natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
sammenslutning af stålvirksomheder i Fællesskabet, hvori det anførtes, at indførslen af stålstænger med oprindelse i Indien var genstand for subsidier og således forvoldte EF-erhvervsgrenen væsentlig skade.
That principle of automatic nullity can be relied on by anyone, and the courts are bound by it once the conditions for the application of Article 85(1) are met and so long as the agreement concerned does not justify the grant of an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty (on the latter point, see inter alia Case 10/69 Portelange [1969] ECR 309, paragraph 10).
En meddelelse om indledning af en antisubsidieprocedure vedrørende de pågældende indførsler blev
Moreover, it is capable of having a bearing on all the effects, either past or future, of the agreement or decision concerned.
Den 26. september 1997 modtog Kommissionen en klage fra foreningen Eurofer, der er en
In that regard, the Court has held that Community law does not prevent national courts from taking steps to ensure that the protection of the rights guaranteed by Community law does not entail the unjust enrichment of those who enjoy them.
Ved beslutning af 21. april 1999 afviste Kommissionen klagen af 3. februar 1998 fra sagsøger to og fire (sag IV/E-1/36.930).
from denying a party who is found to bear significant responsibility for the distortion of competition the right to obtain damages from the other contracting party.
Kommissionen fastslog i den pågældende beslutning, at der ikke forelå tilstrækkelige beviser for, at det legeringstillæg, som EF-producenterne af stålstænger anvendte, var udtryk for en samordnet praksis.
Under a principle which is recognised in most of the legal systems of the Member States and which the Court has applied in the past, a litigant should not profit from his own unlawful conduct, where this is proven.
Ved beslutning 98/247/EKSF af 21. januar 1998 om en procedure i henhold til EKSF-traktatens artikel 65 (Sag IV/35.814 - Legeringstillæg), konstaterede Kommissionen, at flere EF-producenter af flade produkter i rustfrit stål (herefter »flade produkter«) havde overtrådt EKSF-traktatens artikel 65, stk. 1, fra december 1993 til og med, afhængig af den enkelte sag, en given dato i perioden mellem november 1996 og januar 1998, idet de på samordnet vis havde ændret referenceværdierne i formlen til beregning af legeringstillægget. Legeringstillægget er et pristillæg, der beregnes på grundlag af noteringspriserne på legeringselementer, der anvendes til fremstilling af produktet, og lægges til basisprisen på rustfrit stål.
In particular, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the party who claims to have suffered loss through concluding a contract that is liable to restrict or distort competition found himself in a markedly weaker position than the other party, such as seriously to compromise or even eliminate his freedom to negotiate the terms of the contract and his capacity to avoid the loss or reduce its extent, in particular by availing himself in good time of all the legal remedies available to him.
Sagsøgerne har nedlagt påstand om, at den endelige forordning annulleres og erklæres ugyldig.
A party to a contract liable to restrict or distort competition within the meaning of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) can rely on the breach of that provision to obtain relief from the other contracting party.
I henhold til artikel 173, stk. 4, kan en fysisk eller juridisk person kun anlægge sag til prøvelse af en retsakt, der er udstedt af Kommissionen eller Rådet, såfremt denne retsakt er en beslutning, der retter sig til ham, eller en beslutning, som skønt den er udfærdiget i form af en forordning eller en beslutning rettet til en anden person, dog berører ham umiddelbart og individuelt.
Article 85 of the Treaty precludes a rule of national law under which a party to a contract liable to restrict or distort competition within the meaning of that provision is barred from claiming damages for loss caused by performance of that contract on the sole ground that the claimant is a party to that contract.
Den 3. februar 1998 indgav sagsøger to og fire en klage til Kommissionen i henhold til artikel 3 i Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikler 85 og 86, der ligeledes vedrørte den påståede samordnede praksis vedrørende legeringstillægget, som udøves af EF-producenterne af stålstænger.
Community law does not preclude a rule of national law barring a party to a contract liable to restrict or distort competition from relying on his own unlawful actions to obtain damages where it is established that that party bears significant responsibility for the distortion of competition.'
Dette er tilfældet for bestemmelserne i den nævnte forordning, som indfører en endelig udligningstold eller endelig opkrævning af en midlertidig udligningstold på import af stålstænger fremstillet af sagsøgerne, og som fastsætter satserne for den pågældende told.
Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 22 March 2001.
Sagsøgerne kan derimod ikke anlægge sag med påstand om annulation af bestemmelser i den anfægtede forordning, som vedrører andre
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Den 17. juli 1998 vedtog Kommissionen forordning (EF) nr. 1556/98 om indførelse af en midlertidig udligningstold på importen af stænger af rustfrit stål med oprindelse i Indien (herefter »den midlertidige forordning«).
'(1) Article 81 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a party to a prohibited lease of a public house containing an exclusive purchase clause may rely on the nullity of that lease before a Member State's courts.
Det første anbringende om tibidesættelse af grundforordningens artikel 1, stk. 1, artikel 8, stk. 1, 6 og 7, og artikel 15, stk. 1, og artikel 15 og 19 i ASU, samt om et åbenbart urigtigt skøn ved at producenterne af stålstænger selv på samordnet vis anvendte legeringstillægget - jf. sagsøgernes principale påstand, som de frafaldt under den mundtlige forhandling for Retten -eller ved at producenterne af flade produkter på samordnet vis anvendte legeringstillægget samtidig med en ensartet anvendelse af udbyttekoefficienten - jf. sagsøgernes subsidiære påstand, som de under alle omstændigheder har fastholdt under retsmødet.
(3) Community law does not preclude a rule of national law which provides that courts should not allow a person to plead and/or rely on his own illegal actions as a necessary step to recovery of damages, provided that it is established that this person bears more than negligible responsibility for the distortion of competition.
Ifølge sagsøgerne kunne disse priser derfor ikke danne et sikkert grundlag for en konstatering af, om der var tale om et prisunderbud på de indiske produkter.
The responsibility borne is negligible if the party is in a weaker position than the other party such that it was not genuinely free to choose the terms of the contract.'
Rettens bemærkninger
Failure to incorporate
Institutionerne har imidlertid understreget, at der ikke foreligger bevis for, at iværksættelse og anvendelse af denne beregningsmetode for legeringstillæg på stålstænger, er resultatet af en samordnet praksis hos producenterne af stålstænger.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations 96149/EC and 96/87¡EC into national law) (First Chamber)
Det bemærkes, at institutionernes argumentation ikke kan tiltrædes, og at fastsættelsen af skaden og årsagssammenhængen mellem den pågældende skade og den subsidierede import i den anfægtede forordning, er behæftet med en åbenbar fejl.
On 27 January 2000 and on 1 February 2000, having given Ireland formal notice to submit its observations, the Commission sent two reasoned opinions to Ireland requesting it to adopt the measures necessary to comply therewith within two months from the date of notification of the opinions.
Under hensyn til det ovenfor anførte, kan sagsøgernes subsidiære påstand tiltrædes.
Since it received no information as to whether the incorporation of the directives had been completed, the Commission brought the present action.
Det skal endvidere efterprøves, om institutionerne har udøvet et åbenbart urigtigt skøn i forbindelse med fastsættelsen af skaden og årsagssammenhængen mellem skaden og den subsidierede import, idet de har lagt vægt på, at der ikke forelå andre faktorer end disse indførsler, som sagsøgerne havde henvist til med påstand om, at de samtidig kunne påføre EF-erhvervsgrenen skade.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 6 October 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail and Commission Directive 96/87/EC of 13 December 1996 adapting to technical progress, Council Directive 96/49 or by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives.
Det påhviler sagsøgerne at fremlægge de beviser, der gør det muligt for Retten at konstatere, at der er udøvet et åbenbart urigtigt skøn.
Ireland, which does not deny the failure to fulfil its obligations, states that the Directives in question are in the course of being incorporated into national law.
Det første anbringende om, at den endelige forordning er i strid med grundforordningens artikel 1, stk. 1, artikel 8, stk. 1,6 og 7, og artikel 15, stk. 1, og artikel 15 og 19 i ASU, samt om, at
Under Article 10(1) of Directive 96/49 and Article 2(1) of Directive 96/87 Member States are required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with those Directives before 1 January 1997 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.
Sagsøgerne har hertil gjort gældende, at priserne på stålstænger var blevet kunstigt forhøjet, enten
Taking the view that Directive 96/49 and Directive 96/87 had not been incorporated into Irish law within the prescribed period, the
I øvrigt afvises sagen
Orders Ireland to pay the costs.'
Kommissionen bærer sine egne omkostninger.«
He proposed that the Court should:
(KHIM) Immaterialrettigheder
(2) order Ireland to pay the costs.'
»EF-varemærker - formen af et produkt til vaskemaskine eller opvaskemaskine -tredimensionalt varemærke - absolut hindring for registrering - artikel 7, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning (EF) nr. 40/94« (Anden Afdeling)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/50/EC — Carriage of goods and passengers in the Community —Harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates for inland waterways — Non-implementation within the prescribed period) (Third Chamber)
De eneste afvigelser i forhold til denne dom vedrører udformningen af de tredimensionale varemærker, som der er ansøgt om registrering af, dvs. i denne sag formen af en rektangulær tablet, der indeholder to lag, hvid og rød.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 22 December 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought this action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by
Sag T-336/99 Henkel KGaA / Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (KHIM) Immaterialrettigheder
'(1) declare that, in not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
»EF-varemærker - formen af et produkt til vaskemaskine eller opvaskemaskine -tredimensionalt varemærke - absolut hindring for registrering - artikel 7, stk 1, litra b), i forordning (EF) nr. 40/94« (Anden Afdeling)
By its first plea in law, the Belgian Government claims that the contested decision was adopted contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation No 729/70, as amended by Regulation No 1287/95, the principle of bona fide cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), the principle that due care should be taken and the obligation to state reasons provided for in Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253 EC).
De faktiske omstændigheder, parternes argumenter og forslaget til afgørelse i denne dom er identiske eller kan sammenlignes med dom af 19. september 2001, Henkel mod KHIM (sag T- 337/99).
On 23 April 1997, the Commission, on the basis of the 1993 summary report, adopted Decision 97/333/EC on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
De eneste afvigelser i forhold til denne dom vedrører udformningen af de tredimensionale varemærker, som der er ansøgt om registrering af, dvs. i denne sag formen af en rektangulær tablet, der indeholder to lag, hvid og grøn.
First, the shortcomings found by the Commission concerned the fundamental elements of the Belgian control system and the carrying-out of checks which play an essential part in ensuring that expenditure is properly incurred, and second, the Commission has shown that, in view of the extent of the shortcomings found to exist, there was a corresponding risk of high losses for the EAGGF.
Henkel KGaA / Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design)
As is apparent from Article 1 of that decision, the Commission considered that on the basis of the facts in its possession it had no grounds for action pursuant to Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
(KHIM) Immaterialrettigheder
(now Article 81(1) EC) in respect of the creation of TPS.
»EF-varemærker - formen af et produkt til vaskemaskine eller opvaskemaskine -tredimensionalt varemærke - absolut hindring for registrering - artikel 7, stk. 1, litra b), ι forordning (EF) nr. 40/94« (Anden Afdeling)
The applicants submit that, in reaching its conclusion in the contested decision that the exclusivity clause and the clause relating to the special-interest channels constitute restrictions of competition within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, the Commission relied on incorrect assessments and misapplied that provision.
Tvistens baggrund
A — Admissibility of the action
Den 15. december 1997 indgav sagsøgeren i henhold til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 40/94 af 20. december 1993 om EF­varemærker, som ændret, en EF­varemærkeansøgning til Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (herefter »Harmoniseringskontoret«).
In the present case, the applicants notified to the Commission the agreements relating to the creation of TPS and the restrictions which they considered to be ancillary to that operation, negative clearance for the entire duration of those agreements, that is to say for a period of 10 years.
Undersøgeren afviste ved afgørelse af 26. januar 1999 ansøgningen i henhold til artikel 38 i forordning nr. 40/94.
Next, it must be observed that an interpretation of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, in the form suggested by the applicants, is difficult to reconcile with the rules prescribed by that provision.
Undersøgeren gentog i den første del af afgørelsen begrundelsen for de indsigelser, der fandtes i meddelelsen af 28. september 1998.
Those judgments cannot, however, be interpreted as establishing the existence of a rule of reason in Community competition law.
I den anden del anførte undersøgeren, at sagsøgeren ikke havde taget stilling til denne meddelelse inden for den deri fastsatte frist på to måneder, og at der derfor ville blive truffet afgørelse om ansøgningen på det foreliggende grundlag.
They are, rather, part of a broader trend in the case-law acording to which it is not necessary to hold, wholly abstractly and without drawing any distinction, that any agreement restricting the freedom of action of one or more of the parties is necessarily caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
I den tredje del præciserede undersøgeren, at argumenterne i skrivelsen af 6. januar 1999 var blevet taget under overvejelse, men at de ikke var taget til følge.
It should, however, be observed, first of all, that contrary to the applicants' assertions the existence of such a rule has not, as such, been confirmed by the Community courts. Quite to the contrary, in
Det tredimensionale varemærke, som der er ansøgt om registrering af, fremtræder i den grafiske fremstilling heraf, som sagsøgeren har indleveret, i form af en rund tablet, der indeholder to lag, hvis farver ­ hvid (nederste del) og rød (øverste del) ­ der ligeledes er gjort krav på.
That interpretation, while observing the substantive scheme of Article 85 of the Treaty and, in particular, preserving the effectiveness of Article 85(3), makes it possible to prevent the prohibition in Article 85(1) from extending wholly abstractly and without distinction to all agreements whose effect is to restrict the
Undersøgeren sendte den 3. februar 1999 sagsøgeren en kopi af afgørelsen af 26. januar 1999, der var ledsaget af følgende tekst: »Det er åbenbart, at vedlagte meddelelse, som blev sendt til Dem den 26. januar 1999, ikke er retmæssig, idet Harmoniseringskontoret modtog Deres stillingtagen inden for fristen.
Lastly, it must be observed that, inasmuch as the assessment of the ancillary nature of a particular agreement in relation to a main operation entails complex economic assessments by the Commission, judicial review of that assessment is limited to verifying whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the statement of the reasons for the decision is adequate, whether the facts have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal or misuse of powers.
De bedes derfor anse denne meddelelse som værende uden retsvirkning.« Samme dag sendte undersøgeren sagsøgeren en ny afgørelse, der afviste EF­varemærkeansøgningen.
If it is established that a restriction is directly related and necessary to achieving a main operation, the compatibility of that restriction with the competition rules must be examined with that of the main operation.
Harmoniseringskontorets undersøger fremsatte ved meddelelse af 28. september 1998 indsigelser mod ansøgningen på grundlag af artikel 7, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 40/94 og fastsatte en frist på to måneder for sagsøgeren til at fremkomme med sine bemærkninger, hvilket sagsøgeren gjorde ved skrivelse af 9. oktober 1998.
regarded as restrictions ancillary to the creation of TPS for the reasons, those restrictions are, however, directly linked to that operation. The analysis of whether the various conditions laid down by Article 85(3) of the Treaty were satisfied had therefore to be made in the light of the main operation to which those clauses were attached.
Den 5. februar 1999 påklagede sagsøgeren i henhold til artikel 59 i forordning nr. 40/94 undersøgerens afgørelse til Harmoniseringskontoret.
In this respect, the clause in question falls within the scope of Article 85(1).' ii) The argument alleging erroneous assessment of the duration of the individual exemption
Klagen blev afvist ved afgørelse af 21. september 1999 (herefter »den anfægtede afgørelse«).
i) The argument alleging misapplication of the criteria for exemption laid down in Article 85(3) of the Treaty
Sagsøgeren bemærkede i en skrivelse af 6. januar 1999 til Harmoniseringskontoret, at en konkurrents varemærkeansøgning, der angik tilsvarende tabletter til opvaskemaskine, var blevet offentliggjort i EF­varemærketidende.
As regards the applicants' argument that the Commission is under an obligation, when applying Article 85(1) of the Treaty rather than Article 85(3) of the Treaty, to weigh the pro and anticompetitive effects of a restriction, the Court refers to the findings.
De argumenter, sagsøgeren er fremkommet med i denne skrivelse, er i det væsentlige taget i betragtning af Appelkammeret ved den begrundelse, der førte til den nævnte afgørelse.
(Anti-subsidy proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 — Stainless steel bright bars — Causal link) (First Chamber, Extended Composition)
Dette anbringende kan derfor ikke tages til følge.
The applicants produce and export to the Community stainless steel bright bars (hereinafter 'SSBBs').
Anbringendet om tilsidesættelse af artikel 7, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 40/94
On 17 July 1998, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 1556/98 imposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel bars originating in India (hereinafter 'the Provisional Regulation').
Spørgsmålet, om et varemærke har det fornødne særpræg, skal bedømmes i forhold til de varer eller tjenesteydelser, for hvilke der er ansøgt om registrering af varemærket.
On 26 September 1997, the Commission received a complaint from Eurofer, the European confederation of iron and steel industries, alleging that imports of SSBBs originating in India were benefiting from subsidies and were thus causing material injury to the Community industry.
I den foreliggende sag udgøres det varemærke, der er ansøgt registreret, af formen og af farvekombinationen på en tablet til vaskemaskine eller opvaskemaskine, det vil sige af selve varens fremtræden.
On 13 November 1998, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel bars originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (hereinafter 'the Contested Regulation').
Det fremgår af artikel 4 i forordning nr. 40/94, at både varens form og farverne findes blandt de tegn, der kan udgøre et EF-varemærke.
By decision of 21 April 1999, the Commission rejected the second and fourth applicants' complaint of 3 February 1998 (Case IV/E-1/36.930), concluding that there was insufficient evidence that the imposition of the alloy surcharge by Community producers of SSBBs amounted to a concerted practice.
At en kategori af tegn generelt kan udgøre et varemærke er imidlertid ikke ensbetydende med, at de tegn, der tilhører denne kategori, nødvendigvis har det fornødne særpræg i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 40/94 i forhold til en bestemt vare eller tjenesteydelse.
By Decision 98/247/ECSC of 21 January 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case IV/35.814 - Alloy surcharge), the Commission found that several Community undertakings producing stainless steel flat products had been infringing Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty from December 1993 to between November 1996 and January 1998, depending on the case, by modifying and applying in concerted fashion the reference values for the formula for calculating an alloy surcharge, which is a price supplement calculated by reference to the market price of alloy inputs used in the manufacturing process and added to the basic price for stainless steel.
Appelkammeret fandt i det væsentlige, at artikel 7, stk 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 40/94 var til hinder for registreringen af det ansøgte varemærke.
The applicants claim that the Court should declare that the Contested Regulation is null and void.
Appelkammeret vurderede, at et varemærke for at kunne registreres skal adskille de varer, som der er ansøgt om registrering af, i henhold til deres oprindelse og ikke i henhold til deres art. Hvad angår et tredimensionalt varemærke, der indskrænker sig til at gengive varen, indebærer dette krav, at varens form skal være tilstrækkelig original til, at den let indprenter sig i hukommelsen, og at den markerer sig i forhold til det, der er sædvanligt i handlen.
Under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, a natural or legal person may institute proceedings against an act of the Commission or of the Council only if it is a decision addressed to it, or a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to