natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endvidere er interessen i domstolskontrol med den effektive anvendelse af fællesskabsretten i dette tilfælde ikke mindre, end når Kommissionen vedtager en beslutning vedrørende foranstaltningens kvalificering eller dens forenelighed med traktaten.
Moreover, judicial review of the effective application of Community law is no less important in that situation than it is where the Commission adopts a decision on the classification of the measure or its compatibility with the Treaty.
Jeg er ikke overbevist af denne analyse.
I do not find that analysis convincing.
Klagerens mulighed for at give Kommissionen yderligere oplysninger og bekræftelsen af, at Kommissionen så er forpligtet til at vedtage en beslutning, hvis disse oplysninger er tilstrækkelige, giver ingen tilsvarende beskyttelse, eftersom kernespørgsmålet i denne sag netop er domstolskontrollen med Kommissionens vurdering af, om de oplysninger, den råder over, er tilstrækkelige eller ej.
The fact that it is open to the complainant to provide the Commission with additional information and the assertion that the latter is then required to adopt a decision if that information is sufficient do not afford equivalent protection, since the specific issue being examined in this case is the possibility of judicial review of the Commission’s assessment concerning whether or not the information in its possession is sufficient in nature.
Jeg udleder heraf, at henlæggelsen af en klage, såsom beslutninger truffet i medfør af artikel 4, stk. 2 og 3, i forordning nr. 659/1999, skal anses for en akt, der kan anfægtes, med henblik på at give klageren mulighed for at overholde de processuelle rettigheder, han er tildelt ved artikel 88, stk. 2, EF.
I infer from this that the closure of the file on a complaint, like decisions taken under Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation No 659/1999, must be regarded as an actionable decision in order to allow the complainant to safeguard the procedural rights conferred on him by Article 88(2) EC.
Forsvaret af klagerens processuelle rettigheder er heller ikke omfattet af et passivitetsspørgsmål, når Kommissionen har besluttet at henlægge klagen.
Similarly, the defence of a complainant’s procedural rights, where the Commission has decided to close the file on his complaint, is not covered by an action for failure to act.
Således som det er fremgået, skal Kommissionen i forbindelse med proceduren for kontrol med statsstøtte, når den modtager en klage, anerkende retten til at henlægge klagen, hvis det er dens opfattelse, at den ikke råder over tilstrækkelige oplysninger til at kunne træffe en anden beslutning i henhold til artikel 4 i forordning nr. 659/1999, selv om denne mulighed ikke udtrykkeligt fremgår.
As we have seen, in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid, the Commission, where a complaint is made to it, must be entitled to close the file on the complaint if it considers that it does not have in its possession sufficient information to take one of the other decisions set out in Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, although that possibility is not expressly referred to.
I den appellerede kendelse fandt Retten — i modsætning til denne analyse — at det forhold, at denne henlæggelse ikke kunne anfægtes, ikke kunne fratage borgerne adgangen til Fællesskabets retsinstanser, eftersom klageren kan give yderligere oplysninger til støtte for klagen.
Contrary to that analysis, the Court of First Instance, in the contested order, took the view that the nonactionable nature of that closure of the file cannot deprive citizens of access to Community justice, since the complainant may provide additional information to support his complaint.
Retten redegjorde for, at Kommissionen, hvis disse oplysninger er tilstrækkelige, er forpligtet til at tage stilling til den pågældende statslige foranstaltning ved at vedtage en beslutning i den i artikel 4 i forordning nr. 659/1999 omhandlede forstand, hvorved klageren får mulighed for at anlægge et annullationssøgsmål i medfør af artikel 230, stk. 4, EF.
It explained that, in the event that that information was sufficient, the Commission would then be required to define its position on the State measure in question by adopting a decision within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, thus affording the complainant the possibility of bringing an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Retten udtalte i øvrigt, at klageren ligeledes har mulighed for at anlægge et passivitetssøgsmål i medfør af artikel 232, stk. 3, EF 43.
In addition, the Court of First Instance stated that the complainant is also able to bring an action for failure to act under the third paragraph of Article 232 EC. 43
Henlæggelsen af en klage udgør dermed en stillingtagen, som bringer proceduren for undersøgelse af denne klage til endelig afslutning.
The closure of the file on a complaint therefore constitutes the definition of a position which brings the procedure for examining that complaint to a final conclusion.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI MOD KOMMISSIONEN henlæggelse af den af appellanten indgivne klage udgør en akt, der kan anfægtes.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION the Commission of the file on the complaint made by the appellant constitutes an actionable decision.
Appellen er dermed begrundet, og den appellerede kendelse skal derfor annulleres.
The appeal brought by the appellant is therefore well founded and the contested order must, in consequence, be set aside.
V — Annullationens følger
V — The consequences of setting aside the order
Under disse omstændigheder udgør et passivitetssøgsmål ikke det hensigtsmæssige retsmiddel mod denne henlæggelse.
In those circumstances, an action for failure to act is not the appropriate remedy in respect of that closure of the file.
I fællesskabsrettens ordning med retsmidler kan det med et passivitetssøgsmål retligt fastslås, at en fællesskabsinstitution har undladt at handle, når denne undladelse er i strid med traktaten 44.
In the system of remedies provided for by Community law, the purpose of an action for failure to act is to obtain a judicial declaration that a Community institution has failed to act where that failure to act is contrary to the Treaty.
Eftersom jeg anerkender, at henlæggelsen af en klage udgør en lovlig stillingtagen i forbindelse med proceduren for kontrol med statsstøtte, kan et passivitetssøgsmål mod denne henlæggelse ikke antages til realitetsbehandling 45.
44Since I acknowledge that the closure of the file on a complaint constitutes an acceptable position in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid, an action for failure to act against that closure of the file is inadmissible.
Retten kunne med andre ord ikke både beslutte, at henlæggelsen af en klage er en stillingtagen i overensstemmelse med forordning nr. 659/1999, og anføre, at en sådan henlæggelse udgør en undladelse af at handle, som er omfattet af et passivitetssøgsmål.
45In other words, the Court of First Instance cannot at the same time decide that the closure of the file on a complaint is the definition of a position under Regulation No 659/1999 and argue that such a closure of the file constitutes a failure to act covered by an action for failure to act.
Ifølge artikel 61, stk. 1, andet punktum, i statutten for Domstolen kan Domstolen, hvis den ophæver en af Retten truffen afgørelse, selv træffe endelig afgørelse, hvis sagen er moden til påkendelse.
In accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the latter may, in the event that the decision of the Court of First Instance is quashed, itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
Kommissionen havde overgivet klagen til de italienske myndigheder og havde meddelt dem en frist til at svare.
The Commission had forwarded the complaint to the Italian authorities and had given them a period in which to reply to it.
Denne frist var ikke udløbet, da Air One formelt opfordrede denne institution til at tage stilling med hjemmel i artikel 232 EF.
That period had not expired when Air One formally invited that institution to define its position on the basis of Article 232 EC.
Kommissionen har påberåbt sig et andet anbringende til støtte for afvisningen af det af Athinaïki Techniki anlagte annullationssøgsmål vedrørende stævningens for sene indgivelse.
The Commission relied on a second plea in support of its objection of inadmissibility of the action for annulment brought by Athinaïki Techniki, alleging the late submission of the application.
Det er på baggrund af disse betragtninger min opfattelse, at Kommissionens
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I take the view that the closure by
44 — Dom af 24.11.1992, forenede sager C-15/91 og C-108/91, Buckl m.fl. mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 6061, præmis 14.
44 — Joined Cases C-15/91 and C-108/91 Buckl and Others v Commission [1992] ECR I-6061, paragraph 14.
45 — Jf. i denne retning dom af 18.10.1979, sag 125/78, GEMA mod Kommissionen, Sml., s. 3173, præmis 21.
45 — See, in that regard, Case 125/78 GEMA v Commission [1979] ECR 3173, paragraph 21.
Det er min opfattelse, at Domstolen råder over alle oplysninger, der er nødvendige for at træffe afgørelse vedrørende dette anbringende.
I take the view that the Court has at its disposal all the information necessary to give a ruling on that plea.
I denne sag har Kommissionen ikke godtgjort, hvilken dato den anfægtede akt kom til kendskab.
Commission, in this case, has not established the date on which the contested measure came to the knowledge of the complainant.
B — Min bedømmelse
B — My assessment
Kommissionen har bemærket, at Rettens Justitskontor i skrivelsen af 1. marts 2005 meddelte appellanten, at den dato, der skulle tages i betragtning for stævningens indlevering, var datoen for originalens indlevering, dvs. den 18. februar 2005, idet det eksemplar, der var sendt pr. telefax den 11. februar 2005, ikke var en identisk kopi af denne original, således som det var fremgået af sammenligningen mellem underskrifterne på hvert af disse dokumenter.
The Commission notes that the Registry of the Court of First Instance, in its letter of 1 March 2005, informed the appellant that the date of lodgement of the application to be taken into consideration was the date on which the original was lodged, that is 18 February 2005, on the ground that the copy received by fax on 11 February 2005 did not constitute an identical copy of that ori -ginal, as was demonstrated by the comparison of the signatures appended to each of those documents.
I modsætning til det af Kommissionen anførte mener jeg ikke, at appellantens søgsmål skal afvises, idet det er anlagt efter den fastsatte frist. Jeg bygger denne analyse på følgende betragtninger.
Unlike the Commission, I do not believe that the appellant’s action must be declared inadmissible on the ground that it was brought after the expiry of the prescribed period.
Kommissionen, som støttes af Athens Resort Casino, har heraf udledt, at sagen blev anlagt efter fristen på to måneder og ti dage, eftersom denne frist begyndte at løbe fra modtagelsen af skrivelsen af 2. december 2004, dvs. senest den 6. december 2004.
The Commission, supported by Athens Resort Casino, infers from this that the action was brought outside the period of 2 months and 10 days, since that period started to run when the letter of 2 December 2004 was received, or on 6 December 2004 at the latest.
Det er ubestridt, at i medfør af artikel 230, stk. 5, EF skal en privatpersons annullationssøgsmål mod en beslutning, som han ikke er adressat for, anlægges inden to måneder efter, at retsakten, alt efter sin art, er offentliggjort eller meddelt sagsøgeren eller, i mangel heraf, den dag, han har fået kendskab til den.
It is not disputed that, under the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, a private individual’s action for annulment of a decision which is not addressed to him must be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be.
Endvidere forlænges procesfristerne i overensstemmelse med artikel 102, stk. 2, i Rettens procesreglement med en fast afstandsfrist på ti dage.
Moreover, under Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the prescribed timelimits are to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days.
Kommissionen og Athens Resort Casino har ligeledes gjort gældende, at appellanten stiltiende har anerkendt at have anlagt sagen for sent, idet selskabet ved skrivelse af 16. marts 2005 anmodede Justitskontoret om at tage hensyn til den udgave af stævningen, som Justitskontoret modtog pr. telefax den 11. februar 2005.
The Commission and Athens Resort Casino also argue that the appellant implicitly acknowledged that it had brought its action out of time by asking the Registry, by letter of 16 March 2005, to take into account the version of the application received at the Registry by fax on 11 February 2005.
Appellanten har bestridt, at sagen er for sent anlagt, da det i overensstemmelse med retspraksis påhviler den part, der gør gældende, at en sag er anlagt for sent, at føre bevis for den dag, den anfægtede akt blev
The appellant denies that its action was out of time on the ground that, in accordance with the caselaw, it is for the party which relies on the late submission of the application to provide evidence of the date on which the contested measure was notified. The
I det omfang Kommissionens beslutning om at henlægge klagen hverken blev offentliggjort eller meddelt Athinaïki Techniki, men blot blev bragt til appellantens kendskab ved skrivelsen af 2. december 2004, er det spørgsmål, der skal behandles,
In so far as the Commission’s decision closing the file on Athinaïki Techniki’s complaint was not published or notified to the latter, but was simply brought to its knowledge by the letter of 2 December 2004, the matter which must be resolved is whether
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI MOD KOMMISSIONEN om annullationssøgsmålet blev anlagt inden for fristen på to måneder og ti dage fra denne skrivelses modtagelse.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION the action for annulment was brought within the period of 2 months and 10 days from receipt of that letter.
I henhold til artikel 43, stk. 1, i Rettens procesreglement skal det originale eksemplar af ethvert processkrift været underskrevet af partens befuldmægtigede eller advokat.
Under Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the original of every pleading must be signed by the party’s agent or lawyer.
Samme artikels stk. 3 bestemmer for så vidt angår procesfrister, at datoen for indleveringen til Rettens Justitskontor er eneafgørende for beregningen heraf.
Article 43(3) provides that, in the reckoning of timelimits for taking steps in proceedings only the date of lodgment at the Registry of the Court of First Instance is to be taken into account.
Procesreglementets artikel 43, stk. 6, bestemmer for så vidt angår muligheden for at indgive stævningen til Justitskontoret ved andre tekniske kommunikationsmidler:
Article 43(6) of those Rules of Proced- ure provides, for its part, for the possibility of sending the application to that Registry by other technical means of communication. It provides:
Det er min opfattelse, at ingen af disse to punkter kan tages til følge.
I consider that neither of those two points can be upheld.
For det første skal den udgave af stævningen, som Rettens Justitskontor modtog pr. telefax den 11. februar 2005, efter min opfattelse tages i betragtning ved fastsættelsen af datoen for sagens anlæggelse.
First, the version of the application received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax on 11 February 2005 must, in my view, be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the date of the action.
Artikel 43, stk. 6, i Rettens procesreglement bestemmer dermed, at Rettens Justitskontors modtagelse af kopien af stævningen pr. telefax ligestilles med indgivelse af den originale stævning på betingelse af, at denne original faktisk indleveres inden for ti dage.
Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance thus provides that receipt by the Registry of the Court of First Instance of the copy of the application by fax is to be treated in the same way as the lodgment of the original of the application provided that that original is actually lodged there within 10 days.
I øvrigt indebærer denne betingelses overholdelse logisk nok, at den udgave, som sendes til Rettens Justitskontor pr. telefax, er en kopi af den original, der senere indleveres.
Moreover, compliance with that condition logically means that the version sent to the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax should be the certified copy of the original lodged subsequently.
Det er dermed vigtigt, at den udgave, der fremsendes pr. telefax, er en fotokopi af originalen og ikke et dokument med samme indhold i en anderledes form.
It is therefore important that the version sent by fax is a photographic copy of the original version and not a document having the same content in a different form.
for den frist, der er fastsat i procesreglementets artikel 43, stk. 6, dvs. senest ti dage efter indleveringen.
the expiry of the period of 10 days following such lodgment, as specified in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
I tilfælde af, at det underskrevne originaleksemplar afviger fra den tidligere indleverede genpart, vil kun datoen for indleveringen af det underskrevne originaleksemplar blive taget i betragtning.«
In the event of any discrepancy between the signed original and the copy previously lodged, only the date of lodgment of the signed original will be taken into consideration.’
Disse anvisningers punkt I, A, stk. 2 og 3, bestemmer således:
Paragraph I(A)(2) and (3) of those directions states:
I overensstemmelse med artikel 7, stk. 1, i instruks for justitssekretæren ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Ret i Første Instans 47påhviler det justitssekretæren at sikre disse kravs overholdelse.
Under Article 7(1) of the Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, 47 it is for the Registrar of the Court of First Instance to ensure compliance with those requirements.
»Fremsendelse pr. elektronisk post accepteres kun som fremsendelse af en scannet genpart af det underskrevne originaleksemplar.
‘In the case of transmission by email, only a scanned copy of the signed original will be accepted.
Den blotte fremsendelse af en elektronisk fil, af en fil indeholdende en elektronisk signatur eller af en elektronisk fremstillet faksimile af underskriften opfylder ikke betingelserne i procesreglementets artikel 43, stk. 6. […]
A document despatched in the form of an ordinary electronic file which is unsigned or bears an electronic signature or a facsimile signature generated by computer will not be treated as complying with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure. …
Rettens justitssekretær var i denne sag af den opfattelse, at den udgave af stævningen, som Rettens Justitskontor modtog pr. telefax den 11. februar 2005, ikke var en identisk kopi af den original, som blev indleveret den 18. februar 2005, fordi underskriften på denne udgaves sidste side ikke befandt sig på nøjagtig samme sted som underskriften på originalen.
The Registrar of the Court of First Instance took the view, in this case, that the version of the application received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax on 11 February 2005 was not an identical copy of the original lodged on 18 February 2005, because the signature on the last page of that version was not in exactly the same place as the signature on the original.
Indlevering af et dokument pr. telefax eller elektronisk post kan kun anses for at være rettidig, såfremt det underskrevne originaleksemplar indgår til Justitskontoret inden
The lodgment of a document by fax or email will be treated as complying with the relevant timelimit only if the signed original of that document reaches the Registry prior to
Appellantens advokat forklarede i en skrivelse af 16. marts 2005, at denne forskel skyldtes det forhold, at den sidste side i den originale stævning var blevet beskadiget i telefaxen, således at den skulle erstattes.
The appellant’s lawyer, in correspondence dated 16 March 2005, explained that that difference was due to the fact that the last page of the original of the application had been damaged while being faxed, with the result that he had had to replace it.
Det er ubestridt, at den udgave af stævningen, som blev modtaget den 11. februar 2005, ikke
It is common ground that the version of the
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI MOD KOMMISSIONEN indeholder andre forskelle i forhold til originalen end denne forrykkelse af placeringen af advokatens underskrift på originalens sidste side.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION application received on 11 February 2005 differs from the original only in the pos -itioning of the lawyer’s signature on the last page.
Artikel 43, stk. 6, i Rettens procesreglement tilsigter dermed at give sagsøgeren mulighed for at sende stævningen til Rettens Justitskontor pr. telefax inden for fristen på to måneder og ti dage, uden at denne mulighed giver ham en yderligere frist til at forbedre stævningen eller ændre den på nogen måde.
Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance therefore seeks to enable an applicant to send his application to the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax within the period of 2 months and 10 days, without that possibility in fact resulting in his being granted an additional period to improve his application or amend it in any way whatsoever.
I modsætning til Kommissionen og Athens Resort Casino er det min opfattelse, at betingelsen om, at den pr. telefax meddelte udgave skal være identisk med den original, der er indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor, således som det følger af artikel 43, stk. 6, i Rettens procesreglement, skal anses for opfyldt.
Unlike the Commission and Athens Resort Casino, I take the view that the requirement laid down in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that the version sent by fax should be identical to the original of the application lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance must be regarded as satisfied.
Betingelsen om, at der skal være identitet mellem den pr. telefax meddelte udgave og den original, der indleveres til Rettens Justitskontor, på det formelle plan tilsigter at give Justitskontoret mulighed for, når det har modtaget den originale stævning, at efterprøve originalens nøjagtige lighed med den pr. telefax meddelte udgave ved en simpel, hurtig og overfladisk undersøgelse uden en udstrakt undersøgelse af deres indhold.
From a formal standpoint, the requirement that the version sent by fax should be identical to the original of the application lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance seeks to allow the latter, when the original of the application is forwarded to it, to verify that that original is exactly the same as the version sent by fax simply by means of a rapid and superficial examination, without an in-depth examination of their content.
Denne betingelses omfang skal efter min opfattelse bedømmes i forhold til de to formål hermed, materielt og formelt.
The scope of that requirement must, in my view, be assessed in the light of its two objectives, which are substantive and formal in nature.
I denne sag mener jeg imidlertid ikke, at den blotte forrykkelse af underskrifterne i den pr. telefax meddelte udgave og den original, der blev indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor, kompromitterer denne betingelses to formål.
However, in this case, I do not believe that the mere difference in the signatures on the version sent by fax and the original lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance undermines the two objectives of that requirement.