natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forskellene mellem de nationale bestemmelser og i særlig grad den restriktive holdning, man har indtaget i fransk ret i forhold til de øvrige europæiske bestemmelser, kan direkte eller indirekte, aktuelt eller potentielt hindre samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet, idet der ikke i fællesskabslovgivningen er anerkendt nogen ret til beskyttelse af fællesbetegnelsen »Emmentaler«.
The variation between different national rules and, in particular, the restrictive position adopted in the French regulations as compared with those of other European countries is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intraCommunity trade, while no right to protection of the generic name 'Emmenthal' is recognised by Community legislation;
Bestemmelsen tilsigter alene at skabe forpligtelser for indenlandske producenter, og den berører således overhovedet ikke samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet.
It maintains that that rule was designed to create obligations solely for national producers and does not therefore concern intraCommunity trade in any way.
Det følger imidlertid af Domstolens praksis og særligt af Domstolens dom af 18. februar 1987 (sag 98/86, Mathot), at traktatens artikel 30 kun tilsigter at beskytte samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet.
In its submission, the caselaw of the Court of Justice, and particularly the judgment in Case 98/86 Mathot, demonstrates that Article 30 of the Treaty is designed to protect only intraCommunity trade.
En sådan forskelsbehandling synes ikke at kunne begrundes i nogen af de hensyn, som EF-traktatens artikel 36 (efter ændring nu artikel 30 EF) tillader påberåbt.
Such discrimination does not seem justified on any of the grounds allowed under Article 36 of the Treaty.
Herefter har den nationale ret besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
In those circumstances, the national court decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Artiklen har derimod ikke til formål at sikre, at indenlandsk fremstillede varer i alle tilfælde skal være underlagt de samme vilkår som importerede varer, og en ordning, hvorefter der gælder forskellige vilkår for forskellige varer, men som ikke opstiller hindringer for importen eller vanskeliggør afsætningen af importerede varer, er ikke omfattet af forbuddet i artikel 30 (jf. Mathotdommen).
However, that article is not designed to ensure that goods of national origin enjoy the same treatment as imported goods in every case, and a difference in treatment as between goods which is not capable of restricting imports or of prejudicing the marketing of imported goods does not fall within the prohibition contained in that article (see judgment Mathot).
»Skal artikel 3, litra a), og artikel 30 ff. i traktaten om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab, som ændret, fortolkes således, at de franske bestemmelser, der fremgår af dekret nr. 88-1206 af 30. december 1988, som forbyder fremstilling og markedsføring i Frankrig af en ost uden skorpe under betegnelsen 'Emmentaler', må betragtes som en kvantitativ restriktion eller en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning for samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet?«
'On a proper construction of Articles 3(a) and 30 et seq. of the Treaty establishing the European Community, must the French rules enacted by Decree No 88-1206 of 30 December 1988, which prohibit the manufacture and marketing in France of a cheese without rind under the designation "Emmenthal", be regarded as constituting a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect on intraCommunity trade?'
En afvisning fra realitetsbehandling af en anmodning fra en national ret er kun mulig, hvis det viser sig, at den ønskede fortolkning af fællesskabsretten åbenbart savner enhver forbindelse med realiteten i hovedsagen eller dennes genstand (jf. dom af 6.6.2000, sag C281/98, Angonese).
The mere fact that a rule is not applied to imported products in practice does not exclude the possibility of it having effects which indirectly or potentially hinder intraCommunity trade.
Ifølge visse regeringer omhandler de faktiske forhold, der ligger til grund for det præjudicielle spørgsmål, som er forelagt Domstolen, et rent internt forhold, idet den tiltalte har fransk statsborgerskab, og den pågældende vare i sin helhed fremstilles på fransk område.
According to those governments, the facts underlying the reference to the Court relate to a purely internal situation, the accused being of French nationality and the product in question being manufactured entirely in French territory.
I den foreliggende sag synes den fortolkning af fællesskabsretten, der anmodes om, ikke åbenbart at være unødvendig for den nationale ret.
In this case, it is not obvious that the interpretation of Community law requested is not necessary for the national court.
En sådan besvarelse kan være anvendelig i tilfælde af, at den nationale lovgivning, i en sag som hovedsagen, kræver, at en indenlandsk producent skal have de samme rettigheder som dem, en producent fra en anden medlemsstat vil kunne støtte på fællesskabsretten i en tilsvarende situation.
Such a reply might be useful to it if its national law were to require, in proceedings such as those in this case, that a national producer must be allowed to enjoy the same rights as those which a producer of another Member State would derive from Community law in the same situation.
Jean-Pierre Guimont, den tyske regering, den nederlandske regering, den østrigske regering og Kommissionen har anført, at der ifølge Domstolens praksis, ikke kan ses bort fra artikel 30, alene fordi samtlige relevante elementer i den konkrete sag, der foreligger for den nationale domstol, findes inden for en enkelt medlemsstat (jf. dom af 7.5.1997, forenede sager C-321/94 - C324/94, Pistre m.fl.).
Mr Guimont, the German, Netherlands and Austrian Governments and the Commission argue that, according to the Court's case-law, Article 30 cannot be considered inapplicable simply because all the facts of the specific case before the national court are confined to a single Member State (Joined Cases C-321/94 to C324/94 Pistre and Others).
Under disse omstændigheder er der anledning til at undersøge, om nationale bestemmelser, som de i hovedsagen omhandlede — i det omfang de bringes i anvendelse på indførte produkter — udgør en foranstaltning med en tilsvarende virkning som en kvantitativ restriktion, der strider imod traktatens artikel 30.
In those circumstances, it needs to be examined whether a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings might, in so far as applied to imported products, constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty.
Fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 30
The interpretation of Article 30 of the Treaty
Hertil bemærkes, at Pistre-dommen vedrørte en situation, hvor den pågældende nationale bestemmelse ikke fandt anvendelse uden forskel, men indførte en direkte forskelsbehandling af varer, der blev importeret fra andre medlemsstater.
In regard to that argument, it should be noted that the Pistre judgment concerned a situation where the national rule in question was not applicable without distinction but created direct discrimination against goods imported from other Member States.
Indledningsvis bemærkes — hvilket er ubestridt i den foreliggende sag — at en national bestemmelse, som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, udgør en foranstaltning med en tilsvarende virkning som en kvantitativ indførselsrestriktion i traktatens artikel 30's forstand, i det omfang bestemmelsen anvendes på indførte produkter.
As a preliminary observation, it should be noted that, as is undisputed in these proceedings, a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty, in so far as it is applied to imported products.
For så vidt angår en bestemmelse, som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, der efter sin ordlyd finder anvendelse uden forskel på indenlandske og importerede produkter, og som tager sigte på at pålægge producenterne bestemte produktionsbetingelser, før det kan tillades dem at markedsføre deres produkter under en vis betegnelse, følger det af Domstolens praksis, at en sådan bestemmelse kun falder ind under traktatens artikel 30 i det omfang, den kan anvendes i situationer, der har tilknytning til import af varer i samhandelen i Fællesskabet (jf. dom af 15.12.1982, sag 286/81, Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij, og Mathotdommen).
As for a rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, according to its wording, applies without distinction to national and imported products and is designed to impose certain production conditions on producers in order to permit them to market their products under a certain designation, it is clear from the Court's caselaw that such a rule falls under Article 30 of the Treaty only in so far as it applies to situations that are linked to the importation of goods in intraCommunity trade (Case 286/81 Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij and Mathot).
En national lovgivning, der pålægger varer fra andre medlemsstater, hvor de lovligt er fremstillet og bragt på markedet, visse betingelser for at kunne benytte den fællesbetegnelse, der sædvanligvis anvendes for dette produkt, og dermed i givet fald pålægger producenterne at anvende ukendte betegnelser eller betegnelser, der er mindre anerkendt af forbrugeren, er ganske vist ikke en absolut hindring for import til medlemsstaten af produkter med oprindelse i andre medlemsstater, men kan dog vanskeliggøre deres afsætning, og dermed hindre samhandelen
National legislation which subjects goods from other Member States, where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, to certain conditions in order to be able to use the generic designation commonly used for that product, and which thus in certain cases requires producers to use designations which are unknown to, or less highly regarded by, consumers, does not, it is true, absolutely preclude the importation into the Member State concerned of products originating in other Member States. It is, however, likely to make their marketing more difficult and thus impede trade between Member States (Case 298/87 Smanor).
Denne konstatering medfører dog ikke, at der ikke er anledning til at besvare det præjudicielle spørgsmål, der i den foreliggende sag er forelagt Domstolen. I princippet tilkommer det
However, that finding does not mean that there is no need to reply to the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling in this case.
mellem medlemsstaterne (jf. i denne retning dom af 14.7.1988, sag 298/87, Smanor).
importance, appropriate labelling should be sufficient to provide the purchaser or consumer with the necessary information (see judgment Geffroy).
er frembudt under en bestemt betegnelse, er så radikalt anderledes med hensyn til sammensætning eller fremstilling i forhold til varer, der normalt bærer denne betegnelse inden for Fællesskabet, at det ikke kan antages at tilhøre samme varegruppe (jf. dom af 12.9.2000, sag C-366/98, Geffroy).
requirements relating, inter alia, to fair trading and consumer protection (Case C-39/90 Denkavit ν Land Baden-Württemberg [1991] ECR 1-3069, paragraph 18), where they are proportionate to the objective pursued and that objective is not capable of being achieved by measures which are less restrictive of intraCommunity trade (Case C-368/95 Familiapress ν Bauer Verlag).
Med hensyn til spørgsmålet, om en sådan bestemmelse alligevel kan være i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten, bemærkes, at nationale bestemmelser, som udstedes i mangel af fælles eller harmoniserede regler, og som gælder uden forskel for indenlandske varer og for varer indført fra andre medlemsstater, ifølge Domstolens praksis kan være forenelige med traktaten, i det omfang de er nødvendige for at opfylde tvingende krav om bl.a. god handelsskik og beskyttelse af forbrugerne (jf· dom af 20.6.1991, sag C-39/90, Denkavit, Sml.
In the case at issue in the main proceedings, it should be noted that, according to the Codex alimentarius referred to in paragraph 10 of this judgment, which provides indications allowing the characteristics of the product concerned to be defined, a cheese manufactured without rind may be given the name 'Emmenthal' since it is made from ingredients and in accordance with a method of manufacture identical to those used for Emmenthal with rind, save for a difference in treatment at the maturing stage.
I, s. 3069, præmis 18) i tilfælde, hvor bestemmelserne står i rimeligt forhold til det mål, der forfølges, og hvor dette mål ikke kunne være nået ved foranstaltninger, der i mindre omfang begrænser samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet (jf- bl.a. dom af 26.6.1997, sag C368/95, Familiapress).
Moreover, it is undisputed that such an 'Emmenthal' cheese variant is lawfully manufactured and marketed in Member States other than the French Republic.
For så vidt angår det i hovedsagen omhandlede tilfælde bemærkes, at ifølge Codex Alimentarius, som er nævnt ovenfor i præmis 10, og som indeholder angivelser, der gør det muligt at definere det omhandlede produkts kendetegn, kan en ost, der er fremstillet uden skorpe, have betegnelsen »Emmentaler«, eftersom den er fremstillet på grundlag af råvarer og efter en fremstillingsmetode, der svarer til fremstilling af Emmentaler med skorpe, dog med undtagelse af en forskel i behandlingen på lagringsstadiet.
Whilst that provision demonstrates the importance of a correct use of foodstuff designations for the protection of consumers, it does not authorise Member States to adopt in the matter of designations rules which restrict the importation of goods lawfully manufactured and marketed in another Member State where those rules are not proportionate to that purpose or where that protection could have been achieved by measures less restrictive of intraCommunity trade.
Selv hvis man antog, at forskellen på lagringsmetoden mellem en Emmentaler med skorpe og en Emmentaler uden skorpe kunne udgøre et forhold, der kunne vildlede forbrugeren, ville det være tilstrækkeligt, at man — idet man fastholdt betegnelsen »Emmentaler«
Therefore, even if the difference in the maturing method between Emmenthal with rind and Emmenthal without rind were capable of constituting a factor likely to mislead consumers, it would be sufficient, whilst maintaining the designation 'Emmenthal', for that designation to be accompanied by appropriate information concerning that difference.
Selv om artikel 5, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/112/EØF af 18. december 1978 godtgør, hvilken betydning der må tillægges en korrekt anvendelse af levnedsmiddelbetegnelser med henblik på at beskytte forbrugerne, tillader den ikke medlemsstaterne at vedtage bestemmelser vedrørende betegnelser, der begrænser importen af varer, der er lovligt fremstillet og bragt på markedet i en anden medlemsstat, når disse regler ikke står i rimeligt forhold til denne virkning, eller når denne beskyttelse kunne være opnået ved foranstaltninger, der i mindre omfang begrænser samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet.
It is true that, according to the caselaw of the Court, Member States may, for the purpose of ensuring fair trading and the protection of consumers, require the persons concerned to alter the description of a foodstuff where a product offered for sale under a particular name is so different, in terms of its composition or production, from the products generally understood as falling within that description within the Community that it cannot be regarded as falling within the same category (Case C366/98 Geffroy).
Under disse omstændigheder kan den manglende skorpe ikke anses for at være et kendetegn, der kan begrunde, at betegnelsen »Emmentaler« ikke må anvendes for varer fra andre medlemsstater, hvor de er lovligt fremstillet og markedsført under denne betegnelse.
In those circumstances, the absence of rind cannot be regarded as a characteristic justifying refusal of the use of the 'Emmenthal' designation for goods from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed under that designation.
»EF-traktatens artikel 30 {efter ændring nu arakel 28 EF) er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat på produkter, der er indført fra en anden medlemsstat, hvor de er lovligt fremstillet og markedsført, anvender nationale bestemmelser, der forbyder markedsføring i medlemsstaten af en ost uden skorpe under betegnelsen 'Emmentaler'.*
'Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) precludes a Member State from applying to products imported from another Member State, where they are lawfully produced and marketed, a national ride prohibiting the marketing of a cheese without rind under the designation "Emmenthal" in that Member State. '
Generaladvokat A Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 9. marts 2000.
Advocate General A Saggio delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 9 March 2000.
Præjudiciel »Landbrug — veterinærpoliti encephalopati — specificeret (Domstolens plenum)
By order of 9 November 1998, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling four questions on the interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989, Commission Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 and Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC).
Efter at kindkødet er blevet afskåret kvæghovedet med henblik på anvendelse som levnedsmiddel, behandler Eurostock resten af kraniet, som om det var klassificeret som specificeret risikomateriale.
had been imported by Eurostock from Ireland. That consignment was accompanied by health certificates issued pursuant to Council Directive 64/433 to the effect that the meat in question was fit for human consumption.
Ved kendelse af 9. november 1998 har Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (Det Forenede Kongerige) stillet Domstolen fire præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 9 i Rådets direktiv 89/662/EØF af 11. december 1989, Kommissionens beslutning 97/534/EFaf 30. juli 1997 og EF-traktatens artikel 36 (efter ændring nu artikel 30 EF).
The condemnation of the bovine heads was effected without any prior inspection of the heads and on the ground that the consignment in question had been imported in contravention of Article 6(1) of the 1997 Order, in that it contained specified risk material.
Den 9. januar 1998 beslaglagde og forkastede ministeriet i henhold til 1997bekendtgørelsens artikel 14 i et parti kvæghoveder, der var indført af Eurostock.
On 10 February 1998, Eurostock brought proceedings before the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), challenging the 1997 Order primarily on the ground that it constituted a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on the free movement of goods, contrary to Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) and that it was a measure which was neither justified nor authorised under Community law.
Dette parti var ledsaget af sundhedscertifikater udstedt i henhold til Rådets direktiv 64/433/EØF, der attesterede, at det pågældende kød var egnet til anvendelse som levnedsmiddel.
Eurostock, which carries on business at Newry in Northern Ireland, is engaged in the meat trade and in particular the removal from bovine heads of cheek meat and the preparation of that cheek meat for human consumption.
De nævnte kvæghoveder blev forkastet uden nogen forudgående undersøgelse med den begrundelse, at det pågældende parti var blevet indført i strid med 1997bekendtgørelsens artikel 6, stk. 1, idet det indeholdt specificeret risikomateriale.
The company has been engaged for 13 years in the deboning of bovine heads imported from Ireland and exports the meat extracted therefrom to other parts of the United Kingdom and, since 1987, to France.
Eurostock, der driver virksomhed i Newry, Nordirland, beskæftiger sig med kødhandel, herunder navnlig afskæring af kindkød fra kvæghoveder og forarbejdning heraf til levnedsmidler.
The Department contended, on the other hand, that the 1997 Order was authorised under Article 9(1) of Directive 89/662 as a national measure enacted pending the adoption by the Commission of Community measures based on Article 9(4) of Directive 89/662, inasmuch as the Commission, having adopted Decision 97/534, had subsequently postponed the date on which it was to become applicable, with a view to its amendment or replacement by another measure.
Selskabet har i 13 år drevet virksomhed med udbening af kvæghoveder indført fra Irland og med udførsel af det herved tilvejebragte kød til andre dele af Det Forenede Kongerige og siden 1987 til Frankrig.
On 9 January 1998, pursuant to Article 14 of the 1997 Order, the Department seized and condemned a consignment of bovine heads which
skal anses for uegnet til menneskeføde, og også vedrørende kontrol foretaget af medlemsstaternes embedsdyrlæger.
By order of 1 April 1998, the High Court held that the 1997 Order was unlawful.
varebevægelser i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 30 (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF), og at det drejede sig om en foranstaltning, der ikke var berettiget eller tilladt i henhold til fællesskabsretten.
Upon appeal by the Department to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, that court decided to stay proceedings and to refer a number of questions to the Court.
Direktivets artikel 1 bestemmer således, at medlemsstaterne sørger for, at veterinærkontrollen med produkter af animalsk oprindelse, der er omfattet af visse direktiver, herunder direktiv 64/433, ikke længere foretages ved grænserne, men foretages efter bestemmelserne i direktiv 89/662.
Article 13 of Directive 89/622 added a new article to Directive 64/433. The essential contents of that new article are set out in the current Article 18 of Directive 64/433, which contains a reference to Directive 89/622 as regards, in particular, the protective measures to be implemented.
High Court fastslog ved kendelse af 1. april 1998, at 1997bekendtgørelsen var retsstridig.
It is therefore by reference to Article 9 of Directive 89/662 that the conformity with Community law of a protective measure adopted by a Member State is to be examined where it results, in particular, in a refusal to permit imports of bovine meat covered by Directive 64/433.
Direktiv 89/662 har ved artikel 13 tilføjet en ny artikel i direktiv 64/433, hvis indhold i det væsentlige findes i den gældende artikel 18 i direktiv 64/433, der indeholder en henvisning fra direktiv 64/433 til direktiv 89/662 bl.a. med hensyn til de beskyttelsesforanstaltninger, der skal iværksættes.
It is appropriate to consider the first two questions together, on the basis that they essentially seek to establish whether a Member State may prohibit, by way of an interim protective measure within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 89/622, the importation of bovine heads containing material presenting risks as regards bovine spongiform encephalopathy, where the Commission has adopted, pursuant to Article 9(4) of that directive, a decision such as Decision 97/534, requiring the removal of, and prohibiting the use of, such material but where the date on which the measures provided for by that decision are to become applicable has been postponed.
Det første og det andet spørgsmål
Observations of the parties
Det er således inden for rammerne af artikel 9 i direktiv 89/662, at det skal undersøges, om en beskyttelsesforanstaltning, som en medlemsstat har truffet, og som bl.a. medfører, at indførsel af oksekød, der er i overensstemmelsen med bestemmelserne i direktiv 64/433 ikke tillades, er forenelig med fællesskabsretten.
It should be noted, at the outset, that there are two directives which are applicable to intraCommunity trade in fresh bovine meat.