the beginning of 1991, the Commission carried out a series of inspections in the offices of a number of steel undertakings and associations of undertakings in the sector.
De blev tilsendt en meddelelse af klagepunkter den 6. maj 1992.
A statement of objections was sent to them on 6 May 1992.
Der blev afholdt høringer i begyndelsen af 1993.
Hearings were held at the beginning of 1993.
Det er ubestridt, at meddelelsen af klagepunkter i den foreliggende sag ikke angav, at appellanten kunne pålægges en bøde.
On 16 February 1994, the Commission adopted the contested decision, by which it found that 17 European steel undertakings and one of their trade associations had participated in a series of agreements, decisions and concerted practices designed to fix prices, share markets and exchange confidential information on the market for beams in the Community, in breach of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.
Hertil kommer — således som det blev anført af Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 101 — at appellanten ikke var adressat for meddelelsen af klagepunkter og af denne grund blev nægtet aktindsigt.
By that decision, it imposed fines on 14 undertakings for infringements committed between 1 Jury 1988 and 31 December 1990.
Det følger af det anførte, at Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 102 med urette drog den konklusion af sagens konkrete omstændigheder, at den omstændighed, at en meddelelse af klagepunkter ikke blev adresseret til appellanten, ikke kunne føre til annullation for så vidt angår appellanten af den anfægtede beslutning på grund af tilsidesættelse af retten til kontradiktion.
By its first pound of appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance was wrong to reject its plea for annulment of the contested decision alleging that, after having sent TradeARBED a statement of objections in which all of the objections were attributed to that undertaking, the Commission then took the contested decision against the appellant without first informing it of its intention or of the reasons which, in the Commission's opinion, justified that course of action and without giving the appellant an opportunity to make known its point of view on that intention and the formal reasons for it.
Ifølge artikel 61 i statutten for Domstolen kan Domstolen, såfremt den giver appellanten medhold og ophæver den af Retten trufne afgørelse, i denne forbindelse selv træffe endelig afgørelse, hvis sagen er moden til påkendelse. Dette er tilfældet i nærværende sag.
In all proceedings in which sanctions, especially fines or penalty payments, may be imposed, observance of the rights of the defence is a fundamental principle of Community law which must be complied with even if the proceedings in question are administrative proceedings.
Det følger af de foregående præmisser, at søgsmålet er begrundet, og at den anfægtede beslutning skal annulleres, for så vidt som den vedrører appellanten.
That principle requires, in particular, the inclusion in the statement of objections addressed by the Commission to an undertaking on which it intends to impose a penalty for infringement of competition rules of the essential factors taken into consideration against that undertaking, such as the facts alleged, the classification of those facts and the evidence on which the Commission relies, so that the undertaking may submit its arguments effectively during the administrative procedure brought against it.
*1) Dommen afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 11. marts 1999 i sag T-137/94, ARBED mod Kommissionen, ophæves.
It is common ground that, in the present case, the statement of objections did not state that fines might be imposed on the appellant.
Kommissionens beslutning 94/215/EKSF af lá februar 1994 om en procedure i henhold til EKSF-traktatens artikel 65 vedrørende aftaler og forskellige former for samordnet praksis mellem europæiske producenter af stålbjælker annulleres, for så vidt som den vedrører ARBED SA.
Moreover, as the Court of First Instance observed in paragraph 101 of the judgment under appeal, the appellant was not the addressee of the statement of objections and was denied a right of access to the file for that reason.
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber betaler sagens omkostninger såvel i forbindelse med sagen for Retten i Første Instans som i appelsagen.«
It follows that the Court of First Instance was wrong to conclude from the facts of the present case, in paragraph 102 of the judgment under appeal, that the failure to address a statement of objections to the appellant was not such as to entail annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it concerned the appellant, on the ground of infringement of the rights of the defence.
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Femte Afdeling') den 26. september 2002.
Under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if an appeal is well founded and the Court of Justice quashes the decision of the Court of First Instance, it may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
»- at ophæve dom af 11. marts 1999, som Retten i Første Instans har afsagt i sag T-137/94 (ARBED SA mod Kommissionen), for så vidt som Retten bekræfter, at beslutningen lovligt blev udstedt til ARBED SA i forhold til ARBED SA at annullere artikel 4 og 6 i Kommissionens beslutning 94/215/EKSF af 16. februar 1994 om en procedure i henhold til EKSF-traktatens artikel 65 vedrørende aftaler og forskellige former for samordnet praksis mellem europæiske producenter af stålbjælker.
It follows from the preceding paragraphs, the action is well founded and that the contested decision must be annulled in so far as it concerns the appellant.
Sag C-179/99 Ρ Eurofer ASBL / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber EKSF
Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-137/94 ARBED ν Commission;
»Appel — aftaler og samordnet pratets — europæiske producenter af stålbjælker« (Femte Afdeling)
Annuls Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as it concerns ARBED SA;
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 14. maj 1999 har Eurofer ASBL i medfør af artikel 49 i EKSF-statutten for Domstolen iværksat appel af dom afsagt den 11. marts 1999 af Retten i Første Instans i sag T-136/94, Eurofer mod Kommissionen, hvorved Retten frifandt Kommissionen for Eurofers påstand om delvis annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 94/215/EKSF af 16. februar 1994 om en procedure i henhold til EKSF-traktatens artikel 65 vedrørende aftaler og forskellige former for samordnet praksis mellem europæiske producenter af stålbjælker.
Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of both the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the present appeal proceedings.'
Ved denne beslutning fastslog Kommissionen, at appellanten havde overtrådt den nævnte traktats artikel 65, stk. 1, og pålagde den omgående at bringe overtrædelsen til ophør.
Advocate General C. Stix-Hackl delivered her Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 26 September 2002. ~
Med det fjerde anbringende gøres det gældende, at EKSF-traktatens artikel 15, stk. 1, og artikel 65, stk. 1, er tilsidesat som følge af en urigtig fortolkning af den betingelse, der fremgår af anvendelsen i den sidstnævnte bestemmelse af udtrykkene »begrænse eller fordreje den normale konkurrence«, og som følge
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 May 1999, the association Eurofer ASBL brought an appeal under Article 49 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-136/94 Eurofer ν Commission [1999], by which the Court of First Instance dismissed its application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams.
af en selvmodsigende begrundelse i forbindelse med anvendelsen af betingelsen på den af appellanten organiserede informationsudveksling.
The first ground of appeal alleges infringement by the Court of First Instance of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty by reason of misinterpretation of the concept of 'decisions by associations of undertakings' used in that article.
Det bemærkes, at de vurderinger, der er foretaget i den appellerede doms præmis 186-195, er faktiske vurderinger, der ikke er undergivet Domstolens prøvelse i forbindelse med en appelsag.
According to the Court, the Court of First Instance was entitled to find, in paragraphs 130 to 133 of the judgment under appeal, that associations of undertakings could be covered by the prohibition laid down in Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty and to reject, in paragraphs 137 to 139, the appellant's argument that the Commission was not empowered to adopt Article 2 of the contested decision.
Det skal således understreges, at som det fremgår af artikel 32d, stk. 1, KS, og artikel 51 i EF-statutten for Domstolen, er appel begrænset til retsspørgsmål.
As is clear from Article 32d(l) CS and Article 51 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal lies on a point of law only.
Retten er derfor enekompetent til at fastlægge og vurdere de relevante faktiske omstændigheder såvel som til at vurdere beviserne, med det forbehold, at disse omstændigheder og beviser ikke er urigtigt gengivet.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence, except where those facts and that evidence have been distorted.
På grundlag af disse faktiske vurderinger var det med rette, at Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 196 konkluderede, at den omtvistede informationsudvekslingordning havde til formål at hindre, begrænse eller fordreje den normale konkurrence i EKSF-traktatens artikel 65, stk. 1 's forstand, idet den gjorde det muligt for de deltagende producenter at sætte et indbyrdes praktisk samarbejde i stedet for de normale konkurrencerisici.
In the light of those findings of fact, the Court of First Instance was entitled to find, in paragraph 196 of the judgment under appeal, that the information exchange system at issue tended to prevent, restrict or distort normal competition within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty by enabling the participant undertakings to substitute practical cooperation between them for the normal risks of competition.
Med det tredje anbringende gøres det gældende, at EKSF-traktatens artikel 65, stk. 1, er tilsidesat, og at grænserne for Rettens saglige kompetence er overskredet som følge af en urigtig fortolkning af den betingelse, der fremgår af anvendelsen i denne bestemmelse af udtrykket »har til formål«, ved anvendelsen af betingelsen på de angiveligt konkurrencebegrænsende følger af den af appellanten organiserede informationsudveksling.
The third ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty and failure by the Court of First Instance to observe the limits of its jurisdiction ratione materiae by reason of misinterpretation of the requirement arising from the use in that provision of the words 'tending ... to' when applying that concept to the allegedly anti-competitive effects of the exchange of information organised by the appellant.
Ifølge Domstolen var det med rette, og uden at overskride sin kompetence, at Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 191 og 195 undersøgte virkningerne af den omtvistede informationsudveksling på de erhvervsdrivendes adfærd, der deltog i denne ordning, og i dommens præmis 196 konkluderede, at informationsudvekslingsordningen havde til formål at hindre, begrænse eller fordreje den normale konkurrence i EKSF-traktatens artikel 65, stk. l's forstand.
According to the Court, the Court of First Instance was correct and did not exceed the limits of its jurisdiction ratione materiae in examining, in paragraphs 191 and 195 of the judgment under appeal, the effects of the exchange of information at issue on the conduct of the traders which participated in that system and in concluding, in paragraph 1% of that judgment, that the information exchange system tended to prevent, restrict or distort normal competition within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.
»Appel — aftaler og samordnet prateis — europæiske producenter af stålbjælker« (Femte Afdeling)
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams) (Fifth Chamber)