natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved skrivelse indgået til Hauptzollamt den 19. november 1998 anmodede Nachi Europe om godtgørelse af den antidumpingtold, som selskabet havde betalt, idet selskabet gjorde gældende, at forordning nr. 2849/92 var ugyldig som følge af dommen i sagerne NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko mod Rådet (sag T-163M og T-165/94) og dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod NTN og Koyo Seiko (sag C245/95).
In a letter received by the Hauptzollamt on 19 November 1998, Nachi Europe requested reimbursement of the anti­dumping duties which it had paid, pleading the illegality of Regulation No 2849/92 resulting from the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council T­163/94 and T­165/94 and Commission ν NTN and Koyo Seiko C­245/95.
Hauptzollamt afslog anmodningen om godtgørelse ved afgørelse af 11. januar 1999.
By decision of 11 January 1999 the Hauptzollamt rejected the request for reimbursement.
Den afviste også den klage, som Nachi Europe indgav over afgørelsen.
It also dismissed the administrative complaint lodged by Nachi Europe against that decision.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst i en sag mellem Nachi Europe GmbH og Hauptzollamt Krefeld som følge af sidstnævntes afslag på Nachi Europe's anmodning om godtgørelse af antidumpingtold, som selskabet har betalt i henhold til forordning nr. 2849/92.
Those questions have been raised in a dispute between Nachi Europe GmbH and the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Krefeld following the latter's decision to reject Nachi Europe's request for reimbursement of anti­dumping duties paid pursuant to Regulation No 2849/92.
Tvisten i hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions submitted for a preliminary ruling
Til støtte for det søgsmål, som Nachi Europe herefter indgav for Finanzgericht Düsseldorf gjorde selskabet gældende, at der ved forordning nr. 2849/92 blev pålagt antidumpingtold af de af selskabet indførte kuglelejer, og at andre importører ved dommen i sagerne NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko mod Rådet og dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod NTN og Koyo Seiko havde fået medhold i deres annullationssøgsmål.
In support of the action which it then brought before the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Nachi Europe submitted that Regulation No 2849/92 imposes anti­dumping duties on the ball bearings which it imported and that, in the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council and Commission ν NTN and Koyo Seiko, the actions for annulment brought by other importers had been upheld.
Nachi Europe, der er et datterselskab af Nachi Fujikoshi, indførte i november og december 1995 kuglelejer med oprindelse i Japan, som var fremstillet af moderselskabet, og lod dem ekspedere til fri omsætning ved toldstedet Mönchengladbach, der hører under Hauptzollamt.
Nachi Europe, which is a subsidiary of Nachi Fujikoshi, imported, in November and December 1995, ball bearings of Japanese origin manufactured by its parent company, and cleared them for release into free circulation at the customs post in Mönchengladbach, which comes under the responsibility of the Hauptzollamt.
Nachi Europe, kan det dog udledes af præmisserne i disse domme, at forordningens artikel 1, nr. 2, i det hele er ugyldig.
The Finanzgericht noted that, while the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council and Commission ν NTN and Koyo Seiko declared Regulation No 2849/92 invalid only in regard to the applicants in those cases, and not in regard to Nachi Europe, the grounds of those judgments none the less point to the conclusion that Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 is invalid in its entirety.
eksportvirksomheder, der kan godtgøre, at det er dem selv, der er tale om i Kommissionens eller Rådets retsakter, eller som har været inddraget i de forudgående undersøgelser.
According to settled case­law, regulations imposing an anti­dumping duty, although by their nature and scope of a legislative nature, are liable to be of direct and individual concern to inter alios those producers and exporters who are able to establish that they were identified in the measures adopted by the Commission or the Council or were concerned by the preliminary investigations.
På denne baggrund har Finanzgericht Düsseldorf besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
In those circumstances, the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Det var på grundlag af denne retspraksis, at NTN og Koyo Seiko — som producenter af kuglelejer, der var anført i forordning nr. 2849/92, med navns nævnelse — hver indgav et søgsmål for Retten med påstand om annullation af denne forordning for så vidt som den berørte hver af dem.
It was within the context of that case­law that NTN and Koyo Seiko, ball­bearing manufacturers named in Regulation No 2849/92, each brought an action before the Court of First Instance in which they sought annulment of that regulation to the extent to which it affected them individually.
Såfremt det første spørgsmål besvares bekræftende: Fra hvilket tidspunkt skal artikel 1, nr. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 2849/92 da anses for at være ugyldig til fordel for sagsøgeren?«
If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, from what point in time is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 to be considered invalid in regard to the plaintiff?'
Ved dommen i sagerne NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko mod Rådet gav Retten disse selskaber medhold — inden for grænserne af de nedlagte påstande — idet den nærmere bestemt annullerede artikel 1 i forordning nr. 2849/92, men udelukkende i det omfang selskaberne NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko herved blev pålagt en antidumpingtold, hvilket er i overensstemmelse med retspraksis for, at Fællesskabets retsinstanser i annullationssøgsmål ikke kan træffe afgørelse ultra petita.
In its judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council, the Court of First Instance upheld the actions brought by those undertakings within the limits of the forms of order sought from it, that is to say, by annulling Article 1 of Regulation No 2849/92 only in so far as it imposed anti­dumping duties on NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko, in accordance with the case­law which states that, since it would be ultra vires for the Community judicature to rule ultra petita.
Det fremgår af forelæggelseskendelsen, at den forelæggende ret med det første spørgsmål ønsker oplyst — ikke om artikel 1, nr. 2, i forordning nr. 2849/92 i det hele er ugyldig -men alene om bestemmelsen er ugyldig for så vidt som den fastsætter en antidumpingtold på kuglelejer fremstillet af Nachi Fujikoshi og indført af dettes datterselskab, Nachi Europe, idet disse varer er de eneste, som hovedsagen angår.
It is clear from the order for reference that, by its first question, the national court is seeking to ascertain, not whether Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 is invalid in its entirety, but only whether that provision is invalid to the extent to which it imposes an anti­dumping duty on ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi and imported by its subsidiary Nachi Europe, these being the only products at issue in the main proceedings.
Det må konstateres, at Rettens annullation — i dommen i sagerne NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko mod Rådet, som stadfæstet af Domstolen i dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod NTN og Koyo Seiko — af artikel 1 i forordning nr. 2849/92, for så vidt som selskaberne NTN og Koyo Seiko derved blev pålagt antidumpingtold, ikke berører gyldigheden af forordningens øvrige dele, herunder navnlig den antidumpingtold, som pålægges kuglelejer fremstillet af Nachi Fujikoshi, når disse forhold ikke har været genstand for den sag, som var blevet indbragt for Fællesskabets retsinstanser.
The annulment of Article 1 of Regulation No 2849/92 by the Court of First Instance in its judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council, upheld by the Court of Justice in Commission ν NTN and Koyo Seiko, in so far as that article imposed anti­dumping duties on NTN and Koyo Seiko, did not affect the validity of the other aspects of that regulation, in particular the anti­dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi, since those aspects did not form part of the subject of the dispute on which the Community judicature was called to rule.
I den forbindelse skal der tages stilling til, dels om dommen i sagerne NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko mod Rådet og dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod NTN og Koyo Seiko har påvirket gyldigheden af artikel 1, nr. 2, i forordning nr. 2849/92, for så vidt som denne bestemmelse fastsætter en antidumpingtold på kuglelejer fremstillet af Nachi Fujikoshi, dels om Nachi Europe, såfremt der ikke foreligger en sådan påvirkning, under en sag for en national ret kan påberåbe sig, at antidumpingtolden er ugyldig.
To that end it is necessary to consider, first, whether the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council and Commission ν NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 in so far as that provision fixes an anti­dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi and, second, whether, if they did not have such an effect, Nachi Europe can plead that that anti­dumping duty is invalid in a dispute before a national court.
Virkningen af dommen i sagerne NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko mod Rådet og dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod NTN og Koyo Seiko for gyldigheden af antidumpingtolden på kuglelejer fremstillet af Nachi Fujikoshi
The effect of the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council and Commission ν NTN and Koyo Seiko on the validity of the anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi
Det følger af fast retspraksis, at selv om forordninger om indførelse af en antidumpingtold efter deres art og rækkevidde er generelle retsakter, kan de umiddelbart og individuelt berøre blandt andre de producent- og
First, it is settled case­law that a decision adopted by a Community institution which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time­limit laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC becomes definitive as against that person.
modtageren hører — fra at anfægte beslutningens lovlighed ved de nationale domstole i forbindelse med et søgsmål til prøvelse af de nationale myndigheders foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af denne beslutning, når støttemodtageren uden tvivl kunne have anfægtet beslutningen, men har ladet den bindende frist i artikel 230, stk. 5, EF udløbe (jf· dommen i sagen TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf samt Viljo-dommen).
legal basis of the decision which is being attacked, if that party was not entitled under Article 230 EC to bring a direct action challenging those acts by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to ask that they be declared void (Case 92/78 Simmenthal ν Commission and TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf).
individuelt, er berettiget til at anfægte gyldigheden af tidligere retsakter fra institutionerne, som er hjemmel for den anfægtede beslutning, også selv om parten ikke var beføjet til i medfør af artikel 230 EF at anlægge et direkte søgsmål til prøvelse af de nævnte retsakter, hvis retsvirkninger parten således er omfattet af, uden at have været i stand til at anlægge annullationssøgsmål (jf. dom af 6.3.1979, sag 92/78, Simmenthal mod Kommissionen, og dommen i sagen TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf).
The Court has also ruled that it follows from the same requirements of legal certainty that it is not possible for a recipient of State aid, forming the subject­matter of a Commission decision addressed directly solely to the Member State from which that beneficiary came, who could undoubtedly have challenged that decision and who allowed the mandatory time­limit laid down in this regard by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC to pass, to call in question the lawfulness of that decision before the national courts in an action brought against the measures taken by the national authorities in implementation of that decision (TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, and Wiljo.
Det følger af fast retspraksis, at den i artikel 241 EF indeholdte hjemmel til at påberåbe sig, at en forordning er uanvendelig, ikke udgør en selvstændig søgsmålsret, men kun kan udøves under en for Domstolen verserende sag, der selv er anlagt i henhold til en anden bestemmelse i traktaten.
According to settled case­law, the possibility provided by Article 241 EC of pleading the inapplicability of a regulation does not constitute an independent right of action and may only be exercised incidentally in proceedings brought before the Court of Justice itself pursuant to a separate provision of the Treaty.
Imidlertid er dette almindelige princip, som skal sikre, at enhver har eller har haft mulighed for at anfægte en fællesskabsretsakt, som danner grundlag for en afgørelse, der er truffet over for ham, på ingen måde til hinder for, at en forordning bliver endelig for en borger, for hvem den må betragtes som en individuel beslutning, når borgeren utvivlsomt kunne have anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af den i henhold til artikel 230 EF, hvilket forhindrer denne borger i for den national ret at påberåbe sig, at forordningen er ugyldig (jf. for så vidt angår en kommissionsbeslutning dommen i sagen TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf).
However, this general principle, which has the effect of ensuring that every person has or will have had the opportunity to challenge a Community measure which forms the basis of a decision adversely affecting him, does not in any way preclude a regulation from becoming definitive as against an individual in regard to whom it must be considered to be an individual decision and who could undoubtedly have sought its annulment under Article 230 EC, a fact which prevents that individual from pleading the illegality of that regulation before the national court (see, in regard to a Commission decision, TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf).
En sådan løsning omfatter forordninger om indførelse af antidumpingtold som følge af disses dobbelte karakter, idet de ifølge den retspraksis, som er omtalt i denne doms præmis 21, både er generelle retsakter og retsakter, som umiddelbart og individuelt kan berøre visse erhvervsdrivende.
Such a conclusion applies to regulations imposing anti­dumping duties by virtue of their dual nature, noted by the Court in the case­law cited in paragraph 21 of the present judgment, as acts of a legislative nature and acts liable to be of direct and individual concern to certain traders.
I nærværende sag kunne sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, Nachi Europe, således utvivlsomt have anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af artikel 1, nr. 2, i forordning nr. 2849/92, for så vidt som denne indfører en antidumpingtold på kuglelejer fremstillet af Nachi Fujikoshi.
Since Article 241 EC cannot be invoked before the Court in the absence of a main action brought before it, that provision cannot as such be applied in the context of the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 234 EC.
Ganske vist opstiller artikel 241 EF et almindeligt retsprincip, som sikrer, at den, der har fremsat et krav — under en sag anlagt efter national ret i anledning af en afvisning af kravet - kan påberåbe sig, at en fællesskabsretsakt, som danner grundlag for den nationale afgørelse, der er truffet over for ham, er ulovlig.
As the Advocate General has pointed out in paragraph 62 of his Opinion, Article 234 EC itself provides for a procedure for resolution of a question which arises with regard to the validity of a Community measure, where such a question arises incidentally in a dispute before a national court.
Spørgsmålet om gyldigheden af fællesskabsretsakten kan da forelægges for Domstolen under en præjudiciel sag (dom af 27.9.1983, sag 216/82, Universität Hamburg mod Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Kehrwieder).
In the present case, Nachi Europe, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, could undoubtedly have sought the annulment of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 inasmuch as it fixed an anti­dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi.
Domstolen har endvidere udtalt, at dette almindelige princip sikrer, at enhver part i en retssag, med henblik på at opnå annullation af en beslutning, som berører ham umiddelbart og
In view of the fact that the national court posed the second question only in the event that the first question should be answered in the affirmative, it is unnecessary to reply to that second question.
Da den forelæggende ret kun har forelagt det andet spørgsmål for det tilfælde, at det første spørgsmål besvares bekræftende, er det ufornødent at besvare dette spørgsmål.
It is true, however, that Article 241 EC expresses a general principle of law under which an applicant must, in proceedings brought under national law against the rejection of his application, be able to plead the illegality of a Community measure on which the national decision adopted in his regard is based, and the question of the validity of that Community measure may thus be referred to the Court in proceedings for a preliminary ruling (Case 216/82 Universität Hamburg).
»Hverken den af Retten i Første Instans afsagte dom af 2. maj 1995 (forenede sager T163/94 og T-165/94, NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko mod Rådet) etter Domstolens dom af 10. februar 1998 (sag C-245/95 P, Kommissionen mod NTN og Koyo Seiko) har påvirket gyldigheden af artikel 1, nr. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2849/92 af 28. september 1992 om ændring af den ved forordning (EØF) nr. 1739/85 indførte endelige antidumpingtold på importen af kuglelejer med største udvendige diameter på over 30 mm med oprindelse i Japan, for så vidt som der derved fastsættes en antidumpingtold på kuglelejer fremstillet af Nachi Fujikoshi
'Neither the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council nor that of the Court of Justice in Case C-245/95 Ρ Commission ν NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of 28 September 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 in so far as it fixes an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation
En importør af disse varer, som Nachi Europe GmbH, som utvivlsomt havde ret til at anlægge sag ved Retten med påstand om annullation af den antidumpingtold, som blev pålagt disse varer, men som ikke har udnyttet sin søgsmålsret, kan ikke senerefor en national ret påberåbe sig, at antidumpingtolden er ugyldig.
An importer of those products, such as Nachi Europe GmbH, which undoubtedly had a right of action before the Court of First Instance to seek the annulment of the anti-dumping duty imposed on those goods, but which did not exercise that right, cannot subsequently plead the invalidity of that anti-dumping duty before a national court.
I en sådan sag er den nationale ret bundet af, at den antidumpingtold, som i henhold til artikel 1, nr. 2, i forordning nr. 2849/92 finder anvendelse på kuglelejer fremstillet af Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation og indført af Nachi Europe GmbH, er endelig.*
In such a case, the national court is bound by the definitive nature of the anti-dumping duty applicable under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation and imported by Nachi Europe GmbW
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den lonovember 2000.
Advocate General EG. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 16 November 2000.
Han foreslog Domstolen at svare på følgende måde:
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
»Hverken den af Retten i Første Instans afsagte dom af 2. maj 1995 (forenede sager T163/94 og T-165/94, NTN Corporation og Koyo Seiko mod Rådet) eller Domstolens dom af 10. februar 1998 (sag C-245/95 P, Kommissionen mod NTN og Koyo Seiko) har påvirket gyldigheden af den ved forordning (EØF) nr. 2849/92 indførte antidumpingtold på importen af kuglelejer fremstillet af Nachi Fujikoshi.
'Neither the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ν Council nor that of the Court of Justice in Case C-245/95 Ρ Commission ν NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko had any effect on the validity of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 on ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation.
En importør af disse varer, som Nachi Europe GmbH, som utvivlsomt havde ret til at anlægge sag ved Retten med påstand om annullation af antidumpingtolden, men som ikke har udnyttet sin søgsmålsret inden for den hertil fastsatte frist, kan ikke senere som led i en national retssag påberåbe sig, at antidumpingtolden er ugyldig, uanset om parten kan gøre de samme anbringender gældende som dem, der førte til, at den pågældende forordning i disse domme blev fundet ugyldig for så vidt angår anden antidumpingtold.«
An importer of those products, such as Nachi (Europe) GmbH, which had a clear right to challenge the validity of the imposition of that duty directly before the Court of First Instance but failed to do so within the period allowed for that purpose, may not subsequently call its validity into question indirectly in national proceedings even where it is able to invoke the grounds on which the same regulation was found in those judgments to be invalid in respect of the imposition of other duties.'
Sag C-230/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Frie varebevægelser
Case C-230/99 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Free movement of goods
»Traktatbrud — tilsidesættelse af EF-traktatens artikel 30 (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF) — nationale bestemmelser om materialer og genstande af gummi, der kommer i kontakt med fødevarer, spiselige produkter og drikkevarer — gensidig anerkendelse — undladelse af at fremsende forskriftsmæssig åbningsskrivelse — afvisning af sagen« (Sjette Afdeling) udstedes af en inspektions- og kontroltjeneste eller et laboratorium, der officielt er anerkendt af en anden medlemsstat eller en anden deltager i EØS-aftalen, og som giver passende og tilfredsstillende tekniske og faglige garantier og garantier for uafhængighed.
(Failure of a Member State to fidfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) -- National legislation concerning rubber materials and rubber articles entering into contact with foodstuffs, food products and beverages - Mutual recognition - No proper letter of formal notice — Action inadmissible) (Sixth Chamber) by another Member State or another Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement, offering suitable and adequate guarantees from the technical and professional point of view and from the point of view of their independence.
Ved skrivelse af 9. august 1994 svarede de franske myndigheder, at den af Kommissionen foreslåede fremgangsmåde ikke forekom dem velbegrundet.
By letter of 9 August 1994 the French authorities replied that the approach suggested by the Commission did not appear justified.