natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hertil kommer, at beskyttelsen afsundheden bidrager til virkeliggsrelsen af de mäl med den frelleslandbrugspolitik, som er fastlagt i traktatens artikel 39, stk. 1, navnlig närlandbrugsproduktionen er direkte aftrrengigaf afsretningenaf produkterne tilforbrugerne, som bliver mere og mere bevidste om deres sundhed.
With regardto the question of distortion of competition, the Court held that, while appreciabledistortions could be a basis for recourse to Article 100a in order to prohibitcertain forms of sponsorship,they were not such as to justify the use of that legalbasis for an outright prohibition of advertising of the kind imposed by thecontested directive. The Court therefore allowed the application and annulled thedirective.
I den anden sag, Zyskland mod Parlamentet og Rädet (dom af 5.10.2000, sag C-376198, endnu ikke trykt i Sarnling af Afgorelser), havde Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland nedlagt pästand om annullation af Europanarlamentets og Rädets direktiv 98l43lEF om indbyrdes tilnrermelse afmedlemsstaternes love og administrative bestemmelser om reklame fortobaksvarerog sponsoreringtil fordel for disse, som var blevet vedtagetbl.a.med hjemmel i EF-traktatens artikel 100 A. Til ststte for sin pästand gjorde Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland greldende, at traktatens artikel 100 A ikkeudgjorde en tilstrrkkelig hjemmel for direktivet.
EC) precluded national legislation concerning the labelling, and the sale onrounds, of foodstuffs, the detention under customs control of goods presumedto to be counterfeit, and an obligation to bottle wine in the region of production inorder to be able to use the designation of origin. In other cases, it interpreted directives concerning more specific aspects of the free movement of goods, suchas the import of plants originating in a nonmember country and the procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations.
Domstolen behandlede idommen fsrst sporgsmälet om det indre marked og derefter sporgsmälet omkonkurrencefordrejninger.
9.I. So far as concerns Article 30 of the Treaty, the judgment of12 September 2000 in Case C-366198 Geffroy may be noted in particular.
En retsakt,der vedtages med hjemmel i traktatens artikel 100 A, skal i ovrigt reelt havetil formäl at forbedre vilkärene for det indre markeds oprettelse og funktion.Selv om anvendelsen af artikel 100 A som hjemmel er mulig med henblik päat undgä,at der opstär fremtidige hindringer for samhandelen, der skyldes enuensartet udvikling af de nationale lovgivninger,skal det dog vrere sandsynligt,at sädanne hindringer vil opstä,og den pägreldende foranstaltning skal have tilformäl at forebygge dem.
In thatcase, national legislation provided, inter alia, that all mandatory labelling particulars for foodstuffs had to be written in French.
Domstolen understregede, at traktatens artikel I29,stk. 4, fsrste led, udelukker enhver harmonisering af medlemsstaternes loveog administrative bestemmelser, der tilsigter at beskytte og forbedremenneskers sundhed, og at anvendelsen af andre af traktatensartikler somhjemmel ikke mä bruges til at omgä den udtrykkelige udelukkelse af enhverharmonisering i traktatens artikel I29, stk. 4, fsrste led. I den konkrete sag
The Court held that Article 30 of the Treaty and a directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs precluded a national provision from requiring the use of a specific language for
Direktivet sikrer iovrigt ikke den frie bevregelighed for varer, der er i overensstemmelse meddets bestemmelser. Med hensyn til sporgsmälet om konkurrencefordrejningerfastslog Domstolen, at selv om merkbare konkurrencefordrejninger ville kunnebegrunde, at traktatens artikel 100 A anvendes til at forbyde visse former forsponsorering, tillader de dog ikke at anvende denne hjemmel til et forbud modreklame som det i direktivet fastsatte.
the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for the possibility for anotherlanguage easily understoodby purchasersto be used or for the purchaser to beinformed by other means.
EF og artikel 29 EF) er til hinder for nationale bestemmelser om mrerkningeller salg af levnedsmidler ved omfsrsel, for tilbageholdelsei tolden af varer,der mistenkes for at v & re varem & rkeforfalskede,eller for en forpligtelse til aI" aftappe vinen i dyrkningsomrädet for at kunne benytteoprindelsesbetegnelsen. I andre sager fortolkede den direktiver vedrsrendemere specifikke aspekter af de frie varebevegelser, som f.eks. import afplanter med oprindelse i tredjelande eller informationsproceduren med hensyn til tekniske standarder og forskrifter.
Suchlegislation relatesto the selling arrangements for certain goods in that it laysdown the geographical areas in which each of the traders concerned may sell hisgoods by that method.
Domstolen fastslog i denne forbindelse, at traktatens artikel 30 og etdirektiv om tilnrermelseaf medlemsstaternes lovgivning om mrerkning af ogpresentationsmäder for levnedsmidler samt om reklame for sädannelevnedsmidler er til hinder for, at der i henhold til nationale reglerudelukkende skal anvendes et bestemt sprog ved mrrkning af levnedsmidler,uden at der gives mulighed for anvendelse af et andet sprog, der let forstäs afksberne, eller for, at ksberne sikres de nsdvendige oplysninger pä andenmäde.
Granting the declaration,the Court pointedout that the national legislation at issue authorised the national customsauthorities, on an application from the proprietor of the right in designsof spare parts for motor vehicles, to detain spare parts presumedto be counterfeit goodsfor a period of 10 days during which the applicant could refer the matter to thecompetent national courts.
Dennationale bestemmelse vedrsrer salgsformernefor bestemte varer, idet denfastlaegger de geografiske omräder, hvori enhver af de bersrteerhvervsdrivende kan afsrettesine varer ved denne salgsform. Selv om ensädan bestemmelse finder anvendelse pä alle erhvervsdrivende, der drivervirksomhed pä det nationale omräde, hindrer den i realiteten i hojere gradadgangen til indfsrselsmedlemsstatensmarked for varer fra andremedlemsstater end for indenlandsk fremstillede varer.
That transit did not therefore form part of the specificsubject-matter of the right of industrial and conlmercial property in designs.Since the manufacture and marketing of the product were lawful in the Member States where those operations took place, the impedimentto the free movementof goods caused by the product's detention under customs control in the MemberState of transit in order to prevent transit of the product was not justified ongrounds of protection of industrial and commercial property set out in Article 36of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC).
Dette resultat rendresikke af, at bestemmelsen for hver enkelt given del af det nationale omrädepävirker sävel afsetningen af varer fra andre dele af det nationale omräde somafsetningen af varer indfsrt fra andre medlemsstater.
As regards Article 34 of the Treaty, mention will be made of the importantjudgment delivered on 16 May 2000 in Case C-388/95 Belgium v Spain.
For at'en statsligbestemrnelse kan anses for diskriminerende eller beskyttendei henhold tilreglerne om de frie varebevregelser er det nemlig ikke nsdvendigt, at den fsrertil, at samtligeindenlandsk fremstilledevarer stilles bedre, eller at det kun erindfsrte og ikke indenlandsk fremstillede varer, der stilles ringere.
This case is a rare example of Treaty infringement proceedings brought by oneMember State against another Member State under Article I70 of the EC Treaty(now Article 227 EC).
En sädanbestemmelse kan hverken v & re begrundet i hensynet til beskyttelse af nrerforsyninge! til fordel for lokale virksomheder, da sädanneforpäl af.reqtskonomisk art ikke kan begrunde en begrrensning af det grundleggende princip om'de frib-varebevrgelser, eller i hensynet til beskyttelsen af den
The Kingdom of Belgium contended that, by maintainingin force national legislation under which wine has to be bottled in its region ofproduction if the designation of origin is to be used, the Kingdom of Spain hadfailed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 of the Treaty, as interpreted by the
-sundhed, offentlige da beskyttelsen ogsä kan opnäs ved hjrelp af foranstaltninger, der begranser samhandelen inden for Frellesskabet mindre.
Court in its judgment of 9 June 1992 in Case C-47190Delhaize _BAR_l992l ECRl-3669, and Article 5 of the Treaty (now Article 10 EC). ln Delhaize, the Court had held that such national provisions applicable to wine of designated originwhich limited the quantity of wine that might be exportedin bulk but otherwisepermitted sales of wine in bulk within the region of production constitutedmeasures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports whichwere prohibited by Article 34 of the Treaty.
I sagen Kommissionen mod Frankrig (dom af 26.9.2000, sagC-23l99, endnuikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser) havde Kommissionen nedlagt pästand om, at det blev fastsläet, at Den Franske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelseri henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 30, idet den pä grundlag af den franskeimmaterialretslovgivning havde ladet toldvresenet gennemfsre tilbageholdelseaf varer, der lovligt var fremstillet i en medlemsstat i Det Europeiske Frellesskab, og som efter transit over fransk territorium skulle markedsfsresi en anden medlemsstat, hvor de lovligt kunne markedsfsres.
In Belgium v Spain, the Court confirmed that national provisions applicable towine of designated origin under which use of the name of the region ofproduction as a designation of origin is conditional on bottling in that regionconstitute such measures having equivalent effect, because they have the effect ofspecifically restricting patterns of exports of wine eligible to bear the designationof origin in question and thereby of establishing a difference of treatment betweentrade within a Member State and its export trade.
Domstolen gav Kommissionen medhold og understregede, at de omtvistede nationaleretsforskrifter giver toldmyndighedernemulighed for pä begrering afindehaveren af en rettighed vedrsrende msnstre eller modeller af reservedeletil biler at tilbageholde reservedele, der mistrenkes for at v & re varem & rkeforfalskede,i en periode pä ti dage, hvorunder indehaveren harmulighed for at anlregge sag ved de kompetente, nationale retter. En sädanretsforskrift begrrenser de frie varebevagelser.Transitforsendelse inden for
As regards the compatibilitywith the Treaty of such a barrier, while the Court had found in Delhaize that rthad not been shown that bottling in the region of production was an operationneeded to preserveparticular characteristics of the wine or to guarantee the originof the wine or that the confinementof bottling to a specified area was, in itself,capable of affecting the quality of the wine, the Court now stated that newinformation had been produced to it in order to demonstratethat the reasons
Fellesskabet bestär i at transporterevarerne'frä en'medlemsstattil en andenover en eller flere medlemsstaters omräde og indeb & rerikke anvendelse af detbeskyttede msnstersudseende.
underlying the obligation to bottle in the region of production were capable ofjustifying that obligation, and that it was necessary to examine the case before itin the light of that information.
Transitforsendelse er derfor ikke omfattet af detegentlige indhold af den industrielle og kommercielle ejendomsret til msnstreeller modeller.
In addition, for wines transportedand bottled in the region of production,the controls were far-reachingand systematicand were the responsibility of thetotality of the producers themselves, who had a fundamental interest in preservingthe reputationacquired.
Da fremstillingen og markedsforingenaf varer er lovlig i demedlemsstater, hvor de foretages,er den hindring af de frie varebevregelser,som skyldes varernes tilbageholdelsei tolden i den medlemsstat, hvori varerneer i transit, for at hindre, at de passerergennem denne medlemsstat, ikkebegrundet i hensynet til beskyttelsen af den industrielle og kommercielleejendomsret, som er omhandlet i EF-traktatens artikel 36 (efter endring nuartikel 30 EF).
Following that examination,the Court concluded that legislation under which wine had to be bottled in itsregion of production if the designation of origin was to be used had to beregarded as compatible with Community law, despite its restrictive effects ontrade, because it constituted a necessary and proportionate means of attaining theobjective pursued, in that there were no less restrictive alternative measurescapable of attaining it. The Court therefore dismissed the action brought by the
Kongeriget Belgien havde gjort greldende, at KongerigetSpanien havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter traktatens artikel 34 somfortolket af Domstolen i dommen af 9. juni 1992 i sagenDelhaize (sag C-47190, Sml. I, s. 3669) og EF-traktatens artikel 5 (nu artikel 10 EF) ved atopretholde en retsforskrift, hvori der fastsattesen forpligtelse til at aftappevinen i dyrkningsomrädet for at kunne anvende oprindelsesbetegnelsen. I dennedom havde Domstolen kendt for ret, at en sädan national forskrift vedrsrendevine med oprindelsesbetegnelse, som begr & nser den mrengdevin, der kaneksporteres pä fad, og som i ovrigt tillader handel med vin pä fad inden fordyrkningsomrädet, udgor en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning som enkvantitativ udfsrselsrestriktion,der er forbudt i henhold til traktatens artikel34.
In Anastasiouand Others, the Court specified the conditions which a MemberState may impose for the import of plants originating in a nonmember countrywhen no phytosanitary certificate has been issued by the authorities empowered to issue certificates in the plants' country of origin fiudgment of 4 July 2000 in CaseC-219198), C-219198), ln Unilever, the Court was again asked about the consequences for individuals ofbreach of an obligation laid down by Directive83/189/EEC. tl Article 8 of that
Domstolenunderstregede, at betingelsen har til formäl bedre at sikre produktets kvalitetog dermed at bevare det gode omdsrrune,vinen med oprindelsebetegnelsenhar, ved en forstrerket kontrol med opretholdelsen af vinens serlige egenskaberog kvalitet.
Article 9 obliges them to postpone the adoptionof a draft technical regulation if the Commission or another Member Statedelivers a detailed opinion to the effect that the measure envisaged may createobstacles to the free movement of goods within the internal market.
Den er berettiget som en foranstaltning til beskyttelse af denoprindelsesbetegnelse, som alle vinproducenterne i dyrkningsomrädet nydergavn af, og som er af afgorende betydning for dem.
The Court had already held in CaseC-I94194 CIA SecuriryImernational [19961ECR l-2201that breach of the obtigationto notify laid down by Article 8 of Directive 83/189 rendered the technical regulations at issue inapplicable, so that they wereunenforceable against individuals, and that individuals might rely on Articles 8and 9 of the directive before the national courts, which must decline to apply anational technicalreeulation which has not been notified in accordance with thedirective.
Hvad angär de vine, somtransporteres og aftappesinden for dyrkningsomrädet, er kontrollen desudendybtgäende og systematisk og foretages pä alle de producenters ansvar, somhar en vital interesse i at bevare det omdsmme, vinen har opnäet.
In its judgment of 26 September 2000 in Case C-443198(Jnilever, the Courtstated that the inapplicability of a technical regulation as a legal consequence offailure to comply with the obligation to notify laid down in Article 8 of thedirective can be invoked in proceedings between individuals.
Kun devarepartier, der har vrret underkastetden naevnte kontrol, kan forsynes medoprindelsesbetegnelsen.
The same appliesto breach of the obtigation, laid down in Article 9 of the directive, to postponethe adoption of a draft technical regulation.
Endelig er risikoen for, at det slutprodukt, somtilbydes forbrugerne, ikke har den fornsdne kvalitet, storre, när dettransporteres og aftappesuden for dyrkningsomrädet, end när aftapningen skerinden for dyrkningsomrädet.
Whilst it is true that a directivecannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be reliedon as such against an individual, the case-law to that effect does not apply inproceedings between individuals where non-compliance with Article 8 or Article 9of Directive 83/189, which constitutes a substantial proceduraldefect, renders atechnical regulation adopted in breach of either of those articles inapplicable.
Efter denne undersogelse konkluderededomstolen, at en forskrift, hvori der fastsrettes en forpligtelse til at aftappevinen i dyrkningsomrädet for at kunne benytte oprindelsesbetegnelsen, mäantages at vrere i overensstemmelse med frellesskabsretten trods dens restriktivevirkninger for samhandelen, da den er et nsdvendigt og adekvat middel tilsikring af det tilstrrebte formäl i den forstand, at der ikke foreligger nogenalternative og mindre restriktive foranstaltninger, som kan sikre detsopfyldelse.
Inproceedings of that kind, Directive 83/189 does not in any way define thesubstantive scope of the legal rule on the basis of which the national court mustdecide the case before it.
Fortolkningen af direktiver vedrsrende mere specifikke aspekter af defrie varebevaegelser var kerneni sagerne Anastasiou m.fl. og Unilever.
Case-law relating to the agricultural sector was again plentiful in the past year, as is indicatedby the cases of France v Commission, Commission v Council andMulder and Others v Council and Commission which have already been referred to.
I sagen Anastasiou m.fl. fastlagde Domstolen de betingelser, hvorpä enmedlemsstat kan tillade indfsrsel af planter med oprindelse i et tredjeland, närder ikke foreligger et plantesundhedscertifikat udstedt af de kompetentemyndigheder i oprindelseslandet (dom af 4.7.2000, sag C-2I9198, endnu ikketrykt i Samling af Afgorelser).
Amongst that case-law, Eurostock Meat Marketing is also to be noted, a casewhich arose in the context of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis(f fiudgment of 5 December 2000 in Case C-477 l9S). Acting pursuant to Directive
I Unilever-sagen blev Domstolen pä ny spurgt om folgerne for borgerne af en t'.
to the completion of the internal market, the Commission adopted a decision in July 1997 prohibiting the use for any purpose of specified material presentingrisks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, namely, in the case of bovine animals, the skull, tonsils and spinal cord of animalsaged over L2months.
tilsidesrettelse af en forpligtelse fastsat i direktiv 83ll891EAF
That list does not include cheek meat.
Ifolge dette direktivs artikel 8 er medlemsstaterne forpligtet til at sende Kommissionenethvert udkast til teknisk forskrift.
The date on which that decisionwas to become applicable, initially set at I January 1998, was postponed severaltimes and finally fixed at 30 June 2000.
Ifolge artikel 9 skal de udsrette vedtagelsenaf et sädantudkast, hvis Kommissionen eller en anden medlemsstat afgiver enudforlig udtalelse om, at den pätenkte foranstaltningfrembyder aspekter, dereventuelt kan skabe hindringer for varernesfrie bevegelighed inden for detindre marked. I dommen af 30. april 1996, CIA SecurityInternational (sag C194194, Srnl.
In December 1997, several days afterthe date on which the decision was to become applicable had been postponed forthe first time, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland enacted anorder, as part of its programme to deal with the risk of bovine spongiformencephalopathy, prohibiting the import into Northern Ireland of specified riskmaterial from a bovine animal which had been slaughtered or haddied outside the United Kingdom at an age greater than 12 months and of any food containingsuch material.
I, s.220I) havde Domstolen allerede fastsläet, at entilsidesettelse af meddelelsespligten i henhold til direktivets artikel 8 medforer,at de pägreldende tekniske forskrifter ikke kan bringes i anvendelse, säledes atde ikke kan gores greldende over for borgerne, og at borgerne kan päberäbesig direktivets artikel 8 og 9 for en national ret, som det pähviler at afslä atanvende en national teknisk forskrift, der ikke er blevet meddelt ioverensstemmelse med direktivet.
Pursuant to the 1997Order, the Department of Agriculture seizedand condemneda consignment ofheads of bovine animals which had been imported from Ireland by a companywhich removes cheekmeatfor human consumption, on the ground that theconsignment contained specified risk material.
I dommen af 26. september 2000 (sag C-443198, endnu ikke trykt i Samlingaf Afgarelser) fremhrevede Domstolen, at uanvendelighedenaf en tekniskforskrift som retlig konsekvens af den manglende overholdelse afmeddelelsespligten i direktivets artikel 8 kan päberäbes i en sag mellem privateparter.
The company maintained that the1997 Order constituted a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitativerestriction on the free movement of goods, contrary to Article 30 of the ECTreaty, and that it was a measure which was neither justified nor authorised under Community law.
Det samme grelder med hensyn til manglende overholdelse af pligten til at udsrette vedtagelsen af et udkast til teknisk forskrift i henhold tildirektivets artikel 9.
According to the Department of Agriculture, on the other hand,the importation of the consignmentin question could be prohibited as an interimprotective measure authorised by Directive 891662.
Selv om et direktiv ikke i sig selv kan skabe forpligtelserfor private og derfor ikke som sädan kan päberäbes over for sädanne personer,gelder dette ikke i sager mellem private, hvor manglende overholdelse afartikel 8 eller artikel 9 i direktiv 831L89, som udgor en vresentligproceduremangel, medfsrer, at en teknisk forskrift, der er vedtaget undertilsidesrettelseaf en af de nrvnte artikler, ikke mä bringes i anvendelse.
Agreeing with such aninterpretation of the relevant Community rules, the Court pointed out that, under Directive 891662,the Member State of destinationffiay, on serious public oranimal-health grounds, take interim protective measures pending the measures tobe taken by the Commission.
I ensädan sag definerer direktivet ikke det materielleindhold af den retsregel, somden nationale ret skal lagge til grund for afgorelsen i den sag, der er indbragtfor den.
The adoption by the Commission of a decisionwhich is not immediately applicable cannot, as such, be regarded as precludinga Member State from itself taking interim protective measures pursuant to Directive 891662.
Direktivet skaberhverken rettigheder eller forpligtelser for private.Folgelig kendte Domstolen for ret, at det pähviler en national ret underbehandlingen af en borgerlig sag mellem private vedrsrende kontraktligerettigheder og forpligtetserat afslä at anvende en national teknisk forskrift, derer vedtaget i en periode, hvor vedtagelsen er udsat, säledes som fastsat i artikel9 i direktiv 83/189.
That directive is designed to set up a Community-wideprotective system to replace possibly disparate interim protective measures takenin an emergency by Member States to counter seriousrisks. However, it is notuntil the Community rules are adopted, enter into force and become applicable tothe products concerned that there is a risk of conflict between those rules and theinterim protective measures previously adopted by the Member States.