natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En sådan ansøgning er omfattet af artikel 13, stk. 6, i direktiv 91/414, der som en undtagelse fra de almindelige regler om oplysningspligt for personer, der ansøger om markedsføringstilladelse for et plantebeskyttelsesmiddel, for aktive stoffer, der allerede er på markedet to år efter meddelelsen af direktivet, bestemmer, at medlemsstaterne fortsat under overholdelse af traktatens bestemmelser vil kunne anvende de tidligere nationale regler om krav med hensyn til data, så længe disse stoffer ikke er optaget i bilag I til direktivet.
It follows that Directive 91/414 does not require an application for a first authorisation to place on the market a generic plant protection product containing an active substance not listed in Annex I to that directive, which is already on the domestic market two years after notification of that directive, to be assessed in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 4(l)(b)(i) to (v), and (c) to (f), of that directive.
Artikel 8, stk. 2, første afsnit, i direktiv 91/414 bestemmer på sin side, at uanset artikel 4, og med forbehold af samme direktivs artikel 8, stk. 3, kan en medlemsstat i en overgangsperiode på tolv år tillade markedsføring på sit område af plantebeskyttelsesmidler, der indeholder aktive stoffer, som ikke er opført i bilag I, og som allerede var på markedet to år efter meddelelsen af direktivet.
The first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 provides, for its part, that, by way of derogation from Article 4 and without prejudice, in particular, to Article 8(3) of the directive, a Member State may, during a transitional period of 12 years, authorise the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I that are already on the market two years after the date of notification of that directive.
Som des ses, angiver artikel 8, stk. 2, første afsnit, i direktiv 91/414 til forskel fra samme
It is apparent therefore that, unlike the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414, the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) does not specify the requirements which must be satisfied
»Artikel 8, stk 3, i Rådets direktiv 91/414/EØF af 15. juü 1991 om markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler finder ikke anvendelse, når en medlemsstat i henhold til direktivets artikel 8, stk 2, får forelagt en ansøgning om en første markedsføringstilladelse for et generisk
'Article 8(3) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market does not apply where, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the directive, an application is submitted to a Member State for first authorisation to place on the market a generic plant protection product containing an active substance not Usted in Annex I to the abovementioned directive, which is already on the domestic market two years after notification ofthat directive, with the consequence that that Member State is not under an obligation to assess such an application in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 4(l)(b)(i) to (v), and (c) to (f), ofthat directive.'
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet CSjette Afdeling) den 21. september 2000.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 21 September 2000.
»1) Artikel 8, stk. 3, i Rådets direktiv 91/414/EØF af 15. juli 1991 om markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler skal fortolkes således, at den deri fastlagte procedure finder anvendelse, hver gang en medlemsstat tillader markedsføring af et nyt plantebeskyttelsesmiddel, der indeholder et aktivt stof, der svarer til det stof, der findes i et plantebeskyttelsesmiddel, der er på markedet to år efter meddelelsen af direktivet.
Article 8(3) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market must be interpreted as meaning that the procedure which it lays down is to be applied whenever a Member State authorises the placing on the market on its territory of a new plant protection product containing an active substance analogous to that contained in a plant protection product on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive.
I overgangsperioden og indtil vedtagelsen af alle de herhenhørende fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser skal medlemsstaten kontrollere, at kravene ifølge direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, litra b) til f), er opfyldt af den person, der ansøger om godkendelse, og herved anvende de gældende nationale bestemmelser om fremlæggelse af dokumentation.
During the transitional period and pending the adoption of the relevant Community provisions, Articles 8(3) and 13(6) of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State is obliged to ensure that the requirements laid down in Article 4(l)(b) to (f) of the directive are fulfilled by the applicant for authorisation. To that end, the Member State is to apply the national rules in force concerning the production of data.
Artikel 8, stk. 3, i direktiv 91/414 skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat skal påse, at de i direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, litra b) til f), fastsatte krav opfyldes på grundlag af den på tidspunktet for ansøgningens behandling foreliggende videnskabelige og tekniskeviden.
Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State must assess whether the conditions laid down in the abovementioned Article 4(l)(b) to (f) have been complied with taking into account the state of science and technology.
I overgangsperioden og indtil relevante fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser vedtages, skal artikel 8, stk. 3, og artikel 13, stk. 6, i nævnte direktiv fortolkes således, at medlemsstaten skal kontrollere, at de anførte krav er opfyldt af den person, der ansøger om tilladelse, og herved anvende de gældende nationale bestemmelser om fremlæggelse af dokumentation.«
During the transitional period and pending the adoption of the relevant Community provisions, Articles 8(3) and 13(6) of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are obliged to ensure that the requirements laid down in Article 4(l)(b) to (f) of the directive are fulfilled by the applicant for authorisation. To that end, the Member State is to apply the national rules in force concerning the production of data.'
Sag C-347/98 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Belgien Fri bevægelighed for personer
Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Belgium Freedom of movement for persons
»Traktatbrud — social sikring —forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 - artikel 13, stk 2, litra f) — lovgivning i en medlemsstat, hvorefter der opkræves sociale sikringsbidrag af ydelser i anledning af erhvervssygdomme til personer, som ikke er bosat i denne medlemsstat og ikke længere er omfattet af dennes sociale sikringsordning« (Sjette Afdeling)
(Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 -Article 13(2) (f) —Legislation of a Member State providing for social security contributions to be levied on occupational disease benefits payable to persons who do not reside in that State and are no longer subject to its social security scheme) (Sixth Chamber)
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 September 1998, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action, for a declaration that, by levying personal contributions of 13.07% on Belgian occupational disease pensions payable to persons who do not reside in Belgium and are no longer subject to the Belgian social security scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2)(f) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the
Følgelig kan Kongeriget Belgien ikke opkræve sociale sikringsbidrag fra personer, som er ophørt med at være omfattet af den belgiske lovgivning om social sikring, og som er bosat på en anden medlemsstats område.
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (hereinafter 'Regulation No 1408/7Γ).
Den blotte henvisning til artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f), i forordning nr. 1408/71 er ikke tilstrækkelig, for så vidt som det er en betingelse for anvendelsen af bestemmelsen, at lovgivningen i en medlemsstat ikke længere er anvendelig, og idet bestemmelsen ikke selv opstiller de betingelser, der skal være opfyldt for, at lovgivningen i en medlemsstat ophører med at finde anvendelse.
A simple reference to Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 is not sufficient, since the fact that the legislation of a Member State ceases to be applicable constitutes a condition for the application of that provision, and that provision does not itself define the conditions in which the legislation of a Member State ceases to be applicable.
Kommissionen fandt, at opkrævningen af disse bidrag på 13,07% af pensioner udbetalt i Belgien for en erhvervssygdom er i strid med fællesskabsretten, når modtagerne af sådanne pensioner er bosat i en anden medlemsstat end Kongeriget Belgien og dér oppebærer en pension fra denne anden medlemsstat, og fremsendte derfor den 24. september 1996 en åbningsskrivelse til den belgiske regering, hvori denne blev opfordret til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger inden for en frist på to måneder.
The Commission took the view that the levying of those contributions, at a level of 13.07%, on pensions paid in Belgium in respect of an occupational disease was contrary to Community law where the persons receiving such pensions resided in a Member State other than the Kingdom of Belgium and there received a pension payable by that State, and accordingly gave the Belgian Government formal notice by letter of 24 September 1996 to submit to it its observations on the matter within two months.
Da Kommissionen ikke modtog noget svar fra den belgiske regering inden for den fastsatte frist, genfremsatte den sine synspunkter i den begrundede udtalelse, som den tilsendte Kongeriget Belgien ved skrivelse af 6. november 1997.
Since it received no reply from the Belgian Government, the Commission reiterated its view in the reasoned opinion which it sent to the Kingdom of Belgium by letter of 6 November 1997.
Da Kommissionen ikke kunne godtage den belgiske regerings svar på den begrundede udtalelse, har den anlagt den foreliggende sag.
The Commission was not satisfied by the Belgian Government's reply to the reasoned opinion, and therefore made the present application.
Det må konstateres, at eftersom Kommissionen i sin stævning alene har gjort gældende, at Kongeriget Belgien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f), i forordning nr. 1408/71, idet det har opkrævet bidrag af pensioner udbetalt i Belgien i anledning af en erhvervssygdom, når modtagerne af disse pensioner ikke er bosat i Belgien og ikke længere er omfattet af den belgiske sociale sikringsordning, har Kommissionen udledt retsvirkninger af bestemmelsen, som ikke nødvendigvis følger af denne.
It is clear that, by merely claiming, in its application, that the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 by levying contributions on pensions paid in Belgium in respect of an occupational disease where the persons receiving such pensions do not reside in that Member State and are no longer subject to the Belgian social security scheme, the Commission infers from that provision legal consequences which do not necessarily flow from it.
Således har Kommissionen antaget, at betingelserne for anvendelse af bestemmelsen var opfyldt, selv om det med henblik på at godtgøre rigtigheden af Kommissionens opfattelse påhvilede den at føre bevis for, at disse betingelser faktisk var opfyldt i den foreliggende sag, idet den konkret skulle angive de tilfælde, hvor personer, som har ret til pensioner udbetalt i Belgien for en arbejdsulykke eller en erhvervssygdom, reelt ikke længere er omfattet af den belgiske lovgivning om social sikring, når de er bosat i en anden medlemsstat end Kongeriget Belgien.
It considers it to be established that the conditions for applying that provision are fulfilled, although, in order to establish the merits of that proposition, it was required to prove that those conditions are in fact fulfilled in the present case, by specifying the concrete situations in which persons receiving pensions paid in Belgium in respect of an accident at work or an occupational disease are in fact no longer subject to Belgian social security legislation where they have their residence in the territory of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Belgium.
Under en traktatbrudssag i medfør af traktatens artikel 169 påhviler det Kommissionen at godtgøre, at det hævdede traktatbrud foreligger, samt at fremlægge de oplysninger for Domstolen, som er nødvendige for, at denne kan efterprøve, om der foreligger et traktatbrud.
The Commission claims that, where the social security legislation of a Member State ceases to be applicable to a person, Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71, which implements the principle that the legislation of only one Member State is to apply, states that the legislation of the Member State in which the person concerned resides is to be the only legislation applicable.
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at når en person ophører med at være omfattet af en medlemsstats lovgivning om social sikring, følger det af artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f), i forordning nr. 1408/71, som gennemfører princippet om, at kun én lovgivning finder anvendelse, at det alene er lovgivningen i den pågældendes bopælsmedlemsstat, som finder anvendelse.
In proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty for failure to fulfil an obligation, it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled and to place before the Court the information needed to enable it to determine whether the obligation has not been fulfilled.
Kongeriget Nederlandene bærer sine egne omkostninger.« «
Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.'
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling^ den 23. januar 2001.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 23 January 2001.
Han foreslog følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court should make the following decision:
Kongeriget Nederlandene bærer sine egne omkostninger.«
The Commission shall bear its own costs and those of the Kingdom of Belgium.
»Traktatbrud - sjette momsdirektiv — artikel 12, stk 3, litra a), og artikel 28, stk 2, litra a) — reduceret sats« (Sjette Afdeling)
Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Taxation
Kommissionen var af den opfattelse, at anvendelsen af to forskellige reducerede momssatser for lægemidler, afhængig af, hvorvidt sygesikringen bærer udgifterne eller ej, er i strid med bestemmelserne i første og sjette direktiv, herunder særligt sidstnævntes artikel 12, stk. 3.
The Commission took the view that application of two different reduced rates of VAT for medicinal products, depending on whether or not they were reimbursable under the social security system, was contrary to the provisions of the First and Sixth Directives, in particular Article 12(3) of the Sixth Directive.
I overensstemmelse med traktatens artikel 169 har Kommissionen ved skrivelse af 28. september 1995 tilstillet Den Franske Republik sine klagepunkter vedrørende den formodede overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten og opfordret den til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger hertil.
By letter of 28 September 1995, it notified the French Government, in accordance with Article 169 of the Treaty, of its complaints in respect of what it presumed to be an infringement of Community law and requested the French Government to submit its observations on the matter.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 30. december 1998, har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 12 i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, idet den har indført og opretholdt en momslovgivning, hvorefter lægemidler, der refunderes af sygesikringen, pålægges afgift med 2,1%, medens der for andre lægemidler gælder en reduceret sats på 5,5%.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 30 December 1998, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by introducing and maintaining in force legislation relating to value added tax which provides for a rate of 2.1% to be charged on medicinal products reimbursable under the social security system, whereas other medicinal products are taxed at the reduced rate of 5.5%, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
refunderes, foretages ved anvendelse af objektive kriterier og sker under overholdelse af direktiv 89/105.
medicinal products are not similar products in competition with each other.
Den franske regering har fastholdt sit synspunkt, hvorfor Kommissionen har besluttet at anlægge den foreliggende sag.
The French Government maintained its position, whereupon the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Princippet om afgiftsneutralitet
The principle of fiscal neutrality
Det må derfor fastslås, at Kommissionen ikke har godtgjort, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat princippet om afgiftsneutralitet, som ligger til grund for det fælles momssystem, idet den har indført og opretholdt forskellige momssatser for lægemidler, der refunderes, og for lægemidler, der ikke refunderes.
It must consequently be held that the Commission has failed to establish that, by introducing and maintaining in force different rates of VAT for reimbursable medicinal products and for non-reimbursable medicinal products, the French Republic infringed the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of VAT.
Formålet med den reducerede momssats
The purpose served by the reduced rate of VAT
Det bemærkes, at den franske lovgivning hverken har tilsidesat eller tilsidesætter princippet om afgiftsneutralitet ved at indføre og opretholde en momssats på 2,1%, som alene gælder for lægemidler, der refunderes.
It is clear that, in introducing and maintaining in force a VAT rate of 2.1% solely for reimbursable medicinal products, the French legislation did not, and does not, infringe the principle of fiscal neutrality.
De lægemidler, der refunderes, er ikke sammenlignelige med de lægemidler, der ikke refunderes, og produkterne konkurrerer ikke med hinanden.
In the first place, a medicinal product is included on the list of reimbursable medicinal products pursuant to objective criteria and in accordance with Directive 89/105.
I denne forbindelse skal det blot bemærkes, at anvendelsen af en reduceret momssats for lægemidler, der refunderes, dels har et klart socialt formål, idet den nødvendigvis medfører en lempelse af bidragene til sygesikring, dels er til fordel for den endelige forbruger, da den nedsætter sundhedsudgifterne.
Suffice it in this regard to point out that application of a reduced rate of VAT to reimbursable medicinal products clearly constitutes a social reason, inasmuch as it necessarily reduces the charges borne by the social security system, and also benefits the final consumer, whose health expenses are thereby reduced.
Det bemærkes for det første, at optagelse af et lægemiddel på listen over lægemidler, der
Next, it must be noted that the effect of this classification is that the two categories of
Republikken Finland bærer sine egne omkostninger.«
Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.'
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 6. december 2000.
Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 6 December 2000.
— Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber betaler sagens omkostninger.«
Case C-28/99 Jean Verdonck, Ronald Everaert, Edith de Baedts
Ved dom af 27. januar 1999 har Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Gent forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 6 i Rådets direktiv 89/592/EØF af 13. november 1989 om samordning af retsforskrifterne vedrørende insider-handel.
By judgment of 27 January 1999, the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Gent referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinating regulations on insider dealing.
Det følger af forelæggelsesdommen, at Verdonck m.fl. er medlemmer af Ter Beke's bestyrelse, og at J. Verdonck Ugeledes er medlem af selskabets direktion.
It is apparent from the judgment of the national court that the defendants are directors of the board of Ter Beke and that Mr Verdonck is also a member of the company's management committee.
Verdonck m-fl. afgav mellem den 6. og den 8. februar 1996 købsordrer, der resulterede i erhvervelse af aktier i Ter Beke til kurs 2 590 BEF.
Between 6 and 8 February 1996, the defendants placed orders on the stock exchange which resulted in the acquisition of shares in Ter Beke at a price of BEF 2 590.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under straffesager mod J. Verdonck, R. Everaert og E. deBaedts, der strafforfølges i henhold til artikel 181, 182, 183 og 189 i lov af 4. december 1990 om finansielle transaktioner og finansielle markeder (herefter »1990-loven«), som fastlægger gerningsindholdet af og straffen for den overtrædelse, der består i insider-handel.
Those questions were raised in the course of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Verdonck, Mr Everaert and Mrs De Baedts, who are charged under Articles 181,182,183 and 189 of the Law of 4 December 1990 on financial transactions and financial markets (hereinafter the 1990 Law"). Those provisions define and punish offences committed by insiders.
Openbaar Ministerie (anklagemyndigheden) iværksatte strafforfølgning mod Verdonck m.fl. ved Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Gent med den begrundelse, at de ved at erhverve aktier i Ter Beke, før hensigtserklæringen mellem dette selskab og Unilever var blevet offentliggjort, ulovligt havde gjort brug af intern viden i strid med 1990-lovens artikel 181,182,183 og 189.
The Openbaar Ministerie (the Public Prosecutor) brought proceedings against the defendants before the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Gent (Court of First Instance, Gent) on the ground that, by purchasing shares in Ter Beke before the letter of intent between itself and Unilever was made public, they made unlawful use of inside information, contrary to Articles 181, 182, 183 and 189 of the 1990 Law.
Under sine møder den 22. august 1995 og den 10. oktober 1995 undersøgte Ter Beke NVs bestyrelse mulighederne for at erhverve Chilled Food Business, der er en afdeling af Unilever Belgium NV.
At its meetings of 22 August and 10 October 1995, the board of directors of Ter Beke NV considered the possibility of taking over Chilled Food Business, a division of Unilever Belgium NV.
Den 14. september 1995 blev der afgivet et vejledende bud, og den 19. december 1995 godkendte Ter Beke's bestyrelse et tilbud om overtagelse af denne afdeling.
On 14 September 1995, a tentative offer was made and, on 19 December 1995, the board of directors of Ter Beke approved a bid to take over Chilled Food Business.