natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med hensyn til ammunition har den franske regering gjort gældende, at direktivets artikel 10 er blevet gennemført ved afsnit V, afdeling 2, i dekret nr. 95-589 af 6. maj 1995 om gennemførelse af dekret af 18. april 1939 om indførelse af regler for krigsmateriel, våben og ammunition.
As regards the proposals which the French Republic allegedly made in the framework of the committee provided for in Article 13 of the directive with a view to the adoption of a common transfer document, such initiatives have no effect on the existence of the failure to transpose the measure concerned.
Det følger af fast praksis, at praktiske vanskeligheder, der viser sig på stadiet for gennemførelsen af en af Fællesskabets retsakter, ikke kan retfærdiggøre, at en medlemsstat ensidigt undlader at overholde sine forpligtelser.
Since it refers to a measure which is subsequently to implement the provisions intended to transpose Article 10 of the directive, the decree of 6 May 1995 cannot be regarded as effecting a complete and accurate transposition of that directive.
I henhold til direktivets artikel 19, stk. 1 og 5, skulle medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme navnlig de ovennævnte artikler inden den 30. september 1993 og meddele Kommissionen teksten til de retsforskrifter, som de havde vedtaget herom.
As regards, first, explosives, the French Government does not deny that the relevant provisions were not transposed into national law; however, it refers to difficulties which it, like other Member States, encountered in implementing Articles 9 and 11 of the directive, owing in particular to the absence of a common transfer document.
Hvad dernæst angår forpligtelsen til at udarbejde en fælles model for det dokument, der bekræfter tilladelsen til overførsel, skal det bemærkes — som det med rette er anført af Kommissionen — at en sådan forpligtelse ikke følger af direktivet.
It therefore maintains that any failure to transpose the relevant provisions can be explained, in particular, by the inefficiency of the Commission, which did not adopt adequate measures for the application of the directive.
Kommissionen modtog ingen meddelelse fra den franske regering om gennemførelsen af direktivets artikel 9-12 og artikel 14 i fransk ret, og den rådede heller ikke over andre oplysninger herom.
As regards Articles 11 and 12 of the directive, while it is true that their implementation by Articles 80 and 101 of the decree does not depend on other measures being adopted, it none the less remains that in so far as, in the absence of the implementing order, Article 10, which lays down the general rule, is not transposed, the articles of that decree have no legal effect.
Ved åbningsskrivelse af 13. april 1994 opfordrede Kommissionen derfor Den Franske Republik til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger inden for en frist på to måneder.
The measures transposing those provisions, which merely derogate from, or supplement, Article 10 of the directive, which has not yet been transposed, are therefore irrelevant.
Det forhold, at der ikke er udstedt fællesskabsbestemmelser herom, kan ikke forhindre en medlemsstat i at fastsætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser til gennemførelse af direktivet.
As regards, second, ammunition, the French Government claims that Article 10 of the directive was transposed by Section 2 of Title V of Decree No 95-589 of 6 May 1995 on the application of the Decree of 18 April 1939 laying down the rules applicable to war materials, firearms and ammunition.
Kommissionen fremsatte ved skrivelse af 30. april 1997 en begrundet udtalelse over for Den Franske Republik vedrørende direktivets artikel 9-12 og artikel 14, hvori den opfordrede denne til at efterkomme udtalelsen inden to måneder fra meddelelsen heraf.
It has consistently been held that any practical difficulties which appear at the stage when a Community measure is put into effect cannot permit a Member State unilaterally to choose not to fulfil its obligations.
Det skal, med hensyn til de forslag om udarbejdelse af et fælles overførselsdokument, som Den Franske Republik har fremsat i det udvalg, som er omhandlet i direktivets artikel 13, bemærkes, at sådanne initiativer ikke ændrer ved, at den pågældende retsakt ikke er blevet gennemført.
As regards, last, the implement order adopted on 25 May 1999, it should be pointed out that, in an action under Article 169 of the Treaty, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.
udgør undtagelser fra direktivets artikel 10, som endnu ikke er gennemført, eller indeholder supplerende bestemmelser, har således ingen betydning.
Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 9 to 12 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
udstedes til iværksættelse af gennemførelsesbestemmelserne til direktivets artikel 10, kan dekretet ikke anses for at indebære en fuldstændig og præcis gennemførelse af direktivet.
Advocate General A. Saggio delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 30 September 1999.
»1) Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligteber i henhold til Rådets direktiv 93/15/EØF af 5. april 1993 om harmonbering af bestemmebeme om markedsføring af og kontrol med eL·plosivstoffer til civil brug idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmeber, som er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivets artikel 9-12.
Preliminary ruling (Company law — Second Directive 77 1911 EEC — Public limited liability company in financial difficulties — Increase in the capital of the company by administrative decision Abuse of a right arising from a provision of Community law) (Sixth Chamber) safeguards equivalent and on the abuse of a right arising from those provisions.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
'Any increase in capital must be decided upon by the general meeting.
Sag C-373/97 Dionysios Diamantis / Elliniko Dimosio, Organismos Oikonomikis Anasygkrotisis Epicheiriseon AE (OAE) Regler for virksomhederne
published in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 68/151/EEC.'
23. marts 2000 i økonomiske vanskeligheder — af en rettighed i henhold til en
That scheme was maintained until the beginning of January 1987.
Præjudiciel »Sebkabsret — andet direktiv 77/91/EØF — aktiesebkab adminbtrativ forhøjebe af sebkabskapitalen — mbbrug fællesskabsbestemmebe« (Sjette Afdeling) vanskeligheder, oprettedes OAE, som har til formål at bidrage til landets sociale og økonomiske udvikling.
On 28 May 1986, under that provisional administration, the OAE decided to increase the capital of Plastika Kavalas by GRD 177 000 000 by the issue of 1 770 000 new shares with a nominal value of GRD 100 each.
Ved kendelse af 24. juni 1997 har Polimeles Protodikio, Athen, forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 25 og 29 i Rådets andet direktiv 77/91/EØF af 13. december 1976 om samordning af de garantier, der kræves i medlemsstaterne af de i artikel 58, stk. 2, i traktaten nævnte selskaber til beskyttelse af såvel selskabsdeltagernes som tredjemands interesser, for så vidt angår stiftelsen af aktieselskabet samt bevarelsen af og ændringer i dets kapital, med det formål at gøre disse garantier Uge byrdefulde (herefter »andet direktiv«), og vedrørende misbrug af en rettighed i henhold til disse bestemmelser.
On 11 December 1986, by resolution of the general meeting of the shareholders, where the OAE held a majority of the votes, the capital of the company was reduced to GRD 5 000 000, the minimum allowed by law.
Spørgsmålene er rejst i en sag, som Dionysios Diamantis har anlagt mod henholdsvis Elliniko Dimosio (den græske stat) og Organismos Ikonomikos Anasygkrotisis Epicheiriseon AE (organisation til finansiel sanering af virksomheder, herefter »OAE«).
Law No 1386/1983 of 5 August 1983 applies to companies that are experiencing serious difficulties; it established the OAE, the object of which is to contribute to the financial and social development of the country.
Dionysios Diamantis var aktionær i aktieselskabet Plastika Kavalas AE (herefter »Plastika Kavalas«) og var indehaver af 1 000 aktier til en nominel værdi af 1 000 GRD pr. aktie af den oprindelige selskabskapital, som beløb sig i 87 000 000 GRD fordelt på 87 000 aktier (dvs. 1,15%).
Mr Diamantis was a shareholder in the public limited liability company Plastika Kavalas AE (hereinafter 'Plastika Kavalas'), holding 1 000 shares with a nominal value of GRD 1 000 each, out of the initial capital of GRD 87 000 000, divided into 87 000 shares (or 1.15%).
Det bestemmes i andet direktivs artikel 25, stk. 1.:
By Decision No 14 of 9 January 1987, the Second Minister for Industry, Energy and Technology approved a further increase in the capital of the company.
»Enhver kapitalforhøjelse skal vedtages af generalforsamlingen.
In 1991 the majority of shares in Plastika Kavalas were transferred to Plastika Makedonias AE at a price of GRD 860 000 000.
Denne beslutning såvel som gennemførelsen af forhøjelsen af den tegnede kapital offentliggøres efter de fremgangsmåder, der er fastsat i hver medlemsstats lovgivning i overensstemmelse med artikel 3 i direktiv 68/151/EØF.«
Lastly, in February 1994, Plastika Kavalas was taken over by the Petzetakis Group.
I starten af 1980'erne kom selskabet, som var stiftet i 1973, i alvorlige økonomiske vanskeligheder.
At the beginning of the 1980s that company, which had been founded in 1973, was facing serious financial difficulties.
I september 1982 indstillede selskabet fabrikkens drift, og det havde i 1983 så stor en underbalance, at en konkurs var nært forestående.
In September 1982 its factory operations were suspended and in 1983, as a result of its over-indebtedness, it was close to bankruptcy.
Den 24. august 1983 anmodede 32 af Plastika Kavalas' aktionærer om, at selskabet blev omfattet af ordningen i henhold til lov nr. 1386/1983.
On 24 August 1983, 32 shareholders of Plastika Kavalas asked that it be placed under the scheme provided for by Law No 1386/1983.
Denne anmodning blev gentaget den 20. december 1983.
That request was repeated on 20 December 1983.
Ved lov nr. 1386/1983 af 5. august 1983, som finder anvendelse på virksomheder i alvorlige
Following that request, the Advisory Committee provided for in Article 11 of Law No 1386/1983, having noted the extremely difficult situation in which Plastika Kavalas found itself, on 22 December 1983 issued an opinion recommending that the company be made subject to the special liquidation scheme provided for in Articles 7 and 9 of the Law.
På grundlag af denne anmodning og efter at det rådgivende udvalg, som var nedsat ved artikel 11
The consequence of that scheme would have been the immediate liquidation of the assets of Plastika Kavalas and payment of its debts, which is what happened to a number of other overindebted undertakings in difficulty.
regering og OAE gjorde gældende, at Dionysios Diamantis herved misbrugte sine rettigheder, og påstod på denne baggrund frifindelse.
The national court accordingly held that the action was well founded in law, but also considered that the plea of abuse of rights as provided for in Article 281 of the Civil Code was well founded in law and on the facts.
i lov nr. 1386/1983, havde anerkendt Plastika Kavalas' vanskelige situation, afgav udvalget den 22. december 1983 en udtalelse, hvori det anbefalede, at selskabet blev omfattet af den særlige likvidationsordning i henhold til lovens artikel 7 og 9.
a national provision which penalises abuse of rights may validly be relied on to defeat an action for a declaration that social measures are invalid brought by a shareholder on the basis of breach of a right conferred by Article 25 of the Second Directive.
Den forelæggende ret har i kendelsen henvist til Domstolens tidligere afgørelser vedrørende den direkte virkning af andet direktivs artikel 25 og har af denne praksis udledt, at artikel 8 og 10 i lov nr. 1386/1983 var i strid med bestemmelserne i andet direktiv.
The national court therefore accepted that Article 281 of the Civil Code could be applied to defeat rights arising under Community law when there was an abuse of rights within the meaning of that provision.
Denne ordning ville have ført til en umiddelbar afhændelse af Plastika Kavalas' aktiver og til betaling af selskabets gæld, således som det var tilfældet for en række virksomheder i vanskeligheder og virksomheder med underbalance.
However, in view of the attitude taken by the Court of Justice in Case C441/93 in relation to the same plea raised pursuant to Article 281 of the Civil Code, the national court considered that it was faced with a problem of interpretation of Articles 25(1) and 29(1) of the Second Directive with regard to the plea of abuse of rights.
På denne baggrund fandt den forelæggende ret, at der efter retsreglerne kunne gives medhold i påstanden, men den fastslog også, at indsigelsen om, at sagsøgeren misbrugte sine rettigheder, jf. den græske borgerlige lovbogs artikel 281, var berettiget af faktiske og retlige grunde.
The objective of Article 25(1) of the Second Directive is to ensure, for the benefit of shareholders, that a decision increasing the capital of the company and, consequently, affecting the share of equity held by them, is not taken without their participation in the exercise of the decision-making powers of the company.
Uanset den således begrundende udtalelse om likvidation traf økonomiministeren ved beslutning nr. 212 af 3. februar 1984 bestemmelse om, at Plastika Kavalas skulle sættes under OAE's midlertidige ledelse i overensstemmelse med artikel 7 i lov nr. 1386/1983. Denne ordning blev opretholdt indtil begyndelsen af januar 1987.
According to the case-law, that objective would be seriously frustrated if the Member States were entitled to derogate from the provisions of the directive by maintaining in force rules — even rules categorised as special or exceptional — under which it was possible to decide by administrative measure, outside any decision by the general meeting of shareholders, to effect an increase in the company's capital.
Den 28. maj 1986, dvs. under den midlertidige ledelse, besluttede OAE at forhøje Plastika Kavalas' kapital med et beløb på 177 000 000 GRD ved at udstede 1 770 000 nye aktier af pålydende 100 GRD.
The Polimeles Protodikio Athinon decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Den forelæggende ret fandt, at den græske borgerlige lovbogs artikel 281 også kunne påberåbes i forbindelse med rettigheder i henhold til fællesskabsretten, når der forelå misbrug af disse rettigheder i den græske bestemmelses forstand.
In the specific factual circumstances set out in the grounds of this order, does a question arise as to the application, in law and in substance, of Article 281 of the Greek Civil Code concerning abuse of rights by a plaintiff in relation to Articles 25(1) and 29(1) of the Second Directive?
Polimeles Protodikio, Athen, besluttede at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
That would be the case if a shareholder, in reliance on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive, brought an action for the purpose of deriving, to the detriment of the company, an improper advantage, manifestly contrary to the objective of that provision.
Ved beslutning nr. 14 af 9. januar 1987 godkendte viceministeren for industri, energi og teknologi en ny forhøjelse af selskabskapitalen.
The application of a national rule such as Article 281 of the Civil Code must not, therefore, detract from the full effect and uniform application of Community law in the Member States.
Denne forhøjelse beløb sig til 1 262 200 000 GRD, og skyldtes dels en tvungen konvertering af gæld på 972 000 000 GRD, dels et indskud i kontanter på 290 000 000 GRD fra OAE, som skulle sikre, at kreditorerne blev fyldestgjort.
It is for the national court to determine whether, in the case before it, application of Article 281 of the Civil Code is compatible with that requirement. However, the Court has jurisdiction to provide the national court with guidance on interpretation to enable it to assess that issue of compatibility.
Kan, under de i denne kendelses præmisser beskrevne omstændigheder, artikel 281 i den græske borgerlige lovbog finde formel og materiel anvendelse på sagsøgerens misbrug af en rettighed efter artikel 25, stk. 1, og artikel 29, stk. 1, i andet direktiv?
Should the Court of Justice of the European Communities find the above plea well founded in law and in substance, how will that affect the validity of the ministerial decisions increasing and reducing the capital of the company in question, of which the plaintiff happens to be a shareholder, and, by extension, are Articles 8(8) and 10(1) of Law No 1386/1983 compatible with Community law, in view of the fact that, where Article 281 of the Civil Code does not come into play, it has been held in accordance with the above that those provisions are contrary to the Second Directive?'
I 1991 blev Plastika Kavalas' aktiemajoritet overdraget til selskabet Plastika Makedonias AE, for en pris af 860 000 000 GRD. Endelig overgik Plastika Kavalas i februar 1994 til at være et selskab i Petzetakis-konceraen.
By its first question the national court is asking, essentially, whether, in the light of the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings,
Såfremt Domstolen måtte antage, at denne anvendelse formelt og materielt er begrundet, hvilket resultat har det da for gyldigheden af de ministerielle afgørelser om kapitalforhøjelser og kapitalnedsættelser i det omhandlede selskab, i hvilket sagsøgeren er aktionær, og er videre bestemmelserne i artikel 8, stk. 8, og i artikel 10, stk. 1, i lov nr.
A shareholder relying on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive cannot be deemed to be abusing his rights merely because he is a minority shareholder of a company subject to reorganisation measures, or has benefited from the reorganisation of the company, or has not exercised his right of pre-emption.
som giver den mulighed for at bedømme denne forenelighed.
affect the rights of bona fide third parties.
På samme måde kan den omstændighed, at sagsøgeren i hovedsagen anmodede om, at lov nr. 1386/1983 skulle finde anvendelse på Plastika Kavalas, ikke betragtes som misbrug af rettigheder.
The Second Directive does not provide for any specific penalty for breach of any of its provisions, so that the normal penalties under private law could be applicable.
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om en national bestemmelse, som skal forhindre misbrug af en rettighed, under de i hovedsagen foreliggende omstændigheder med rette kan påberåbes som en indsigelse i en sag, som en aktionær har anlagt med påstand om, at dispositioner vedrørende selskabets forhold er ugyldige, fordi de er i strid med en ret, der er tillagt ved andet direktivs artikel 25.
When he instituted proceedings the plaintiff in the main proceedings was thus entitled to elect, as he did, from among the remedies in national law available for penalising a breach of Article 25 of the Second Directive, an action for a declaration that the alterations in the capital of the company that took place were invalid.
Det forhold, at et selskab bliver omfattet af ordningen i henhold til den nævnte lov, kan åbne mulighed for mange forskellige løsninger med hensyn til selskabets fremtidige forhold, og den, der anmoder om, at loven skal finde anvendelse, kan ikke dermed antages at have indvilget i, at beføjelsen til at træffe beslutning om forhøjelse af selskabskapitalen overdrages til et andet organ end generalforsamlingen.
Once a company is placed under the scheme provided for under Law No 1386/1983, a wide range of solutions regarding the treatment to be applied to it is available, so that a request for that Law to be applied cannot be treated as agreement to the power to take decisions with regard to increases in capital being transferred to a body external to the general meeting.
Det kan således ikke antages, at en aktionær, som påberåber sig andet direktivs artikel 25, stk. 1, misbruger sin ret i henhold til denne bestemmelse, fordi han har været blandt de aktionærer, som anmodede om, at ordningen i henhold til lov nr. 1386/1983 skulle finde anvendelse på selskabet.
A shareholder relying on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive cannot, therefore, be said to be abusing his rights under that provision on the ground that he was one of the shareholders who asked that the company be placed under the scheme of Law No 1386/1983.
Ifølge denne praksis ville dette formål blive bragt alvorligt i fare, hvis medlemsstaterne kunne fravige andet direktiv ved at opretholde bestemmelser — uanset om disse betegnes som specielle bestemmelser eller undtagelsesbestemmelser—som hjemler mulighed for, at der administrativt og uden en generalforsamlingsbeslutning kan vedtages en forhøjelse af selskabskapitalen.
It would not appear that the uniform application and full effect of Community law would be compromised if it were to be held an abuse of rights for a shareholder to rely on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive on the ground that, of the remedies available for a situation that has arisen in breach of that provision, he has chosen a remedy that will cause such serious damage to the legitimate interests of others that it appears manifestly disproportionate.
Fællesskabsretten kan ikke gøres gældende af borgerne med henblik på at muliggøre misbrug eller svig.
Such a determination would not alter the scope of that provision and would not compromise its objectives.
Såfremt sagsøgeren i hovedsagen gives medhold i den sag, som han har anlagt til prøvelse af gyldigheden af ændringerne i Plastika Kavalas' selskabskapital i det tidsrum, hvori selskabet var under midlertidig ledelse, kunne der rejses tvivl om adskillige forhold, som indtrådte i denne periode, herunder navnlig om indkøb, salg, tvangsfuldbyrdelse, erhvervelse af aktiviteter samt om Plastika Kavalas' fusion med et andet selskab.
If the action brought by the plaintiff in the main proceedings for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the alterations in the capital of Plastika Kavalas when it was under provisional administration were upheld, several operations that took place during that period could be affected, in particular purchases, sales, enforcement measures, acquisitions of businesses and the merger of Plastika Kavalas with another company.
Desuden er det ubestridt, at det uundgåeligt vil påvirke godtroende tredjemænds rettigheder, hvis disse ændringer erklæres ugyldige.
Moreover, it is indisputable that the invalidity of those alterations would inevitably