natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge retspraksis er et erstatningssøgsmål i®henhold til artikel®235 EF et selvstændigt retsmid -del, og man kan ikke af den omstændighed, at et sådant søgsmål afvises, når det har til formål at anfægte en retsakt, udlede, at et annullationssøgsmål anlagt til prøvelse af denne retsakt skal afvises.
In Case T-52/09°R Nycomed Danmark v EMEA (order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2009, not published), an undertaking — which was intending to apply to the Commission for marketing authorisation in respect of a medicinal product — was required under the applicable legislation ¤rst to seek validation of its application for authorisation from the European Medicines Agency (EMEA).
Borgere, som ikke er umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af en normativ retsakt, er ikke®–®blot
After being refused validation by the EMEA, the undertaking applied for interim measures in order to prevent another pharmaceutical company from gaining an edge and obtaining marketing authorisation for a competing product.
Domstolens dom af 1.7.2008, forenede sager C-39/05®P og C-52/05®P, Sverige ogTurco mod Rådet, Sml. I, s.®4723, præmis®57.
The President of the Court dismissed the application, observing that the damage caused by a delay in placing the medicinal product in question on the
Retten på grund af denne omstændighed – udelukket fra at forsøge at drage Fællesskabet til ansvar,
General Court market was purely hypothetical in nature in that it presupposed the occurrence of future, uncertain events.
I®kendelse af 30. september 2009, Ivanov mod Kommissionen (sag®T-166/08, endnu ikke trykt i®Sam-ling af Afgørelser), afgrænsede Retten rækkevidden af annullationssøgsmål og erstatningssøgsmål, idet den angav, at den omstændighed, at der er tale om to selvstændige søgsmål, ikke indebærer, at en borger, der har ladet den bindende søgsmålsfrist i®artikel®230, stk.®5, EF udløbe, indrømmes en undtagelse fra princippet om, at søgsmålsretten ophører, når søgsmålsfristerne er udløbet, ved at anlægge et erstatningssøgsmål for derigennem at opnå samme resultat, som den pågældende ville have opnået, hvis vedkommende havde anlagt et annullationssøgsmål inden for de fastsatte frister.
There was no certainty whatsoever that that product would be placed on the market, as that depended on the Commission’s granting a marketing authorisation, for which the applicant intended to apply only after successfully completing the validation procedure pending before the EMEA; the applicant had also not speci¤ed the probability of the actual risk that it would be overtaken in the race to get its product onto the market by competing undertakings, failing to identify undertakings which had already initiated the procedure for obtaining marketing authorisation for a substitute product.
Følgelig medfører en afvisning af et annullationssøgsmål afvisning af et erstatningssøgsmål, der er snævert forbundet med annullationssøgsmålet.
The situation was similar in Case T-457/08°R Intel v Commission (order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2009, not published), relating to certain measures taken in the context of a proceeding under Article 82 EC.
Dermed skal et erstatningssøgsmål afvises, når det i®virkeligheden reelt tilsigter en ophævelse af en individuel beslutning, der er blevet endelig, og som, hvis det blev taget til følge, ville medføre, at retsvirkningerne af beslutningen blev ophævet.
The applicant sought, prior to closure of the administrative procedure before the Commission, to avoid the consequences of a ¤nal decision which would be taken on the conclusion of that procedure in breach of its rights of defence.
Retten bemærkede imidlertid, at sagsøgeren ved et erstatningssøgsmål kan anfægte de overtrædelser, som skyldes en institutions adfærd, når denne adfærd fandt sted, efter at institutionen havde vedtaget de beslutninger, som sagsøgeren ikke havde anfægtet lovligheden af inden for søgsmålsfristen.
According to the President of the Court, the occurrence of the damage alleged depended on a future and hypothetical event, namely the adoption by the Commission of a ¤nal decision unfavourable to the applicant. Not only was the adoption of such a decision not certain, but any harmful consequences would not have been irreparable, since the applicant would have been able to apply for that decision to be annulled or suspended.
I®dom af 18. december 2009, Arizmendim.. mod Rådet og Kommissionen (sag®T-440/03, endnu ikke trykt i®Samling af Afgørelser), fremkom Retten med ¯ere nye bemærkninger vedrørende spørgsmålet om afvisning af et søgsmål om erstatning for den skade, der angiveligt er forvoldt, idet Kommissionen sendte en begrundet udtalelse til en medlemsstat, hvori®den angav, at medlemsstaten havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i®henhold til den anvendelige fællesskabslovgivning.
In Case T-352/08°R Pannon Hőerőmű v Commission (order of 23 January 2009, not published), which concerned a Commission decision ordering national authorities to recover State aid classi¤ed as unlawful, the President of the Court ruled on the relevant date for determining ful¤lment of the condition for the grant of interim measures that relates to the presence of urgency and stated that the circumstances capable of justifying urgency must in principle be established by reference to the legal and factual position obtaining when the application for interim measures is lodged, as set out in that application.
I®den foreliggende sag®ophævede Den Franske Republik nemlig det lovlige monopol, som sammenslutningen af courtiers interprètes og skibsførere havde, og som bestod i®en hybridstatus, der kombinerede deres status som tjenestemand med monopol på visse transaktioner med deres status som handlende.
On the date when the recipient of the aid in question applied for the operation of that decision to be suspended, the legislative process had still only reached the stage of a draft law, which could be amended in the course of parliamentary debate, so that there was not yet a de¤nitive legal framework governing the recovery procedure. The application for interim measures was therefore held premature.
Ifølge fast retspraksis skal en erstatningssag, der bygger på Kommissionens undladelse af at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure i®henhold til artikel®226 EF, afvises.
The President of the Court was faced on a number of occasions with allegedly serious and irreparable damage of a ¤nancial nature.
Eftersom Kommissionen ikke er forpligtet til at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure i®henhold til artikel®226 EF, kan dens beslutning om ikke at indlede en sådan procedure nemlig under ingen omstændigheder være ulovlig og kan således heller ikke medføre, at Fællesskabet ifalder ansvar uden for kontraktforhold 34.
In United Phosphorus v Commission, he classi¤ed the damage caused to the applicant, namely the loss of market share and customers, as purely ¤nancial, stating that the risk of an irremediable change in the applicant’s market share could be placed on an equal footing with the risk of disappearing from the market entirely and justify adoption of the interim measure sought only if the market share liable to be irremediably lost was suciently large in the light, in particular, of the characteristics of the group to which the undertaking concerned belonged.
Kommissionen mente, at dette princip ligeledes fandt anvendelse i®en situation, hvor den har valgt ikke at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure, men hvor den derimod har fremsat en begrundet udtalelse, som udgør en indledende del af et traktatbrudssøgsmål ved Domstolen.
With regard to the concept of a group, in Case T-199/08°R Ziegler v Commission (order of 15 January 2009, not published, under appeal) the President of the Court took account of the economic link between the companies in a network comprising around 100 closely connected companies with common interests.
Retten afviste denne argumentation, idet den bemærkede, at erstatningssøgsmålet er et selvstændigt retsmiddel, der har sin særlige funktion blandt de forskellige søgsmålstyper, idet genstanden for et erstatningssøgsmål er den erstatning for en skade, der er en følge af en retsakt eller en ulovlig adfærd, som kan tilregnes en institution. Uafhængigt af spørgsmålet, om den udgør en anfægtelig retsakt, der kan gøres til genstand for et annullationssøgsmål, kan en institutions akter,
In the ¤eld of tendering and selection procedures, the President of the Court was provided with the opportunity in Case T-511/08°R Unity OSG FZE v Council and EUPOL Afghanistan (order of 23 January 2009, not published) and in TerreStar Europe v Commission to con¤rm a recent development in the case-law (36), establishing that the harm su¥ered as a result of‘losing the opportunity of being
Domstolens kendelse af 23.5.1990, sag®C-72/90, Asia Motor France mod Kommissionen, Sml.
) Order of the President of 25 April 2008 in Case T-41/08 R Vakakis v Commission, not published.
Arbejdet selv om de vedtages i®forbindelse med udøvelsen af en skønsbeføjelse, i®princippet være genstand for et erstatningssøgsmål, idet denne skønsbeføjelse ikke har som følge at frigøre institutionen for dens pligt til at handle i®overensstemmelse med højere retsnormer, såsom traktaten og fællesskabsrettens almindelige principper, og med den relevante a¯edte ret.
Proceedings selected’can be assigned an economic value capable of satisfying the requirement that full compensation be made for the harm actually su¥ered.
Retten fastslog derfor, at sagen kunne antages til realitetsbehandling.
He therefore rejected the argument that the harm was irreparable because it would be impossible to quantify.
I®den foreliggende sag®kunne sagsøgeren således ikke i®forbindelse med erstatningssøgsmålet påberåbe sig de overtrædelser, der følger af den påståede tilsidesættelse af Costa Ricas ret til at blive hørt og Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands ret til at deltage i®proceduren.
Finally, Sniace v Commission concerned an application for suspension of operation of a decision by which the Commission had instructed the national authorities to recover State aid found to be unlawful from the undertaking which had received it.
For så vidt som Kommissionen i®denne udtalelse begrænser sig til at tage stilling til en medlemsstats tilsidesættelse af de forpligtelser, der påhviler den i®medfør af fællesskabsretten, kan vedtagelsen heraf ikke indebære en tilstrækkeligt kvaliceret tilsidesættelse af en retsregel, som har til formål at tillægge borgerne rettigheder.
The President of the Court con¤rmed the case-law requiring the applicant to show, in the application for interim measures, that the remedies available to him under the applicable national law to oppose immediate recovery of the State aid at issue do not enable him, by invoking in particular his ¤nancial position, to avoid serious and irreparable damage.
Følgelig kan selv ikke Kommissionens fejlagtige stillingtagen i®en begrundet udtalelse vedrørende fællesskabsrettens rækkevidde udgøre en tilstrækkeligt kvaliceret tilsidesættelse, som indebærer, at Fællesskabet ifalder ansvar.
This case-law was applied in Case T-149/09 R Dover v Parliament (order of 8 June 2009, not published) and in Biofrescos v Commission, because of the clear correspondence between the respective situations.
Hvis derimod vurderingerne i®en begrundet udtalelse går ud over afgørelsen af, om en medlemsstat har begået traktatbrud, eller hvis andre af Kommissionens handlinger under en traktatbrudsprocedure går ud over de kompetencer, den er tildelt, f.eks. fejlagtig afsløring af forretningshemmeligheder eller oplysninger vedrørende en persons omdømme, kan disse vurderinger eller handlinger udgøre en tilsidesættelse, som indebærer, at Fællesskabet ifalder ansvar.
In the latter two cases, the applications for interim measures concerned (i) the recovery by the European Parliament of parliamentary allowances wrongly paid to a member, in a situation in which the Parliament was required to institute proceedings for recovery before the national courts, and (ii) a Commission decision instructing national authorities to recover import duties payable by an undertaking.
Domstolens dom af 4.7.2000, sag®C-352/98®P, Bergaderm og Goupil mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s.®5291, præ-mis®42 og 43.
The President of the Court thus concluded that there was no urgency, as there was nothing to indicate that the domestic remedies available to the applicants would not enable the feared damage to be avoided.
Arbejdet
Composition
Navnlig to af disse afgørelser bør fremhæves.
(Order of precedence as at 7 October 2009)
I®dom af 5. oktober 2009, Kommissionen mod Roodhuijzen (sag®T-58/08®P, endnu ikke trykt i®Sam-ling af Afgørelser), fastslog Retten, at det ikke følger af de betingelser, der skal være opfyldt, for at sygesikringsordningen kan udvides til også at nde anvendelse på en tjenestemands ægtefælle i®medfør af artikel®72, stk.®1, i®vedtægten for tjenestemænd i®De Europæiske Fællesskaber, at det ægteskabslignende forhold, der forbinder tjenestemanden og dennes partner, sidestilles med et ægteskab.
I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, President of Chamber; M. E. Martins Ribeiro, President of Chamber; M.°Vilaras, President of Chamber; J. Azizi, President of Chamber; M. Jaeger, President of the Court; A. W. H. Meij, President of Chamber; N. J. Forwood, President of Chamber; O. Czúcz, President of Chamber; I. Pelikánová, President of Chamber.
Begæringer om foreløbige forholdsregler
Second row, from left to right:
Retten k i®2009 forelagt 24 begæringer om foreløbige forholdsregler, hvilket er en mærkbar nedgang i®forhold til antallet af begæringer indgivet det foregående år (58). I®2009 traf Retten afgørelse i®20 sager om foreløbige forholdsregler mod 57 i®2008.
N. Wahl, Judge; S. Papasavvas, Judge; K. Jürimäe, Judge; E. Cremona, Judge; F.°Dehousse, Judge; V. Vadapalas, Judge; I. Labucka, Judge; E. Moavero Milanesi, Judge; M. Prek, Judge.
I®den foreliggende sag®tog Retten navnlig hensyn til, at sagsøgeren parallelt med den administrative procedure, som havde ført til afgørelsen om forbud mod de omhandlede produkter, atter havde ansøgt om godkendelse af nævnte produkter, men denne gang i®henhold til en nyligt indført
E. Coulon, Registrar; H. Kanninen, Judge; S. Frimodt Nielsen, Judge; S. Soldevila Fragoso, Judge; V. Ciucă, Judge; T. Tchipev, Judge; A. Dittrich, Judge; L. Truchot, Judge; K.°O’Higgins, Judge; J. Schwarcz, Judge.
Retten sagsøgerens ret til forsvar.
General Court
Begæringen om foreløbige forholdsregler blev derfor anset for at være indgivet for tidligt.
(in order of their entry into oce)
For så vidt angår begrebet koncern tog Retten i®kendelse af 15. januar®2009, Ziegler mod Kommissionen (sag®T-199/08®R, ikke trykt i®Samling af Afgørelser og appelleret til Domstolen), hensyn til den økonomiske forbindelse mellem selskaber i®et netværk bestående af ca.®100®snævert forbundne selskaber med fælles interesser.
Marc Jaeger Born 1954; Lawyer; attaché de justice, delegated to the Public Attorney’s Oce; Judge, Vice-President of the Luxembourg District Court; teacher at the Centre Universitaire de Luxembourg (Luxembourg University Centre); member of the judiciary on secondment, Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice from 1986; Judge at the General Court since 11 July 1996; President of the General Court since 17 September 2007.
På området for udbuds- og udvælgelsesprocedurer gav kendelse af 23. januar 2009, Unity OSG FZE mod Rådet og EUPOL Afghanistan (sag®T-511/08®R, ikke trykt i®Samling af Afgørelser), og kendelsen i®sagen TerreStar Europe mod Kommissionen Rettens præsident lejlighed til at bekræfte en nylig udvikling i®retspraksis 36, idet denne fastslog, at den skade, som lides ved at »miste chancen for at blive valgt«, kan tillægges økonomisk værdi, og at denne økonomiske værdi®kan opfylde forpligtelsen til fuldt ud at erstatte den lidte skade. Retten afviste derfor et argument om, at den pågældende skade skulle være uoprettelig, fordi®den var umulig at omsætte til en målelig størrelse.
Virpi Tiili Born 1942; Doctor of Laws of the University of Helsinki; assistant lecturer in civil and commercial law at the University of Helsinki; Director of Legal A¥airs and Commercial Policy at the Central Chamber of Commerce of Finland; Director-General of the Oce for Consumer Protection, Finland; member of a number of committees and advisory bodies, inter alia Chairperson of the Supervisory Commission for the Marketing of Medicinal Products (1988–90), member of the Advisory Council on Consumer A¥airs (1990–94), member of the Competition Council (1991–94) and member of the editorial board of the Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review (1982–90); Judge at the Court of First Instance from 18 January 1995 to 6 October 2009.
Retten
Members
Arbejdet foreløbige forholdsregler, at retsmidlerne i®gældende national ret med henblik på at anfægte et øjeblikkeligt krav om tilbagebetaling af en omtvistet statsstøtte ikke giver sagsøgeren mulighed for ved bl.a. at påberåbe sig sin økonomiske situation at undgå et alvorligt og uopretteligt tab.
Arjen W. H. Meij Born 1944; Justice at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (1996); Judge and Vice-President at the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (1986); Judge Substitute at the Court of Appeal for Social Security, and Substitute Member of the Administrative Court for Customs Tari¥ Matters; Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1980); Lecturer in European Law in the Law Faculty of the University of Groningen and Research Assistant at the University of Michigan Law School; Sta¥ Member of the International Secretariat of the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce (1970); Judge at the General Court since 17 September 1998.
Denne retspraksis blev overført til kendelse afsagt af Rettens præsident den 8. juni®2009, Dover mod Europa-Parlamentet (sag®T-149/09®R, ikke trykt i®Samling af Afgørelser), og kendelsen i®sagen Biofrescos mod Kommissionen, da der her forelå to åbenbart lignende tilfælde.
Mihalis Vilaras Born 1950; Lawyer (1974–80); national expert with the Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communities, then Principal Administrator in Directorate-General V (Employment, Industrial Relations, Social A¥airs); Junior Ocer, Junior Member and, since 1999, Member of the Greek Council of State; Associate Member of the Superior Special Court of Greece; Member of the Central Legislative Drafting Committee of Greece (1996–98); Director of the Legal Service in the General Secretariat of the Greek Government; Judge at the General Court since 17 September 1998.
I®de sager, som gav anledning til disse kendelser, vedrørte begæringerne om foreløbige forholdsregler dels Europa-Parlamentets krav om tilbagebetaling af godtgørelser, der uberettiget var blevet udbetalt til et parlamentsmedlem, til opfyldelse af hvilket Europa-Parlamentet måtte indlede en tilbagebetalingsprocedure for de nationale domstole, dels en kommissionsbeslutning, der pålagde nationale myndigheder at foretage efteropkrævning af en virksomheds skyldige importafgifter. Retten konkluderede, at der ikke forelå uopsættelighed, eftersom intet tydede på, at de nationale retsmidler, der stod til rådighed, ikke gjorde det muligt at undgå det tab, som sagsøgerne frygtede.
Nicholas James Forwood Born 1948; Cambridge University BA 1969, MA 1973 (Mechanical Sciences and Law); called to the English Bar in 1970, thereafter practising in London (1971–99) and also in Brussels (1979–99); called to the Irish Bar in 1981; appointed Queen’s Counsel 1987; Bencher of the Middle Temple 1998; representative of the Bar of England and Wales at the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the EU (CCBE) and Chairman of the CCBE’s Permanent Delegation to the European Court of Justice (1995–99); Governing Board member of the World Trade Law Association and European Maritime Law Organisation (1993–2002); Judge at the General Court since 15 December 1999.
B – Rettens sammensætning
General Court
Afdelingsformændene I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, E. Martins Ribeiro, M. Vilaras og J. Azizi, Rettens præsident, M. Jaeger, afdelingsformændene A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood, O. Czúcz og I. Pelikánová.
Maria Eugénia Martins de Nazaré Ribeiro Born 1956; studied in Lisbon, Brussels and Strasbourg; Member of the Bar in Portugal and Brussels; independent researcher at the Institut d’études européennes de l’Université libre de Bruxelles (Institute of European Studies, Free University of Brussels); Legal Secretary to the Portuguese Judge at the Court of Justice, Mr Moitinho de Almeida (1986–2000), then to the President of the Court of First Instance, Mr Vesterdorf (2000–03); Judge at the General Court since 31 March 2003.
Justitssekretær E. Coulon, dommerne H. Kanninen, S. Frimodt Nielsen, S. Soldevila Fragoso, V.®Ciucă, T. Tchipev, A. Dittrich, L. Truchot, K. O’Higgins, J. Schwarcz.
Ena Cremona Born 1936; Bachelors Degree (BA) in languages, Royal University of Malta (1955); Doctor of Laws (LLD) of the Royal University of Malta (1958); practising at the Malta Bar from 1959; Legal Adviser to the National Council of Women (1964–79); Member of the Public Service Commission (1987–89); Board Member at Lombard Bank (Malta) Ltd, representing the Government shareholding (1987–93); Member of the Electoral Commission since 1993; examiner for doctoral theses in the Faculty of Laws of the Royal University of Malta; Member of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) (2003–04); Judge at the General Court since 12 May 2004.
Rettens medlemmer
General Court
Marc Jaeger Født i 1954; advokat; attaché de justice, medhjælper hos Procureur général; dommer, vicepræsident for tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg; tilknyttet Centre universitaire de Luxembourg; referendar ved Domstolen fra 1986; dommer ved Retten siden den 11. juli 1996; præsident for Retten siden den 17. september 2007.
Daniel Šváby Born 1951; Doctor of Laws (University of Bratislava); Judge at District Court, Bratislava; Judge, Appeal Court, responsible for civil law cases, and Vice-President, Appeal Court, Bratislava; member of the civil and family law section at the Ministry of Justice Law Institute; acting Judge responsible for commercial law cases at the Supreme Court; Member of the European Commission of Human Rights (Strasbourg); Judge at the Constitutional Court (2000–04); Judge at the Court of First Instance from 12 May 2004 to 6 October 2009.
Virpi Tiili Født i 1942; juridisk kandidateksamen fra Helsinkis Universitet; undervisningsassistent i borgerlig ret og handelsret ved Helsinkis Universitet; direktør med ansvar for retlige anliggender og handelspolitik ved Finlands centrale handelskammer; generaldirektør for Finlands Konsumentverk (forbrugerstyrelsen); medlem af ¯ere regeringsudvalg og delegationer, herunder formand for udvalget til overvågning af reklamer for lægemidler (1988-1990), medlem af forbrugerrådet (1990-1994), medlem af konkurrencerådet (1991-1994) og medlem af redaktionsudvalget for Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review (1982-1990); dommer ved Retten i Første Instans fra den 18. januar 1995 til den 6.®oktober 2009.
Vilenas Vadapalas Born 1954; Doctor of Laws (University of Moscow); Doctor habil. in law (University of Warsaw); taught, at the University of Vilnius, international law (from 1981), human rights law (from 1991) and Community law (from 2000); Adviser to the Lithuanian Government on foreign relations (1991–93); Member of the coordinating group of the delegation negotiating accession to the European Union; Director-General of the Government’s European Law Department (1997–2004); Professor of European law at the University of Vilnius, holder of the Jean Monnet Chair; President of the Lithuanian European Union Studies Association; Rapporteur of the parliamentary working group on constitutional reform relating to Lithuanian accession; Member of the International Commission of Jurists (April 2003); Judge at the General Court since 12 May 2004.