natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Udviklingen og arbejdet til formål at harmonisere medlemsstaternes lovgivninger således, at beskyttelsestiden bliver ens inden for hele Fællesskabet, er det desuden hverken i®overensstemmelse med selve ordlyden af den pågældende bestemmelse eller med direktivets formål at anlægge en fortolkning af artikel®10, stk.®2, i®direktiv®2006/116, hvorefter anvendelsen af denne betingelse skulle forudsætte, at der i®medfør af den nationale lovgivning i®den medlemsstat, hvor beskyttelsen i®henhold til direktivet kræves, allerede gælder en beskyttelse, selv om en sådan forudgående beskyttelse måtte være indrømmet i®en anden medlemsstat.
Proceedings thereof, and Article 12 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude Spanish legislation which requires television operators to earmark 5% of their operating revenue for the prefunding of European cinematographic ¤lms and ¤lms made for television and, more speci¤cally, to reserve 60% of that 5% for the production of works of which the original language is one of the of-¤cial languages of that Member State.
Domstolen tilføjede, at artikel®10, stk.®2, i®direktiv®2006/116 også skal fortolkes således, at den i®det-te direktiv®fastsatte beskyttelsestid nder anvendelse i®tilfælde, hvor det pågældende værk eller emne den 1. juli®1995 var beskyttet som sådant i®mindst én medlemsstat efter denne medlemsstats nationale lovgivning om ophavsret og beslægtede rettigheder, og hvor indehaveren af sådanne rettigheder til dette værk eller dette emne, som er statsborger i®et tredjeland, på denne dato nød beskyttelse i®medfør af den pågældende nationale lovgivning.
In the Court’s view, irrespective of whether such a measure is in an area covered by that directive, the Member States retain, in principle, jurisdiction to adopt it, provided that they respect the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
Spørgsmålet i®relation til den nævnte bestemmelse om, hvorvidt en indehaver af ophavsretsbeslægtede rettigheder til et værk eller emne, som er statsborger i®et tredjeland, den 1. juli®1995 nød beskyttelse i®mindst én medlemsstat, skal vurderes i®lyset af national lovgivning i®denne medlemsstat og ikke i®den medlemsstat, hvor den ved direktivets fastsatte beskyttelse kræves.
Although such a measure — in so far as it relates to the obligation to reserve, for the production of ¤lms of which the original language is one of the ocial languages of the Member State in question, 60% of the 5% of operating revenue reserved for the prefunding of European cinematographic ¤lms and ¤lms made for television — constitutes a restriction on several fundamental freedoms, that is to say on the freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, the free movement of capital and freedom of movement for workers, it may be justi¤ed by the objective of defending and promoting one or several of the ocial languages of the Member State concerned.
For denne slutning taler desuden dette direktivs formål om harmonisering, herunder navnlig formålet om, at der skal fastsættes samme udgangspunkt for beregning af beskyttelsestiden for ophavsretsbeslægtede rettigheder, og at beskyttelsestiden for disse rettigheder skal være ens inden for hele Fællesskabet.
In that regard, such a measure, in so far as it introduces an obligation to invest in cinematographic ¤lms and ¤lms made for television the original language of which is one of the ocial languages of that Member State, appears appropriate to ensure that such an objective is achieved.
Heraf følger, at det forhold, at en rettighedshaver, hvis værk eller emne den 1. juli®1995 var beskyttet i®mindst én medlemsstat efter denne medlemsstats nationale lovgivning, er statsborger i®et tredjeland og ikke nyder beskyttelse i®medfør af den nationale lovgivning i®den medlemsstat, hvor den i®direktiv®2006/116 fastsatte beskyttelsestid påberåbes, ikke har betydning for anvendelsen af dette direktivs artikel®10, stk.®2.
In addition, it does not appear, in the Court’s view, that such a measure goes beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective. Since that measure a¥ects, ¤rst of all, only 3% of the operating revenue of the operators, the percentage cannot be considered disproportionate in relation to the objective pursued.
Det afgørende er nemlig, om det pågældende værk eller emne den 1. juli®1995 var beskyttet i®med-før af den nationale lovgivning i®mindst én medlemsstat.
Furthermore, such a measure does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by reason of the mere fact that it does not lay down criteria which would allow the works concerned to be classi¤ed as‘cultural productions’.
Andre sektorer, som har været genstand for en harmonisering på fællesskabsplan, har også givet anledning til tvister.
Since language and culture are intrinsically linked, the view cannot be taken that the objective pursued by a Member State of defending and promoting one or several of its ocial languages must of necessity be accompanied by other cultural criteria in order for it to justify a restriction on one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
I®Damgaard–sagen (dom af 2.4.2009, sag®C-421/07) skulle Domstolen præcisere begrebet reklame på området for humanmedicinske lægemidler.
Nor does such a measure go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by reason of the mere fact that the bene¤ciaries of the ¤nancing concerned are mostly cinema production undertakings in that Member State.
En journalist var blevet retsforfulgt for at have udbredt oplysninger til o©entligheden vedrørende egenskaberne ved og tilgængeligheden af et lægemiddel, hvis markedsføring ikke var tilladt i®nogen af medlemsstaterne, uanset at di-rektiv®2001/83 26 fastsætter et højt beskyttelsesniveau for forbrugerne hvad angår oplysninger om og reklame for lægemidler.
The fact that the criterion on which that measure is based, namely the linguistic criterion, may constitute an advantage for cinema production undertakings which work in the language covered by that criterion and which, accordingly, may in practice mostly comprise undertakings established in the Member State of which the language constitutes an ocial language appears inherent to the objective pursued.
Forelagt spørgsmålet, hvilken fortolkning der herefter skulle anlægges i®forhold til artikel®86, stk.®1, i®direktiv®2001/83, som ændret ved direktiv®2004/27 27, fastslog Domstolen, at en tredjemands udbredelse af oplysninger om et lægemiddel, navnlig om dets helbredende eller forebyggende egenskaber, kan anses for reklame i®denne bestemmelses forstand, også selv om denne tredjemand handler på eget initiativ og retligt og faktisk helt uafhængigt af producenten eller sælgeren af et sådant lægemiddel.
Such a situation cannot, of itself, constitute proof of the disproportionate nature of that measure without rendering nugatory the recognition, as an overriding reason in the public interest, of the objective pursued by a Member State of defending and promoting one or several of its ocial languages.
Domstolen tilføjede, at det tilkommer den nationale domstol at afgøre, om denne udbredelse udgør en form for opsøgende informationsvirksomhed, kundesøgning eller holdningspåvirkning, der tager sigte på at fremme ordinering, udlevering, salg eller forbrug af lægemidler.
The Court noted, with regard to Article 12 EC, that that provision applies independently only to situations governed by Community law for which the Treaty lays down no speci¤c rules of non-discrimination.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv®2001/83/EF af 6.11.2001 om oprettelse af en fællesskabskodeks for humanmedicinske lægemidler (EFT L®311, s.®67).
However, in relation to the freedom of movement for workers, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, the principle of non-discrimination was implemented by Articles 39(2) EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC respectively.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv®2004/27/EF af 31.3.2004 om ændring af direktiv®2001/83/EF om oprettelse af en fællesskabskodeks for humanmedicinske lægemidler (EUT L®136, s.®34).
In this ¤eld, Case C-301/07 PAGO International (judgment of 6 October 2009) merits consideration. Here, the Court clari¤ed the conditions which a trade mark needs to satisfy to bene¤t from
Det fremgår heller ikke ifølge Domstolen, at en sådan foranstaltning går ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for nå det nævnte mål.
Court of Justice a ‘reputation’ for the purposes of Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (29).
For det første berører denne foranstaltning kun 3% af tv-selskabernes driftsindtægter, og en sådan procentdel kan ikke anses for uforholdsmæssig i®forhold til det forfulgte formål.
Drawing an analogy with Case C-292/00 Davido§ [2003] ECR I-389, the Court held, ¤rst, that, notwithstanding the wording of Article 9(1)(c) and in the light of the overall scheme and objectives of the system of which Article 9(1)(c) of the regulation is part, the protection accorded to Community trade marks with a reputation cannot be less where a sign is used for identical goods and services than where a sign is used for non-similar goods or services.
Endvidere går en sådan foranstaltning ikke ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at nå de forfulgte mål, alene på grund af den omstændighed, at den ikke indeholder kriterier, der kan klassicere produktionerne som »kulturgoder«.
Therefore, in the Court’s view, that article also bene-¤ts a Community trade mark with a reputation in the case of goods or services similar to those for which that mark is registered.
Eftersom sprog og kultur er uløseligt forbundet, skal det mål, som en medlemsstat forfølger, og som består i®at beskytte og fremme et eller ¯ere af medlemsstatens o§cielle sprog, ikke nødvendigvis være forbundet med andre kulturelle kriterier med henblik på at begrunde en restriktion af en af de ved traktaten sikrede grundlæggende friheder.
The Court then held that, in order to bene¤t from the protection a¥orded in that provision, a Community trade mark must be known by a signi¤cant part of the public concerned by the products or services covered by that trade mark, in a substantial part of the territory of the Community, and that, in view of the reputation of the mark PAGO International throughout the territory of a Member State, namely Austria, that territory could be considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the Community.
En sådan foranstaltning går heller ikke ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at nå det forfulgte mål, blot fordi®mod-tagerne af nansieringen overvejende er lmproducenter, der er etablerede i®denne medlemsstat.
In this ¤eld the Court has been faced with novel issues.Case C-44/08 Akavan Erityisalojen Keskuslitto AEK and Others (judgment of 10 September 2009) provided the Court with the opportunity to give judgment, for the ¤rst time, on the obligation to provide information and hold consultations laid down in Article 2 of Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (30).
Den omstændighed, at det kriterium, som foranstaltningen er begrundet i, nemlig et sprogligt kriterium, kan være en fordel for de lmproducentselskaber, som arbejder på det i®kriteriet omhandlede sprog, og som dermed i®praksis for det meste kan være selskaber fra den medlemsstat, hvor dette sprog er et o§cielt sprog, står i®nøje sammenhæng med det forfulgte mål.
As regards the time at which the obligation to hold consultations arises, the Court considered that it is the adoption, within a group of undertakings, of strategic decisions or of changes in activities which compel the employer to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies that gives rise to an obligation on that employer to consult with workers’ representatives.
En sådan situation er ikke i®sig selv et bevis for, at den omhandlede foranstaltning er uforholdsmæssig i®forhold til formålet. Hvis dette var tilfældet, ville det tvingende almene hensyn, som en medlemsstat forfølger med formålet om at beskytte og fremme et eller ¯ere af sine o§cielle sprog, blive berøvet sit indhold.
In addition, it noted that the time at which that obligation arises does not depend on whether the employer is already able to supply to the workers’ representatives all the information required in Article 2(3)(b) of Directive 98/59.
Hvad angår artikel®12 EF præciserede Domstolen, at denne bestemmelse kun kan anvendes selvstændigt på forhold omfattet af fællesskabsretten, for hvilke traktaten ikke indeholder særlige bestemmelser om forbud mod forskelsbehandling.
So far as concerns designation of the person responsible for the obligation to hold consultations, the Court stated that the only party on whom the obligations to inform, consult and notify are imposed is the employer.
Princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling er imidlertid blevet gennemført på områderne for henholdsvis arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, etableringsretten, den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser og den frie bevægelighed for kapital ved artikel®39, stk.®2, EF, artikel®43 EF, 49 EF og 56 EF. Eftersom det følger af det ovenfor anførte, at den omhandlede foranstaltning ikke er i®strid med de nævnte traktatbestemmelser, kan den heller ikke betragtes som værende i®strid med artikel®12 EF.
An undertaking which controls the employer, even if it can take decisions which are binding on the latter, does not have the status of employer.
I®analogi®med Davido©-dommen (dom af 9.1.2003, sag®C-292/00, Sml.
In Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling (judgment of 16 July 2009), the Court ruled, here too for the ¤rst
På dette område er Domstolen blevet stillet over for helt nye problematikker.
In its view, the right to information and consultation provided for in Directive 98/59, in particular in Article 2, is intended to bene¤t workers as a collective group and is therefore collective in nature.
I®sagen Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK m.. (dom af 10.9.2009, sag®C-44/08) udtalte den sig for første gang om rækkevidden af forpligtelsen til information og konsultation som omhandlet i®artikel®2 i®direk-tiv®98/59 om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivninger vedrørende kollektive afskedigelser 30.
Article 6 of Directive 98/59, read in conjunction with Article 2, is to be interpreted, therefore, as not precluding national rules which introduce procedures intended to permit both workers’ representatives and the workers themselves as individuals to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in that directive, but which limit the individual right of action of workers in regard to the complaints which may be raised and make that right subject to the requirement that workers’ representatives should ¤rst have raised objections with the employer and that the worker concerned has informed the employer in advance of his intention to query whether the information and consultation procedure has been complied with.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om tidspunktet, da forpligtelsen til at indlede konsultationer opstår, mente Domstolen, at arbejdsgiverens pligt til at indlede konsultationer med arbejdstagernes repræsentanter opstår, når der i®en koncern er tru©et beslutninger af strategisk karakter eller vedrørende driftsmæssige ændringer, som tvinger arbejdsgiveren til at påtænke eller planlægge kollektive afskedigelser.
The Court also noted that, in applying domestic law, the national court is required, applying the principle of interpreting national law in conformity with Community law, to consider all the rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of a directive in order to achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive.
Domstolen præciserede desuden, at denne forpligtelses opståen ikke afhænger af, om arbejdsgiveren er i®stand til forinden at meddele arbejdstagernes repræsentanter alle de krævede oplysninger i®henhold til artikel®2, stk.®3, første afsnit, litra b), i®direktiv®98/59.
Accordingly, since Article 2 of Directive 98/59 precludes national rules which reduce the obligations of an employer who intends to proceed with collective redundancies below those laid down in that article, it is the task of the national court to ensure, within the limits of its jurisdiction, that the obligations binding such an employer are not reduced below those laid down in Article 2 of that directive.
Hvad angår udpegelsen af den, det påhviler at indlede konsultationer, bemærkede Domstolen, at kravene om information, høring og underretning alene påhviler arbejdsgiveren.
In Case C-116/08 Meerts (judgment of 22 October 2009), the Court was presented with the opportunity to de¤ne more precisely the rights of an employee who has been dismissed while on parttime parental leave, as set out in Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (32).
En virksomhed med bestemmende ind¯ydelse, som arbejdsgiveren er en del af, har ikke karakter af arbejdsgiver, uanset at den kan træ©e afgørelser, der er bindende for arbejdsgiveren.
On the basis of the fact that Clause 2.6 of the framework agreement states that rights acquired or in the process of being acquired by the worker on the date on which parental leave starts are to be maintained as they stand until the end of parental leave, the Court held that it is apparent from both the wording of that provision and its context that that provision is intended to avoid the loss of or reduction in rights derived from an employment relationship, acquired or being acquired, to which the worker is entitled when he starts parental leave, and to ensure that, at the end of that leave, with regard to those rights, he will ¤nd himself in the same situation as that in which he was before the leave.
I®forhold til en koncern bestående af et moderselskab og et eller ¯ere datterselskaber påhviler forpligtelsen til at indlede konsultationer med arbejdstagernes repræsentanter det datterselskab, der er arbejdsgiver, når dette datterselskab, inden for hvilket der vil kunne foretages kollektive afskedigelser, er blevet bestemt.
Having regard to the objective of equal treatment between men and women which is pursued by the framework agreement on parental leave, the obligation to respect rights acquired or being acquired must be interpreted as articulating a particularly important principle of Community social law which cannot be interpreted restrictively.
Hvad angår afslutningen af konsultationsproceduren præciserede Domstolen, at i®forhold til en koncern skal konsultationsproceduren være afsluttet af det datterselskab, som de kollektive afskedigelser vedrører, før datterselskabet i®givet fald efter ordre fra moderskabet kan opsige de arbejdstagere, som berøres af disse afskedigelser.
It is clear from the objectives of the framework agreement on parental leave that the concept of‘rights acquired or in the process of being acquired’in the framework agreement covers all the rights and bene¤ts, whether in cash or in kind, derived directly or indirectly from the employment relationship, which the worker is
31 gang – om spørgsmålet, hvorvidt direktiv®98/59 giver arbejdstagere, der ønsker at bestride tilsi- desættelsen af en informations- og konsultationsprocedure, en individuel ret hertil.
Court of Justice entitled to claim from the employer at the date on which parental leave starts.
Udviklingen og arbejdet er i®færd med at erhverve«, omfatter enhver rettighed eller fordel i®penge eller naturalier, som arbejdstageren direkte eller indirekte som følge af arbejdsforholdet kan gøre krav på over for arbejdsgiveren på tidspunktet for forældreorlovens ikrafttræden.
Such rights and bene ¤ts include all those relating to employment conditions, such as the right of a full-time worker on parttime parental leave to a period of notice in the event of the employer’s unilateral termination of a contract of inde¤nite duration, the length of which depends on the worker’s length of service in the company and the aim of which is to facilitate the search for a new job.
Alle disse rettigheder og fordele ville ikke være opretholdt, hvis en arbejdstager – såfremt arbejdsgiveren uden at respektere det ved lov fastsatte opsigelsesvarsel opsiger en fuldtidsansat arbejdstager, mens denne har forældreorlov bevilget i®form af nedsat arbejdstid – mister sit krav på fratrædelsesgodtgørelse beregnet på grundlag af den i®ansættel-seskontrakten aftalte løn.
That body of rights and bene¤ts would be compromised if, where the statutory period of notice was not observed in the event of dismissal during parttime parental leave, a worker employed on a full-time basis lost the right to have the compensation for dismissal due to him determined on the basis of the salary relating to his employment contract.
En national lovgivning, som i®forbindelse med forældreorlov medførte en forringelse af de af arbejdsforholdet a¯edte rettigheder, ville således kunne afholde arbejdstagere fra at gå på forældreorlov og være et incitament for arbejdsgivere til snarere at opsige en arbejdstager på forældreorlov end en anden arbejdstager.
National legislation which would result in the rights ªowing from the employment relationship being reduced in the event of parental leave could discourage workers from taking such leave and could encourage employers to dismiss workers who are on parental leave rather than other workers.
Dette ville være i®direkte modstrid med formålet med rammeaftalen vedrørende forældreorlov, som bl.a. er at sikre en forening af arbejdsliv og familieliv.
This would run directly counter to the aim of the framework agreement on parental leave, one of the objectives of which is to make it easier to reconcile working and family life.
På dette grundlag konkluderede Domstolen, at rammeaftalen vedrørende forældreorlov er til hinder for, at den fratrædelsesgodtgørelse, som en arbejdstager har krav på – såfremt arbejdsgiveren, uden skellig grund og uden at respektere det ved lov fastsatte opsigelsesvarsel, ensidigt opsiger ansættelsesforholdet med en arbejdstager ansat på grundlag af en tidsubegrænset kontrakt og på fuld tid, mens denne har forældreorlov bevilget i®form af nedsat arbejdstid – beregnes på grundlag af den på opsigelsestidspunktet oppebårne deltidsløn.
The Court came to the conclusion that the framework agreement on parental leave precludes, where an employer unilaterally terminates a worker’s full-time employment contract of inde¤nite duration, without urgent cause or without observing the statutory period of notice, whilst the worker is on parttime parental leave, the compensation to be paid to the worker from being determined on the basis of the reduced salary being received when the dismissal takes place.
I®Hütter-sagen (dom af 18.6.2009, sag®C-88/08) fastslog Domstolen, at en national lovgivning, som udelukker, at der ved fastsættelsen af det løntrin, som kontraktansatte indplaceres på ved ansættelse i®den o©entlige forvaltning i®en medlemsstat, medregnes beskæftigelsesperioder, som er tilbagelagt inden det fyldte 18. år, indebærer en forskelsbehandling på grund af alder, som ikke er begrundet i®legitime hensyn og derfor er i®strid med fællesskabsretten.
In Case C-88/08 Hütter (judgment of 18 June 2009), the Court held that national law which excludes periods of employment completed before the age of 18 from being taken into account for the purpose of determining the incremental step at which contractual public servants of a Member State are graded amounts to discrimination on the grounds of age which cannot legitimately be justi¤ed and which is, therefore, contrary to Community law.
Domstolen fastslog, at en sådan ordning, som indebærer en forskelsbehandling af personer afhængig af, på hvilke alderstrin de har opnået deres erhvervserfaring, indebærer en direkte forskelsbehandling på grundlag af et kriterium om, hvilken aldersgruppe den pågældende tilhører, i®den forstand, hvori®dette udtryk er anvendt i®artikel®2, stk.®1, og artikel®2, stk.®2, litra a), i®direktiv®2000/78 33.
In its judgment, it found that such legislation, which establishes a di¥erence in treatment between persons based on the age at which they acquired their professional experience, establishes a difference in treatment directly based on the criterion of age, within the meaning of Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC (33).