natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det første og andet præjudicielle spørgsmål
The establishment referred to in that provision is expressly stated to be that of the policy-holder and 'establishment' cannot therefore have the meaning given to it in Article 2(c) of the Directive.
Med hensyn til direktivets artikel 2, litra d), sidste led, må det konstateres, at begrebet »etableret forretningssted« er anvendt med henblik på at afgøre, i hvilken »medlemsstat risikoen består«.
The Hoge Raad der Nederlanden took the view that the case before it raised questions of interpretation of Community law and so, by judgment of 19 May 1999, it stayed proceedings and referred a number of questions to the Court.
Ved fortolkningen af begrebet »etableret forretningssted« i direktivets artikel 2, litra d), sidste led, og navnlig ved afgørelsen af, om begrebet kan fortolkes således, at det angiver et direkte eller indirekte datterselskab af den juridiske person, der er forsikringstageren, skal der som nævnt ovenfor i præmis 30 tages hensyn til den sammenhæng, hvori det indgår, og til de mål, der forfølges med den ordning, som bestemmelsen udgør en del af.
In order to interpret the term 'establishment' used in Article 2(d), final indent, of the Directive and to determine in particular whether it may be interpreted as referring to a subsidiary or subsubsidiary of the legal person which is the policy holder, the context and the objectives pursued by the legislation of which this provision forms part must, as pointed out in paragraph 30 of this judgment, be taken into consideration.
Med det første og andet spørgsmål, som skal behandles under ét, ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om det i henhold til direktivets artikel 2, litra c) og d), sidste led, og artikel 3 er tilladt, at en medlemsstat af en juridisk person, der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat, opkræver forsikringsafgift af præmier, som den juridiske person betaler til et forsikringsselskab, der også er etableret i en anden medlemsstat, for forsikring af driftsrisici i et direkte eller indirekte datterselskab, som er etableret i den medlemsstat, der opkræver afgiften.
By its first and second questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the national court asks essentially whether Articles 2(c) and (d), final indent, and 3 of the Directive permit a Member State to levy insurance tax on a legal person established in another Member State in respect of premiums which that legal person has paid to an insurer, also established in another Member State, to cover the business risks of its subsidiary or subsubsidiary established in the Member State making the levy.
Retten spørger, om det samme vil gøre sig gældende, hvis den juridiske person, der har betalt præmierne, og den juridiske person, hvis driftsrisici er dækket, er to selskaber i samme koncern med et andet indbyrdes forhold end forholdet mellem moder- og datterselskab.
It asks whether it would make any difference if the legal person which paid the premiums and the legal person whose business risks are covered were two companies in the same group linked by a relationship other than that of parent and subsidiary company.
Med bestemmelsen i direktivets artikel 2, litra d), sidste led, har fællesskabslovgiver ønsket at gøre det muligt at afgøre, i hvilken medlemsstat risikoen består, i alle de tilfælde, som ikke er omfattet af de foregående led.
Article 2(d), final indent, of the Directive was intended to enable the Member State where the risk is situated to be determined in all cases not provided for in the previous indents.
Formålet med artikel 2, litra d), sidste led, er således navnlig at opstille en udfyldningsregel til bestemmelse af det sted, hvor en driftsrisiko består, når risikoen ikke særligt er forbundet med en fast ejendom, et transportmiddel eller en rejse.
So, the objective of Article 2(d), final indent, is in particular to lay down a residual rule for the determination of the place where a business risk is situated when that risk is not specifically linked to a building, a vehicle or travel.
Hovedvægten er herved lagt på, hvor den virksomhed, som kontrakten dækker risikoen ved, udøves.
To that end, emphasis is placed on the place where the activity whose risk is covered by the contraa is exercised.
Besvarelsen af det første og det andet spørgsmål kræver en afgørelse af, om et direkte eller indirekte datterselskab af et selskab, der er forsikringstager, eller en virksomhed, kan anses for at være selskabets »etablerede forretningssted« i direktivets artikel 2, litra d), sidste leds forstand.
In order to reply to the first and second questions raised, it must first be ascertained whether the subsidiary or subsubsidiary of a company which takes out insurance, can be regarded as an 'establishment' of that company within the meaning of Article 2(d), second indent, of the Directive.
Indledningsvis skal der henvises til Domstolens faste praksis, hvorefter der ved fortolkningen af en fællesskabsretlig bestemmelse ikke blot skal tages hensyn til dens ordlyd, men ligeledes til den
In circumstances such as those at issue here, namely where a parent company established in a Member State has taken out insurance with an insurer of the same Member State to cover risks linked to the activity of a subsubsidiary established in another Member State, it would not be possible to determine the place where the risk is situated if the concept of the 'establishment' of the policyholder, as referred to in Article 2(d), final indent, of the Directive, did not also comprise a subsidiary of that policy holder. That cannot have been the Community legislature's intention.
Det ville imidlertid ikke være muligt at bestemme, hvor risikoen består, hvis begrebet forsikringstagerens »etablerede forretningssted« i direktivets artikel 2, litra d), sidste leds forstand
It should be remembered, at the outset, that the Court has consistently held that, in interpreting a provision of Community law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objects of the rules of which it forms part.
Det tredje præjudicielle spørgsmål ikke også omfattede et datterselskab af forsikringstageren under omstændigheder som de i hovedsagen foreliggende, hvor et moderselskab i en medlemsstat har indgået en forsikringsaftale med et forsikringsselskab i den samme medlemsstat om dækning af risici forbundet med virksomhed udøvet i et indirekte datterselskab i en anden medlemsstat Dette kan ikke have været fællesskabslovgivers hensigt.
It follows from an analysis of the objectives pursued by Article 2(d), final indent, of the Directive and by the rules of which the provision forms part that the concept of 'establishment' employed there must be interpreted as comprising subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries of the legal person which is the policyholder.
Med det tredje spørgsmål ønsker Hoge Raad der Nederlanden nærmere bestemt oplyst, om det har betydning for fortolkningen af begreberne »forsikringstageren« eller »den medlemsstat, hvor risikoen består,« i direktivets artikel 2, litra d), sidste leds forstand og dermed for besvarelsen af spørgsmål 1 og 2, om den forsikringspræmie, der vedrører den forsikrede risiko, efterfølgende helt eller delvis afkræves det direkte eller indirekte datterselskab.
By its third question the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden asks essentially whether the passingon of all or part of the insurance premium relating to the risk insured to a subsidiary or subsubsidiary affects the interpretation of 'policyholder* or 'Member State where the risk is situated' in Article 2(d), final indent, of the Directive and, consequently, the answer to be given to the first and second questions.
Det fremgår af gennemgangen af formålene med direktivets artikel 2, litra d), sidste led, og med den ordning, bestemmelsen udgør en del af, at begrebet »etableret forretningssted« i bestemmelsen skal fortolkes således, at det omfatter direkte og indirekte datterselskaber af den juridiske person, der er forsikringstager.
Indeed, the objectives of the Directive would also not be attained if only subsidiaries in respect of which the parent company has concluded an insurance contract came within the concept of 'establishment' as used in Article 2(d), final indent, of the Directive and not, more generally, all the members of a group of companies.
Det må, som det er gjort gældende af den nederlandske og den tyske regering samt af Det Forenede Kongeriges regering og Kommissionen, fremhæves, at fortolkningen af de fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser, hovedsagen vedrører, ikke kan afhænge af interne aftaler om fakturering og betaling inden for en selskabskoncern.
As the Netherlands, German and United Kingdom Governments as well as the Commission have pointed out, interpretation of the Community rules at issue in the main proceedings cannot depend on internal arrangements within a group of compames as regards invoicing and payment.
Navnlig kan sådanne subjektive kriterier ikke have betydning for bestemmelsen af, i hvilken medlemsstat risikoen består, og dermed af, hvilken medlemsstat der har kompetence til at beskatte forsikringen, eftersom sådanne kriterier kunne føre til afgiftsunddragelse.
In particular, such subjective criteria cannot affect the determination of the Member State where the risk is situated nor, therefore, of the Member State which is competent to tax the insurance transaction, because they could lead to tax evasion.
Det samme gælder, hvis den juridiske person, som har betalt præmierne, og den, hvis driftsrisici er dækket, er to selskaber i samme koncern, der står i et andet indbyrdes forhold end forholdet mellem moder- og datterselskab.
It makes no difference if the legal person which paid the premiums and the legal person whose business risks are covered are two companies in the same group linked by a relationship other than that of parent and subsidiary company.
Det er uden betydning for fortolkningen af begreberne forsikringstageren' og 'den medlemsstat, hvor risikoen består', i den forstand, hvori de er anvendt i artikel 2, litra
In interpreting 'policyholder* or "Member State in which the risk is situated'' for the purposes of Article 2(d), final indent, of Directive 88/357, the way in which the premium relating to the risk insured is invoiced or paid within a group of companies is immaterial.'
d), sidste led, i direktiv 88/357, hvordan den præmie, der vedrører den forsikrede risiko, faktureres eller betales indenfor en selskabskoncern.«
'Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC permit a Member State to levy insurance tax on a legal person established in another Member State in respect of premiums paid to an insurer also established in another Member State for the business insurance of a company in the same group as the policy-holder and established in the Member State making the levy.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag ul afgørelse i retsmødet CDomstolens plenuml den 18. januar 2001.
It makes no difference how the premium relating to the insured risk is (wholly or in part) invoiced or paid within the group.'
Sag C-473/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Republikken Østrig
Case C-473/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Republic of Austria
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 95/30/EF - beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne mod farerne ved at være udsat for biologiske agenser under arbejdet - manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist« (Tredje Afdeling)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work — Failure to implement within the prescribed period) (Third Chamber)
Da Kommissionen ikke har modtaget nogen meddelelse fra den østrigske regering om foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af direktivet, har den ved skrivelse af 30. maj 1997 anmodet Republikken Østrig om at fremsætte sine bemærkninger hertil inden for en frist på to måneder.
As is had received no communication from the Austrian Government concerning measures implementing the Directive, by letter of 30 May 1997, the Commission sent the Austrian Republic formal notification to submit its observations in this regard within two months.
I deres svar af 29. juli 1997 har de østrigske myndigheder anført, at de nævnte foranstaltninger sandsynligvis ville blive truffet i løbet af december måned 1997.
In their reply of 29 July 1997 the Austrian authorities stated that such measures would probably be adopted during the month of December 1997.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 10. december 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om at det fastslås, at Republikken Østrig har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EF-traktaten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme Kommissionens direktiv 95/30/EF af 30. juni 1995 om tilpasning til den tekniske udvikling af Rådets direktiv 90/679/EØF om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne mod farerne ved at være udsat for biologiske agenser under arbejdet.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 10 December 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, the Republic of Austria had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
Den 2. juli 1998 har Kommissionen tilstillet Republikken Østrig en begrundet udtalelse.
On 2 July 1998 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Republic of Austria.
I overensstemmelse med direktivets artikel 2, stk. 1, skulle medlemsstaterne vedtage de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme direktivet senest den 30. november 1996 og straks underrette Kommissionen herom.
By letter of 3 September 1998, the Austrian Government informed the Commission that some of the measures necessary for implementation of the Directive had already been adopted, and the others were being prepared.
Ved skrivelse af 3. september 1998 har den østrigske regering meddelt Kommissionen, at en del af de nødvendige foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af direktivet allerede var truffet, og at de resterende foranstaltninger var under forberedelse.
Under Article 2(1) of the Directive the Member States were to bring into force, by 30 November 19%, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive, and immediately inform the Commission thereof.
forholdene i medlemsstaten, som de var ved udløbet af fristen i den begrundede udtalelse, og at ændringer af forholdene i tiden derefter ikke kan tages i betragtning af Domstolen.
the situation in the Member State as it stood at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and that the Court may not take account of any subsequent changes.
Kommissionen har i stævningen gjort gældende, at Republikken Østrig stadig ikke har foretaget en fuldstændig gennemførelse af direktivet i østrigsk ret.
implemented the Directive in Austrian law.
På forskellige områder, bl.a. på delstatsplan, i kommuner og kommunesammenslutninger, er de pågældende foranstaltninger for en stor dels vedkommende endnu ikke blevet truffet.
In various fields, particularly at the level of the Länder (Regions), local authorities and groups of local authorities, many measures have not yet been adopted.
Republikken Østrig har anført, at kompetencen til at vedtage bestemmelser til gennemførelse af direktivet er kendetegnet ved en særlig høj grad af opsplitning mellem forbundsstaten og delstaten som følge af kompetencefordelingen i henhold til den østrigske forbundsforfatning.
The Republic of Austria states that, because of the division of powers under its Federal Constitution, competence to adopt provisions relating to implementation of the Directive is split between the Federal State and the Länder to a considerable degree.
Det fremgår af såvel svarskrift og duplik som af den østrigske regerings svar på Domstolens spørgsmål, at Republikken Østrig erkender, at den ikke inden udløbet af fristen på to måneder, som var fastsat i den begrundede udtalelse, har truffet de nødvendige foranstaltninger til en fuldstændig gennemførelse af direktivet i national ret.
The Austrian Government then sets out various measures which have been adopted in order to implement the Directive in national law.
I overensstemmelse med den retspraksis, der er citeret i den foregående præmis, er de foranstaltninger, som Republikken Østrig erklærer at have truffet efter udløbet af fristen, ikke relevante i forbindelse med det foreliggende søgsmål, selv om disse foranstaltninger måtte udgøre en korrekt gennemførelse af direktivet.
It follows from the defence and the rejoinder, and from the Austrian Government's reply to a question put by the Court, that the Republic of Austria admits that it had not adopted, prior to the expiry of the period of two months set by the reasoned opinion, the measures necessary to implement the Directive fully in national law.
Den østrigske regering har herefter opregnet forskellige foranstaltninger, som er blevet truffet med henblik på at sikre gennemførelsen af direktivet i national ret.
In accordance with the case-law cited in the previous paragraph, the various measures which the Republic of Austria claims to have adopted after the expiry of that period, even if they constitute proper implementation of the Directive, are not relevant in the context of the present action.
Domstolen har gentagne gange fastslået, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der foreligger et traktatbrud, skal vurderes på baggrund af
The Court has repeatedly held that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to
Republikken Østrig betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. '
Generaladvokat LA Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 5. april 2001.
Advocate General LA Geelhoed delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 5 April 2001.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court should hold the Republic of Austria in breach of its obligations.
Sag C-84/00 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Frie varebevægelser
'999 parts per thousand' for gold, silver and platinum would enter into force on 1 January 1998.
»Traktatbrud — EF-traktatens artikel 30 (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF) — markedsføring af ædelmetalarbejder — lovgivning om anerkendte holdigheder« (Tredje Afdeling)
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to allow the marketing within France of articles of precious metals which come from other Member States and which purport to have a standard of fineness of '999 parts per thousand', despite the fact that that standard is commonly used in commercial practice, the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).
Den 23. april 1991 fremsendte Kommissionen en åbningsskrivelse til Den Franske Republik, som den franske regering besvarede den 6. august 1991.
Finally, by letter of 31 May 1999, the Commission informed the French authorities that, according to the information available to it, that draft law had not yet been included in the
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 7. marts 2000 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, som påhviler den i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 30 (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF), idet den ikke accepterer markedsføring i Frankrig af ædelmetalarbejder fra andre medlemsstater med angivelse af holdigheden »999 promille«, skønt denne holdighed er almindeligt anvendt i handelsmæssig praksis.
By letter of 20 December 1988, the Commission drew the attention of the French Government to the problems which, in its view, were raised by certain provisions applicable to the import and marketing in France of articles made of precious metals in relation to Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty.
Ved skrivelse af 19. august 1997 meddelte den franske regering Kommissionen, at den forventede, at bestemmelserne om tilladelse af holdigheden »999 promille« for guld, sølv og platin ville træde i kraft den 1. januar 1998.
In their reply of 15 June 1989, the French authorities stated that they envisaged taking a number of measures in the relevant area which would, in part, take account of the Commission's complaints.
Ved skrivelse af 20. december 1988 henledte Kommissionen den franske regerings opmærksomhed på de problemer, som efter dennes opfattelse var forbundet med visse bestemmelser i ordningen for indførsel og forhandling i Frankrig af ædelmetalarbejder, under hensyn til traktatens artikel 30 ff.
The Commission observes that reliance on the mandatory requirement of fairness of commercial transactions cannot justify the prohibition of marketing under a particular description products imported from other Member States which do not comply with the requirements of the Member State of importation even though those products are lawfully and traditionally manufactured and marketed in the Member State of origin under the same description.
Endelig meddelte Kommissionen ved skrivelse af 31. maj 1999 de franske myndigheder, at det pågældende lovforslag ifølge de oplysninger, den rådede over, endnu ikke var blevet optaget på parlamentets dagsorden.
The arguments put forward in response to the letter of formal notice and the legislative changes made did not fully satisfy the Commission, which therefore issued a reasoned opinion on 10 July 1996.
De franske myndigheder anførte i deres svar af 15. juni 1989, at de inden for det pågældende område forventede at træffe forskellige foranstaltninger, som delvis ville tage hensyn til de af Kommissionen rejste klagepunkter.
By letter of 19 August 1997, the French Government informed the Commission that, according to its calculations, the provisions intended to legalise the standard of fineness of
På denne baggrund har Kommissionen anlagt nærværende sag.
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in the absence of harmonisation of legislation, obstacles to the free movement of goods which are the consequence of applying, to goods coming from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, rules
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at lovens artikel 521 og 522 er i strid med traktatens artikel 30, for så vidt som de er til hinder for forhandlingen i Frankrig af ædelmetalarbejder, som i deres oprindelsesland bærer holdigheden »999 promille«, og som lovligt fremstilles og forhandles i andre medlemsstater.
In this case, it is undisputed that the rules at issue, in so far as they have the effect of prohibiting the marketing in France of articles of precious metals purporting to have a standard of fineness of "999 parts per thousand' which come from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, constitute an impediment to intra-Community trade.