natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I sagen Vanbraekel m.fl.havde en belgisk statsborger indgivet ansogning til sinsygekasse om en tilladelse med henblik pä at blive operereti Frankrig.
C-158/96 KohlllI99Sl ECR I-1931, where the Court had explained the effects of the provisions relating to the free movement of goods and the freedom toprovide services with regard to the reimbursement by national social securityschemes of medical costs incurred in another Member State.
Hunfik fsrst afslag pä ansogningen, men den belgiske ret tilpligtede sidensygekassen at godtgorede pägaldendeudgifter. Der opstodderfor sporgsmäI, om godtgsrelsenskulle ske i henhold til den franske ordning eller i henholdtil den belgiske ordning, og om en begrrensning af godtgorelsesbelsbet var
In Vanbraekel and Others, a Belgian national had sought authorisation fromher sickness insurance fund to undergo surgery in France.Authorisation was initially refused,but the Belgian court subsequently ordered the sicknessinsurance fund to reimburse the costs to her.
forenelig med forordning (EOF) nr. l408l7l 8. Sporgsmäletopstod ogsä iforhold til artikel 49 EF (fri udveksling af denesteydelser).
8 Thequestion alsoarose with regard to Article 49EC (freedom to provideservices). services).
Domstolen udtalte for det forste, at i henhold til artikel 22, stk. 1, litra c), iforordning nr. I408l7l skulle de betingelser for godtgsrelse, der er foreskrevet i lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, hvori behandlingen gives, finde anvendelsetil byrde for den kompetente institution, der senere skal yde refusion tilopholdsstedets institution pä de betingelser, der er fastsat i forordning nr.1408171.
The Court stated first of all that, in accordance with Article 22(l)(c) ot Regulation No 1408/71, the legislation of the Member State in which thetreatment is given is to be applied as regards the basis on which costs are borne, borne, while while the the competent competent institution institution remains remains responsible responsible for for subsequentlysubsequently reimbursing reimbursing the the institution institution of of the the place place of of stay, stay, as as provided provided for for in in
Da godtgorelsernei Belgien var langt mere fordelagtige end i Frankrig, bemaerkede Domstolen derefter, at forordningen ikke var til hinder for og ikke indeholdt regler om supplerende godtgorelse,när ordningen i denstat, hvori vedkommende er forsikret, er mere fordelagtig(princip, der folger af Kohll-doffrmen, prremis 27).
Court Court then then observed observed that that the the regulation regulation does does not not have have the the effect effect of of preventing preventing or or requiring requiring additional additional reimbursement reimbursement whenwhen the system in the State in which the person concerned is insuredis morebeneficial (a principle which follows ftom KohII, cited above , pamgraph 27).
Endelig byggede den sin afgorelse päbestemmelserne om den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
The Court finally founded its analysis on the provisions governing the freedomto provide services.
I den forbindelse fandt Domstolen, at en national lovgivning, der ikke garanterer en forsikret,der har fäet tilladelse til at undergä en hospitalsbehandling i en andenmedlemsstat, et godtgorelsesniveau svarende til det, som vedkommende villehave kunnet opnä, säfremt han var blevet indlagt pä et hospital i denmedlemsstat,hvori han er forsikret, affsder en begransning i den frieudveksling af tjenesteydelser.
State State a a level level of of payment payment equivalent equivalent to to that that to to which which he he would would havehave been been entitled entitled if if he he had had received received hospital hospital treatment treatment in in the the
Denne begrensning var ikke berettiget ud fratvingende almene hensyn til den socialesikringsordnings akonomiske ligevrgt,til det formäl at opretholde en stabil lage- og hospitalstjeneste, som alle haradgang til, eller til opretholdelse af behandlingsmuligheder eller lregeligkompetence pä det nationaleterritorium. territorium.
State State in in which he wasinsured entailsa restriction of freedom to provide services. Thatrestriction is notjustified by overridingreasons in the general interest linked to to the the financial financial balance balance of of a a social social security security system, system, to to the the objective objective of of maintaining a balanced medical and hospital service open to all, or to the need to to maintain maintain treatment treatment capacity capacity or or medical medical competence competence on on national national territory . territory .
I sagen Smits og Peerbooms havde to nederlandske statsborgere, der havde fäetlegebehandling i udlandet, ansogt om godtgorelse af disselageudgifter fra hver deres sygekasse i henhold til den galdende sygeforsikringsordningi Nederlandene.
Netherlands Netherlands social social security security legislation, legislation, on on the the grounds grounds that that satisfactory satisfactory and and adequate adequate treatment treatment was was available available in in the the
De fik afslag pä godtgsrelse i medfsr af den nederlandskelovgivning om social sikring med den begrundelse, at der i Nederlandenefandtes en tilstrrkkelig og adrekvat behandling, at den kategoriale kliniskebehandling i udlandetikke indebar nogen yderligere fordel, at der ikke forelänogen lagelig nsdvendighed af behandlingen, og at behandlingen under hensyntil denseksperimentelle karakter og i mangelaf videnskabeligt bevis for densvirkning ikke ansäsfor sredvanligi legekredse.
Netherlands, Netherlands, that that the the specific specific clinicalclinical treatrnent treatrnent provided provided abroad abroad had had no no additional additional advantage, advantage, that that there there was was no no justiffing justiffing medical medical necessity necessity the the treatment treatment and and that, that, owing owing to to the the experimentalexperimental nature nature of of the the treatment treatment and and the the absence absence of of scientific scientific evidence evidence of of itsits effectiveness, it was not regarded as normal within the professional circlesconcerned.
Rädets forordning (EOF) nr. 1408/71 af 14.6.1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger pä arbejdstagere, selvstandige erhvervsdrivende og deresfamiliemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fallesskabet,som endret og ajourfort ved Rädets forordning (EgF) nr. 2001/83af 2.6.1983(EFT L 230, s. 6).
Council Regulation (EEC) No 140817L of 14 June l97L on the application of socialsecurity schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation(EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1933 L230, p. 6).
Domstolen fastslog indledningsvis,at hospitalsydelser er tjenesteydelser iartikel 49 EF's forstand.
The Court stated first of all that the provision of hospital services doesconstitute the provision of services within the meaning of Article 49 EC.Legislation which makesreimbursement of costs subject to prior authorisationand provides for such reimbursement to be refused in certain circumstancesthus constitutes a barrierto freedom to provide services.
En lov, der stiller krav om forhändstilladelse sombetingelse for godtgorelse af afholdte udgifter og foreskriver, at en sädantilladelse skal nrgtes under visse betingelser, udgor säledes en hindring forden frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser. For sä vidt angär spsrgsmälet,om ensädan hindring kan vrere berettiget, undersogte Domstolen de samme grunde som i sagen Vanbraekel m.fl..
So far as concerns thepossibilityof justiffing that barrier, the Court examined the same grounds ofjustification as in the judgment in Vanbraekel and Others.It held that therequirement of prior authorisation for access to hospital treatment provided inanother Member State is 'both necessary and reasonable' (paragraph 80), inorder to safeguard the planningand accessibility of hospital treatment in aMember State.
Kravet offi, at der skulle foreligge enforhändstilladelse for at fä adgang til hospitalsydelser i en anden medlemsstat, blev for det fsrste anset for at vrere "bäde nsdvendig og rimelig" (premis 80)med henblik pä at sikre planlegningen af hospitalsbehandling og et tilgengeligt udbud heraf pä en medlemsstats omräde.
However, the conditions imposed by the Netherlands legislationfor obtaining authorisation are compatible with Community law only in so faras the requirement for the treatment to be regarded as 'normal' is interpretedby reference to international medicalscience.
Betingelserne i nederlandsklovgivning for at opnä forhändstilladelse fandtes dog kun at vrere foreneligemed fallesskabsretten, for sä vidt som kravet om, at behandlingen skal v & re
Furthermore, authorisation canbe refused on the ground of lack of medical necessity only if the same orequally effective treatment can be obtained without undue delay at anestablishment having a contractual arrangement with the insured person'ssickness insurance fund.
I den pägreldende dom tog Domstolen stilling tilfortolkningen af etableringsfrihedeni forhold til Det Forenede Kongerigeslovgivning.
Here, the Court ruled on the interpretation of freedom of establishment in relation to United Kingdom legislation.
I henhold til denne lovgivning havde selskaber, der varhjemmehsrende pä britisk omräde, mulighed for at vere omfattet afskatteregler, der gav dem adgang til at udbetale udbytte til deres moderselskabuden forskudsbetaling af selskabsskat,när moderselskabet ogsä varhjemmehsrende i medlemsstaten, men ikke gav dem adgang hertil, närmoderselskabet havde hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat. Domstolen udtalte, atartikel 43 EF var til hinder for sädanne lovbestemmelser, som ikke kunne v & reberettigede af hensyn til almene interesser.
The legislation afforded companiesresident in the United Kingdom the possibility of benefitingfrom a taxationregime which allowed them to pay dividends to their parent company withouthaving to pay advance corporation tax where the parent company was alsoresident in the United Kingdom but denied them that possibility where theparent company had its seatin another Member State.
Endvidere krever frellesskabsretten,at de hjemmehorende datterselskaber og de ikke-hjemmehsrendemoderselskaber har en effektiv sogsmälsadgang med henblik pä at opnätilbagebetaling eller erstatning af det tab, som de har lidt som folge af, at datterselskaberne har betalt skatten i form af en forskudsskat.
Furthermore, Community law requires that residentsubsidiaries and their non-resident parent companies should have an effectivelegal remedy in order to obtain reimbursement or reparation of the loss whichthey have sustained as a result of the advance payment of tax by thesubsidiaries.
Efter fastretspraksis mä reglerne om denne sogsmälsadgang ikke i praksis gore detumuligt eller uforholdsmessigt vanskeligt at udsve de rettigheder, der tillreggesi henhold til Frellesskabetsretsorden.
In accordance with well-established case-law, the rules relatingto that legal remedy must not render practically impossible or excessivelydifficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.
Domstolen udtalte endvidere, atfrellesskabsretten er til hinder for, at en national ret ikke giver medhold i ellernedsetter et krav, der er fremsat for retten af et hjemmeharende datterselskabog dets ikkehjemmehsrende moderselskab med henblik pä at opnä
The Court alsoheld that it is contrary to Community law for a national court to refuse orreduce a claim brought before it by a resident subsidiary and its non-residentparent company for reimbursement or reparation of the financial loss whichthey have suffered as a consequence ofthe advance payment ofcorporationtax
tilbagebetaling eller erstatning af det finansielle tab, som de har lidt som folgeaf, at datterselskabethar betalt forskudsselskabsskat, alene med denbegrundelse, at de pägreldende selskaber ikke har benyttetde retsmidler, de hartil rädighed til at anfegte skattemyndighedernesafgorelser, selv om dennationale lovgivning hindrede hjemmehsrende datterselskaber og deres ikkehjemmehsrende moderselskaber i at fä adgang til dennebeskatningsordning, beskatningsordning,
by by the the subsidiary, subsidiary, on on the the sole sole ground ground that that they they did did not not make make use use of of the the legallegal remedies available to them to challenge the decisions of the tax authorities,where national law denied resident subsidiaries and their non-resident parentcompanies the benefit of the taxation regime in question.
I sagenMac Quen m.fl. (dom af 1.2.2001, sag C-108196,Sml. I, s. 837)skulle Domstolen tage stilling til fortolkningen af artikel 43 EF i forhold til en fortolkning i retspraksis af nationale bestemmelser, der forbsd optikere atforetage visse synsundersogelser.
In Case C-108/96 Mac Quenand Others t200U ECR I-837, the Court wasrequiredto rule on the interpretation of Article 43 EC in relation to a judicial interpretation of national legislation which had the effect of prohibitingopticians from carrying out certain optical examinations.
Domstolen fastslog, at artikel 43 somudgangspunkt ikke var til hinder for et sädant forbud, som kunne v & reberettiget af hensyn til beskyttelsen af den offentlige sundhed.
It held that Article 43does not in principle preclude such a prohibition, which could be justified byreasons relating to the protection of publichealth. health.
Inden for konkurcencerettener udviklingen i retspraksis pä visse
have arisen from references for a preliminary ruling (9.1), others from directactions or appeals (9.2).
(9.1), pä andre i punkter sket i forbindelse med prejudicielle foreleggelser forbindelse med direkte sagsmäl eller appelsager (9.2).
Comrnunity Comrnunity and, and, in in particular, particular, for for the the functioning functioning of of the the internal internal market' market'
Courage og Crehan-sagen (dom af 70.9.2001., sag C-453199, Sml. I, s.6297) vedrsrtesporgsmälet om en par
Court Court deduced deduced from from the the nature nature of of the the
Domstolen traf i dommen afgorelse pä grundlag af retspraksis omfallesskabsrettens art og rrekkeviddeunder henvisning til Van Gend & Loos-sagen(domaf 5.2.1963, sag 26162, Sml. 1954-1964,s. 375, org.ref.: Rec.s. 1), Costa-sagen(domaf15.7.1964,sag 6164,Sffrl. 1954-1964,s.531,org.ref.: Rec. s. 1141) ogsagen Francovich m.fl.(domaf19.11.L99L,forenede sager C-6190og C-9190,Sml. I, s. 5357) og pä grundlag af denbetragtning, at artikel 81 er > engrundleggende bestemmelse, der er nsdvendigfor udfsrelsenaf de opgaver, som er blevet overdragettil Fellesskabet, ognavnlig for det indre markedsfunktion" (pramis 20). Under hensyn til karakteren af fellesskabsretsordenen, konkurrencereglernessrerligt vigtige rolle heri og andre mere konkrete betragtninger fastslog
Article t8l(1) ECI before a national court even where he is a parly to a contract contract that that is is liable liable to to restrict restrict or or distort distort competition competition within within the the meaning meaning of of that provision' (paragraph24). That right entails, inter alia, the right to seek compensation compensation for for the the loss loss caused. caused.
Domstolen, at "enhver borger kan ststte ret pä tilsidesettelse af [artikel 81,stk. 1, EF], ogsä selv om han er part i en aftale, der kan begr & nseeller eller fordreje konkurrencen i denne bestemmelses forstand" (prremis24). Denne retindeberer bl.a. ret til at kreve erstatning. Det kunne derfor ikke pä forhändudelukkes, at der kunne anlagges erstatningssogsmäl af en part i en aftale i
Accordingly, Accordingly, there there cannot cannot be be any any absolute absolute bar bar to to an an action action for for damages damages being being brought brought by by one one of of the the parties parties to to a a contract contract which violatesArticle 81(1) EC.
strid med artikel 81, stk. 1, EF.
or distort competition.
Hvisdet imidlertid er godtgjort, at den part, der päberäber sig en tilsidesrettelse af artikel 81 EF, barer en betydeligdel af ansvaretfor konkurrenceforstyrrelsen,er frellesskabsretten ikke til hinder for en national retsregel, hvorefter denpägeeldende ikke kan päberäbe sig egne ulovlige handlinger med henblik pä atopnä erstatning.
However, if it is established that the party relying onthe breach of Article 81 EC bears significant responsibility for the distortionof competition, Community law does not preclude a rule of national lawbarring him from relying on his own unlawful actions to obtaindamages. damages.
I sagenAmbulanz Glöckner (dom af 25.10.2001,sag C-475199,endnu ikketrykt i Samling af Af.garelser)fortolkede Domstolen artikel 8l EF, 82 EF og86 EF.
In its judgment of 25 October 2001 in Case C-475 199 Ambulanz Glöckner (notyet published in the ECR), the Court interpreted Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and
Den foreleggende ret stillede detsporgsmäl, om de hensyn,der er forbundet med opfyldelsenaf en opgave afalmen skonomisk interesse, var tilstrrekkelige til at udelukke enhverkonkurrence for denne type ydelser.
The national court wasuncertain whether reasons related to thepursuitof a task of general economic interest were sufficient to justiff theexclusionof all competition for that type of services.
Endelig fastslog Domstolen,at denne ordning var berettiget i=henhold til artikel 86, stk. 2, EF, när denikke hindrede tildelingenaf en tilladelse til selvstrendige erhvervsdrivende itilfrelde af, at de autoriserede sanitetsorganisationer ikke var i stand til atdakke den foreliggende eftersporgsel efter udrykningskorselog sygetransport.
Finally, the Court concluded that such legislationwas justified under Article 86(2) EC provided that it did not bar the grant ofan authorisation to independent operators where the authorised medical aidorganisations were unableto satisff demand existing in the area of medicaltransport services.
For sä vidt angär direkte sogsmäl og appelsager skal n & vnes todomme, den ene vedrsrer luftfart, den anden vedrsrer begrebet Fellesskabets
So far as concerns direct actions and appeals, two judgments will benoted, one concerning air traffic and the other concerning the concept ofCommunity interest in the context of Regulation No 17 e rclating toimplementation of the competition rules.
17 om anvendelse af interesse i forbindelse med forordning nr. konkurrencebe stemmel serne .
Republic Republic for for annulment annulment of of aa t0
I sagen Portugal mod Kommissionen (dom af 29.3.2001,sag C-163199, Sml.I, s. 2613) frifandt Domstolen Kommissionen for Republikken Portugals pästand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning om en procedure ihenhold til artikel 86 EF 10.
Commission decision relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 86 EC.
I den anfegtede beslutning fandt Kommissionen, at ordningen i de porfugisiskebestemmelser med rabatterpä landingsafgifterog differentieringaf afgifternealt efter flyets afgangsland var uforenelig medartikel 86, stk. l, EF, sammenholdt med artikel 82 EF.
Commission Commission had had found found that that the the system system of of discounts discounts on on landing landing charges charges differentiated differentiated according according to to the the origin origin of of the the f light , f light , provided for by Portuguese legislation, was incompatible with Article 86(1)EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC.
Den PortugisiskeRepublik päberäbte sig blandt andre anbringender tilsidesrettelse afproportionalitetsprincippet. Domstolen fandt imidlertid, at beslutningen ikkevar i strid med proportionalitetsprincippet under hensyn til det vide sksn, dertilkommer Kommissioneniforbindelse med artikel 86,stk.3,EF.Den
The Portuguese Republic pleaded,inter alia, breach of the principle of proportionality.
Portugisiske Republik argumenterede endvidere for, at der ikke var sketmisbrug af dominerende stilling med hensyn til de rabatter,der blev givet pä grundlag af antallet af landinger. Domstolen anfsrte imidlertid, atrabatordningen forekom at vere mere gunstig for visse luftfartsselskaber, i dette tilfalde de nationaleluftfartsselskaber. luftfartsselskaber.
The Portuguese Republic also also contended contended that that there there had had been been no no abuse abuse of of a a dominant dominant position position with with regard regard to discounts granted on the basis of the number of landings.
I sagerne IECC mod Kommissionen (domme af t7.5.2001, sag C-449198 P og C-450198 P, Sml.
P P IECC IECC v v Commission Commission
I, henholdsvis s. 3875og s. 3947) forkastede Domstolen toappelsager pä konkurrenceomrädet.Et af de anbringender,der blev fremfsrt ved denne lejlighed, bor gives serlig opmrerksomhed.
C-450198 P IECCv Commission t200U ECR I-3947,the Court dismissed two appeals in the competitionfield. One of the pleas raised merits particular attention. attention.
Appellanten gjordegeldende, at Retten havde gjort sig skyldig i en forkert retsanvendelse hvadangär rekkevidden, definitionen og anvendelsen af artikel 3 i forordning nr. 17 r1og kriteriet om Frellesskabets interesse.
Instance Instance had had committed committed an an error error of of law law with with regard regard to to the the scope, scope, the the definition definition and and the the rr and the legal concept of application of Article 3 of Regulation No 17 Community interest.
Domstolen stadfastede dommen afsagt af Retten i Fsrste Instans.
The Court of Justice upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Efter Domstolens opfattelse var Kommissionen inden for konkurrencepolitikkenberettiget til at prioriterede klager, den modtager, forskelligt.
Commission Commission is is entitled entitled to to give differing degrees of priority to the complaints brought before it.
Den har derfori denne forbindelse en skonsbefojelse.
Commission Commission is is required required to to take take into into consideration. consideration.
Denne befojelseaftrenger ikke af, omsagens behandling befinder sig pä et mere eller mindre fremskredentstadium, stadium,
Court Court stated, stated, however, however, that that the the
Rädets forordning nr. 17 af 6.2.1962, forste forordning om anvendelse afbestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85 og 86 (EFT 1959-1962,s. 81).
Commission, Commission, in in the the exercise exercise of of its its discretion, discretion, must must take take into into consideration consideration all all the the relevant relevant matters matters of of law law and and of of fact fact in in order order to to decide decide what what action action to to take take in in response response to to aa
Henvisning i fodnote 9.
Cited in footnote 9 above.
hvilket kun er en af de omstrendigheder, som Kommissionen skal tage hensyntil.
complaint, particularly those which the complainant brings to its attention.
Den fastslog, at antallet af kriterier, som Kommissionen kan lreggevegt pä, ikke burde begrenses, og at det heller ikke burde pälaegges Kommissionen udelukkende at anvende bestemte kriterier.
Thenumber of criteria of assessment should not be limited, nor should theCommission be required to have recourse exclusively to certaincriteria. criteria.
"statsmidlern, Kommissionens befojelser under kontrolproceduren og forholdetmellem statsstotte og virksomhedernes public service-forpligtelser i henhold til de nationale regler.
In the field of State aid, the most significant cases related to theconcept of 'Stateresources', to the Commission's powers in the monitoringprocedure and to the relationship between State aid and public serviceobligations imposed on undertakings by State rules.
De faktiske omstrendigheder i den ovenn & vnte PreussenElektra - sag er gengivetovenfor i afsnit 6. Med hensyn til statsststte var det vesentligste sporgsmäI, om bestemmelser som de tyske kunne anses for at vaere statsstotte. Begrebet ststte er blevet defineretaf Domstolen som der direkte eller indirekte
The facts of PreussenElehrahave been noted in section 6 of this review.