natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Selv hvis det antages, at man skulle inddrage de gældende forhold mellem de ydelser, der betales til en gruppe pensionister, og de ydelser, der udbetales til en anden gruppe, må det konstateres, at indførelsen af »landemetoden« kompenserer for de omkostninger, der opstår ved anvendelsen af en justeringskoefficient på mindst 100%.
Even if it were necessary to consider the relationship between the benefits paid to one group of pensioners and those paid to another group, it would have to be concluded that the cost incurred in applying the minimum correction coefficient of 100% is ‘compensated for’ by the introduction of the ‘country method’.
Hvad angår Rettens konstatering i den appellerede doms præmis 136 af, at indførelsen af en justeringskoefficient på mindst 100% under alle omstændigheder ikke kan anses for at være åbenlyst vilkårlig eller uhensigtsmæssig, har appellanten gjort gældende, at den blotte henvisning til lovgivers vide beføjelser og til formålet om at tilnærme overgangsordningen til den endelige ordning ikke kan berettige denne konklusion.
With regard to the finding made by the Court of First Instance at paragraph 136 of the judgment under appeal that the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% cannot in any event be characterised as manifestly arbitrary or inappropriate, the appellant claims that the simple reference to the legislature’s wide power and to the objective of bringing the transitional arrangements into line with the definitive rules cannot justify that conclusion.
Desuden er der ikke indført nogen overgangsordning for pensionister, der er bosat i »mindre dyre« lande.
In addition, no transitional arrangements were made for pensioners residing in ‘less expensive’ countries.
Den forskel, der opstår som følge af, at den bestemmelse, hvorved der indføres en minimumsjusteringskoefficient, giver disse pensionister ret til ydelser, der væsentligt overstiger leveomkostningerne på deres bopæl, er ikke objektiv berettiget ved overgangsordningens art og kendetegn.
There is no objective justification in the nature or the substance of the transitional arrangements for the differentiation resulting from the fact that the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient conferred upon those pensioners benefits which substantially exceeded the cost of living in their place of residence.
Kommissionen og Rådet er af den opfattelse, at det var med rette, at Retten afviste appellantens argument.
The Commission and the Council consider that the Court of First Instance was correct in declaring the appellant’s argument inadmissible.
De har i denne forbindelse gjort gældende, at selv hvis Retten havde tiltrådt dette argument, ville følgen have været, at pensionen til pensionister boende i »mindre dyre« medlemsstater ville være blevet nedsat, hvilket på ingen måde ville have ændret appellantens situation.
They contend that, even if the Court of First Instance had considered the argument well founded, the consequence would have been a reduction in the amount of the pension paid to pensioners residing in ‘less expensive’ Member States, which would not have made any change whatsoever in the appellant’s situation.
Subsidiært har de gjort gældende, at lovgiver ved at foretage en tilpasning af overgangsordningen til den endelige ordning for en lang række medlemsstaters vedkommende til fordel for pensionister, som er bosat i »mindre dyre« medlemsstater, har foretaget et sammenhængende og hensigtsmæssigt valg.
In the alternative, they contend that, by aligning the transitional arrangements with the definitive rules for a large number of Member States and to the advantage of pensioners residing in ‘less expensive’ Member States, the legislature made a consistent and appropriate choice.
Rådet har tilføjet, at for disse sidstnævnte pensionisters vedkommende var der ingen berettigede forventninger at beskytte, hvilket efter Rådets opfattelse forklarer, hvorfor det ikke var nødvendigt med overgangsforanstaltninger i forhold til dem.
The Council points out that, for that group of pensioners, there were no legitimate expectations to be protected, which explains why no transitional measures were necessary for them.
Kritikken af de motiver i den appellerede dom, hvorved Retten afviste appellantens argument om, at der foreligger forskelsbehandling i forhold til pensionister bosat i en af de »mindre dyre« medlemsstater som følge af indførelsen af en justeringskoefficient på mindst 100%, vedrører såvel Rettens formelle afvisning af argumentet som prøvelsen af argumentet i realiteten.
The criticisms of the grounds on which the Court of First Instance, in the judgment under appeal, rejected the appellant’s argument alleging discrimination by comparison with pensioners residing in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States as a result of the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% relate both to that Court’s findings on the admissibility of that argument and its examination of the substance of the argument.
Appellanten forsøger nemlig at godtgøre, at dette argument i modsætning til det af Retten fastslåede skal antages til realitetsbehandling og er begrundet.
In fact, the appellant is seeking to show that, contrary to what the Court of First Instance held, that argument is admissible and well founded.
Før der tages stilling til denne kritik, skal Kommissionens afvisningspåstand behandles.
Before addressing those criticisms, the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission must be considered.
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at Retten af egen drift skulle have afvist argumentet, eftersom appellanten først fremførte det i replikken i første instans, og der dermed er tale om et nyt argument.
The Commission contends that the Court of First Instance should have declared the argument inadmissible of its own motion, since it was put forward by the appellant for the first time only in his reply in the proceedings at first instance and is therefore a new argument.
Hertil skal i overensstemmelse med punkt 103 og 104 i generaladvokatens forslag til afgørelse blot bemærkes, at det omhandlede argument var indeholdt (om end det ikke var udviklet) i den del af stævningen, hvori det gjordes gældende, at der
It is sufficient to note in that regard that, as the Advocate General pointed out at points 103 and 104 of his Opinion, the argument in question appeared, albeit in embryonic form, in the part of the application alleging misuse of powers and
CAMPOLI MOD KOMMISSIONEN foreligger magtfordrejning samt en tilsidesættelse af proportionalitetsprincippet og af begrundelsespligten.
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION infringement of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons.
Det fremgår imidlertid af retspraksis, at et anbringende, som udgør en uddybning af et anbringende, der tidligere er fremført direkte eller indirekte i stævningen, bør admitteres (jf. i denne retning dom af 19.5.1983, sag 306/81, Verros mod Parlamentet, Sml. s. 1755, præmis 9, og af 26.4.2007, sag C-412/05 P, Alcon mod KHIM, Sml. I, s. 3569, præmis 38-40).
It is clear from the caselaw that a plea which may be regarded as amplifying a plea made previously, whether directly or by implication, in the original application, must be considered admissible (see, to that effect, Case 306/81 Verros v Parliament [1983] ECR 1755, paragraph 9, and Case C-412/05 P Alcon v OHIM [2007] ECR I-3569, paragraphs 38 to 40).
Hvad angår realiteten af appellantens kritik skal der først foretages en gennemgang af den del af kritikken, der retter sig mod den appellerede doms præmis 136, hvori Retten nåede frem til, at argumentet måtte afvises som følge af appellantens manglende søgsmålsinteresse, og derefter fastslog, at indførelsen af en justeringskoefficient på mindst 100% under alle omstændigheder ikke kan anses for at være åbenlyst vilkårlig eller uhensigtsmæssig, eftersom denne regel blev indført for i videst mulig omfang at tilnærme overgangsordningen, der opretholder de justeringskoefficienter, der finder anvendelse på pensionerne, til den endelige ordning, hvorved de afskaffes.
As to whether the appellant’s criticisms are well founded, consideration must first be given to those made in regard to paragraph 136 of the judgment under appeal, in which the Court of First Instance, having concluded that the argument in question was inadmissible on the basis that the appellant had failed to establish an interest in bringing proceedings, held that, in any event, the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% cannot be characterised as manifestly arbitrary or inappropriate, since that rule was adopted in order to bring the transitional arrangements protecting the correction coefficients applicable to pensions as far as possible into line with the definitive rules, which abolish them.
Det er nemlig kun under forudsætning af, at denne konstatering er behæftet med en retlig fejl, at det foreliggende led i det anbringende, appellanten har fremsat, kan tages til følge. Dette er imidlertid ikke tilfældet.
It is only if that finding were vitiated by an error of law that that part of the plea relied on by the appellant could ultimately succeed.
Som Retten med rette bemærkede, foregriber indførelsen af en justeringskoefficient inden for rammerne af overgangsordningen på mindst 100% blot afskaffelsen — for en del af pensionisternes vedkommende — af de justeringskoefficienter, der er indeholdt i den endelige ordning.
As the Court of First Instance correctly pointed out, the introduction, as part of the transitional arrangements, of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% simply anticipates the abolition of correction coefficients for certain pensioners provided for under the new rules.
Det er således i dette perspektiv, at overgangsordningens forenelighed med ligebehandlingsprincippet skal vurderes.
Whether the transitional rules are in conformity with the principle of equal treatment must therefore be analysed from that perspective.
Det må imidlertid konstateres, at fællesskabslovgivers beslutning om at reformere pensionsordningen ved at afskaffe de justeringskoefficienter, der finder anvendelse på pensionerne, ikke er uforenelig med ligebehandlingsprincippet.
The decision of the Community legislature to reform the pension scheme by abolishing the correction coefficients applicable to pensions is not incompatible with the principle of equal treatment.
Selv om det er korrekt, at den tidligere pensionsordning, der hvilede på en ordning med justeringskoefficienter og følgelig på en vis kompensation for købekraften i pensionistens bopælsmedlemsstat, udgjorde et egnet middel til at gennemføre det pågældende princip, kan det ikke udledes deraf, at enhver anden ordning er uforenelig med samme princip.
Although the former pension scheme, based on a system of correction coefficients and, consequently, on a certain compensation for loss of purchasing power according to the Member State in which the pensioner resided, constituted an appropriate way of implementing that principle, it cannot be inferred from this that any other system is incompatible with that principle.
Som Rådet med rette har anført, er en pensionsordning, hvormed der tilsigtes samme købekraft, nemlig kun én af de måder, hvorpå ligebehandlingsprincippet kan sikres.
As the Council rightly pointed out, a pension scheme intended to create equality of purchasing power is just one possible way of ensuring compliance with the principle of equal treatment.
Dette princip overholdes i lige så høj grad inden for rammerne af en ordning, hvorefter pensionister med samme bidragsindbetaling oppebærer samme nominelle pension, hvilket i øvrigt, som anført af Kommissionen, generelt er tilfældet efter de gældende pensionsordninger i medlemsstaterne og i andre internationale organisationer.
That principle is just as equally complied with by a scheme under which pensioners receive, for an equivalent contribution, the same nominal pension, which is also, as the Commission noted, generally the case under existing pension schemes in the Member States and in other international organisations.
Eftersom den endelige pensionsordning, der følger af den nye vedtægt, for så vidt som den ikke længere forfølger det formål, der består i at sikre en vis lighed i købekraft mellem pensionisterne uanset deres bopæl, derfor er i overensstemmelse med ligebehandlingsprincippet, kan overgangsordningen, der blot foregriber princippet om et »enkelt« pensionsbeløb til fordel for de pensionister, for hvilke dette princip er gunstigt, ikke udgøre forskelsbehandling.
Since the definitive pension scheme under the new Staff Regulations, inasmuch as it no longer pursues the objective of guaranteeing a certain equality of purchasing power among officials, regardless of their place of residence, is therefore compatible with the principle of equal treatment, the transitional arrangements, which simply anticipate the principle whereby a ‘single’ amount pension is paid to pensioners for whom that principle is favourable, cannot constitute discrimination.
Det må således konstateres, at det var med rette, at Retten fastslog, at appellantens argument om, at der foreligger forskelsbehandling i forhold til pensionister bosat i en af de »mindre dyre« medlemsstater som følge af, at der ved overgangsordningen indføres en justeringskoefficient på mindst 100%, var ugrundet.
It must therefore be held that the Court of First Instance was correct in finding that the appellant’s argument alleging discrimination by comparison with pensioners residing in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States was unfounded, since the transitional arrangements introduced a minimum correction coefficient of 100%.
Under disse omstændigheder er det ikke længere fornødent, at Domstolen tager stilling til indsigelsen om, at dette argument må afvises som følge af, at appellanten ikke har søgsmålsinteresse.
Under those circumstances, there is no further need to consider the objection that that argument is inadmissible since the appellant does not have locus standi.
Det følger af det ovenstående, at dette led af anbringendet vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af ligebehandlingsprincippet og af begrebet søgsmålsinteresse må forkastes.
It follows from the foregoing that this part of the sole plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and failure to have regard to the concept of locus standi, must be rejected.
Rettens bedømmelse af det tredje argument vedrørende forskelsbehandling i forhold til pensionister bosat i Belgien.
The findings made by the Court of First Instance on the third argument, concerning discrimination by comparison with pensioners living in Belgium
Appellanten har i denne forbindelse gjort gældende, at den nye pensionsordning i modsætning til det af Retten fastslåede indebærer en tilknytning til leveomkostningerne i Bruxelles.
The appellant claims that, contrary to what was held in the judgment under appeal, the new pension scheme is linked to the cost of living in Brussels.
Det præciseres således i artikel 3 i bilag XI til den nye vedtægt, at tilpasningen af vederlagene og af pensionerne hviler på en række elementer, der er anført i bilagets artikel 1, hvorunder indgår udviklingen i leveomkostningerne i Bruxelles (internationalt indeks for Bruxelles).
Article 3 of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations states that the adjustment of remuneration and pensions is to be based on a series of factors set out in Article 1 thereof, which include changes in the cost of living for Brussels (Brussels International Index).
Den omstændighed, at der som bestemt i artikel 3, stk. 5, i bilag XI til den nye vedtægt ikke fastsættes nogen justeringskoefficient for Belgien, betyder, at pensionerne de facto beregnes efter en justeringskoefficient på 100%.
The fact that no correction coefficient is applicable in Belgium, as provided in Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations, means that a de facto correction coefficient of 100% is applied to pensions.
Indkomsten for pensionister bosat i Belgien fastsættes følgelig udelukkende under hensyntagen til leveomkostningerne i hovedstaden Bruxelles.
Consequently, the income of pensioners living in Belgium is fixed solely by taking account of the cost of living in Brussels, the capital of that Member State.
Appellanten har yderligere kritiseret grunde, der er anført i den appellerede doms præmis 124, hvorefter »lovligheden af en fællesskabsretsakt […] imidlertid ikke [kan] afhænge af den måde, hvorpå denne retsakt anvendes i praksis«, og i præmis 125, hvor der henvises til retspraksis, hvorefter overholdelsen af ligebehandlingsprincippet under alle omstændigheder skal forenes med overholdelsen af legalitetsprincippet, hvorefter ingen til egen fordel kan påberåbe sig en ulovlighed, der er begået til fordel for andre.
The appellant also criticises the grounds set out at paragraph 124 of the judgment under appeal, according to which ‘the lawfulness of a Community legislative act cannot depend on the manner in which it is applied in practice’, and those set out at paragraph 125, which refers to the caselaw to the effect that respect for the principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with respect for the principle of legality, according to which a person may not rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party.
Appellanten har i denne forbindelse gjort gældende, at der foreligger en tilsidesættelse af ligebehandlingsprincippet, af princippet om parternes ligestilling for Fællesskabets retsinstanser, princippet om retten til forsvar samt af den begrundelsespligt, der påhviler Fællesskabets retsinstanser og institutionerne.
The appellant invokes in that regard infringement of the principles of equal treatment and the equality of the parties before the Community judicature, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons, which is binding on the Community judicature and the institutions.
Kommissionen og Rådet har henvist til ordlyden af artikel 1, stk. 3, litra a), og artikel 3, stk. 5, andet afsnit, litra b), i vedtægtens bilag XI, idet de har fremhævet, at den første af disse artikler bestemmer, at Eurostat beregner købekraftspariteterne, »idet Belgien anvendes som reference«.
The Commission and the Council refer to the terms of Article 1(3)(a) and the second paragraph of Article 3(5)(b) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations and point out that the first of those provisions provides that Eurostat is to calculate the economic parities ‘with reference to Belgium’.
Den nye ordning indeholder således ingen tilknytning til
The new rules therefore contain no link to the
Den praktiske anvendelse af overgangsordningen er en følge af Rådets gennemførelsesforordninger, som Eurostat blot iværksætter.
The implementation of the transitional arrangements is effected by implementing regulations adopted by the Council, which Eurostat merely applies.
Appellanten har afskåret sig fra at anfægte disse gennemførelsesforordninger, da han kun har påstået, at forordning nr. 723/2004 er ugyldig.
The appellant failed to challenge those implementing regulations, pleading only the illegality of Regulation No 723/2004.
Under disse omstændigheder må det konstateres, at den retlige eller faktiske anvendelse af en justeringskoefficient på 100% på pensionister bosat i Belgien ikke kan udgøre en sådan tilsidesættelse.
Under those circumstances, the application, in fact or in law, of a correction coefficient of 100% to pensioners residing in Belgium clearly cannot constitute such an infringement.
Selv hvis det antages, at leveomkostningerne i Belgien beregnet efter »landemetoden« var lavere end dem, der tages i betragtning ved beregningen af grundlønnen med det resultat, at man under anvendelse af selve logikken i den tidligere pensionsordning skulle have fastsat en justeringskoefficient under 100%, udgør den omstændighed, at pensionister bosat i Belgien i lighed med resten af de pensionister, der bor i »mindre dyre« medlemsstater som omhandlet i denne doms præmis 69, har ret til grundpensionens fulde beløb og således til en købekraft, der er større end appellantens, nemlig ikke forskelsbehandling henset til overgangsordningen.
Even if the cost of living in Belgium, calculated in accordance with the ‘country method’, was below that taken into account for the calculation of basic salary, with the result that, following the logic of the old pension scheme, a correction coefficient of less than 100% would have been applied, the fact that pensioners residing in Belgium, in the same way as all other pensioners residing in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States as referred to at paragraph 69 above, receive only the basic full pension and, therefore, enjoy a purchasing power that is greater than that of the appellant does not constitute discrimination in the context of the transitional arrangements.
Det følger af det ovenstående, at selv hvis begrundelsen i den appellerede dom, bl.a. i dennes præmis 124 og 125, skulle være behæftet med en retlig fejl, således som appellanten har hævdet, ville en konstatering af en sådan fejl ikke kunne medføre en ophævelse af dommen, da appellantens argument om, at der foreligger forskelsbehandling i forhold til pensionister bosat i Belgien, under alle omstændigheder må forkastes af de grunde, der er anført i nærværende doms præmis 74 og 75, hvilke grunde Retten desuden også har redegjort for i den appellerede dom.
It follows from the foregoing that, even if the grounds of the judgment under appeal, in particular, those set out at paragraphs 124 and 125 thereof, were vitiated by an error of law, as the appellant claims, a finding that there was such an error would not lead to the setting-aside of the judgment, since the appellant’s argument alleging discrimination by comparison with pensioners living in Belgium must, in any event, be rejected on the grounds set out at paragraphs 74 and 75 above, which were also set out by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal.
Under disse omstændigheder skal dette led af anbringendet vedrørende en tilsidesættelse af ligebehandlingsprincippet, af princippet om parternes ligestilling for Fællesskabets retsinstanser, princippet om retten til forsvar samt af den begrundelsespligt, der påhviler Fællesskabets retsinstanser og institutionerne, forkastes.
Accordingly, that part of the sole plea, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and the equality of the parties before the Community judicature, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons, which is binding on the Community judicature and the institutions, must be rejected.
Da ingen af leddene i det eneste anbringende, som appellanten har fremsat til støtte for sin appel, er begrundede, skal appellen indgivet af Franco Campoli forkastes.
Since no part of the sole plea in law relied on by the appellant is well founded, Mr Campoli’s appeal must be dismissed.
I henhold til procesreglementets artikel 122, stk. 1, træffer Domstolen afgørelse om sagens omkostninger, såfremt appellen forkastes.
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to costs.
I medfør af procesreglementets artikel 69, stk. 2, som i henhold til dets artikel 118 finder anvendelse i appelsager, pålægges det den tabende part at betale sagens omkostninger, hvis der er nedlagt påstand herom. Ifølge procesreglementets artikel 69, stk. 3, kan Domstolen fordele sagens omkostninger eller bestemme, at hver part skal bære sine egne omkostninger, hvis hver af parterne henholdsvis taber eller vinder på et eller flere punkter, eller hvor der foreligger ganske særlige grunde.
Under Article 69(2) of those rules, which apply to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 118, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
Begge parter har delvist tabt sagen, og hver part bør derfor pålægges at bære sine egne omkostninger.
Since each party has been partly unsuccessful, each party must be ordered to bear its own costs.