natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som svar pä sagsogerens argument om,at der alligevel skulle gives selskabet mulighed herfor i medfsr af Den Europeiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols praksis angäenderakkevidden afartikel 6, stk. 1, i den europriske konvention til beskyttelse afmenneskerettigheder og grundleggendefrihedsrettigheder, navnlig en dom af20. februar 1996 i sagen Vermeulen mod Belgien (Reportsof Judgmentsand De c i s ion s 1996-1, s. 224), fastslog Domstolen, at det hensettil sävel denorganisatoriske som den funktionelle forbindelse mellem generaladvokaten og Domstolen mätte antages,at denne praksis ikke kan overfsres til forslag tilafgorelser fra Domstolensgeneraladvokater. Sagssgerens grundlreggende rettil en kontradiktorisksagsbehandling var ikke tilsidesat,idet det netoper forat opfylde mälsretningen bag princippet om kontradiktion, at Domstolen exofficio, efter at have hort generaladvokaten eller pä parternes begrering, ioverensstemmelse med artikel 61 i Domstolens procesreglement kan trreffe
224), the Court found that, having regard to both the organic and the functional linkbetween the Advocate General and the Court, that case-law does not appearto betransposable to the Opinions of the Court's AdvocatesGeneral.
Ved dom af 7. april 1992 i sagenKommissionen mod Grrekenland (sag C-45191, Sml. I, s. 2509) havde Domstolen udtalt, at Den Hellenske Republik havde tilsidesat visseforpligtelser, som pähvilede den i henhold til to direktiver, henholdsvis omaffald og om giftigt og farligt affald.
Greece[1992] ECR l-25Q9, the Court had held that the Hellenic Republic hadfailed to fulfil certain obligations owed by it under two Community directives relating to waste and to toxic and dangerous waste respectively.
Med hensyn til tvangsbsdenanfsrte Domstolen, at Kommissionen i mangel af bestemmelser herom i traktaten, kanvedtage retningslinjer som dem, der er fastlagt i dens meddelelser vedrsrendegennemforelsen af traktatens artikel l7I ' og vedrsrende metoden tilberegning af tvangsboderu, der har til formäl at fastsrette de n & rmere reglerfor beregning af stsrrelsenaf de tvangsboder,som den pätenker at foreslä Domstolen, isrer for at sikre en lige behandling af medlemsstaterne.
As to the amount of the penalty payment, the Court found that, in the absence of provisions in the Treaty,the Commission may adopt guidelines - such as those contained in itsmemorandum on applying Article 17 _BAR_ of the Treaty 5 and its communication onthe method of calculating the penalty payments 6 - for determining how thepenalty payments which it intendsto propose to the Court are calculated,so as,in particular, to ensure equal treatment between the Member States.
Selv om Kommissionens forslag ikke er bindende for Domstolen, udgor de dog etnyttigt sammenligningsgrundlag.
Whilesuggestions of the Commission cannot bind the Court, they are neyertheless auseful point of reference.
Domstolen understregede, at da tvangsbodenshovedformäl er at sikre, at medlemsstaten bringer traktatbruddettil ophorhurtigst muligt, bsr dens stsrrelse fastsrettes säledes, at den er afoasset efter
It also acknowledged that the degree of urgency that the Member State concerned should -fulfil its obligations may vary in accordance with the breach. The Court thenheld that the basic criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure
Meddelelse96/C242107 af 2I.8.1998 vedrsrende sennemfsrelsen af traktatens artikel171(EFTC 242, s. 6).
Memorandum 9 6l C 242/07 of 21 August 1996 on applying Article I7l of the EC Treaty(OJ 1996 C 242, p. 6).
Meddelelse 97 l C 63/02 af 28,2.L997 vedrsrende metoden til beregning af tvangsbsderefter EF-traktatens artikel 171 (EFT C 63, s. 2).
Communication 97 l C 63/02 of 28 February 1997 on the method of calculating the penaltypayments provided for pursuant to Arricle L7r of the EC Treaty (oI 1997 c 63, p.z).
omstendighederne og er proportional med det fastsläede traktatbrud og denpägreldende medlemsstats betalingsevne.
that penalty payments have coercive force and Community law is applieduniformly and effectively are, in principle, the drrrationof the infringement, itsdegree of seriousness and the ability of the Member State to pay.
Domstolenanerkendte, at graden afuopsrettelighed med opfyldelsen af den pägreldende medlemsstats forpligtelserkan variere efter de enkelte traktatbrudstilfrelde.
In applyingthose criteria, regard should be had in particular to the effects of failure tocomply on private and public interests and to the urgency of getting the MemberState concerned to fulfil its obligations.
Da der i detforeliggende tilfrelde var tale om alvorlige eller serligt alvorlige overtrrdelseraf vresentlig varighed, dsmte Domstolen Den Hellenske Republik til at betaleen tvangsbsdepä20 000 EUR til Kommissionen for hver dags forsinkelse medgennemforelsen af de nsdvendige foranstaltninger til opfyldelse af den nrevntedom, regnetfra afsigelsenaf dommen og til opfyldelsen af dommen i sagenKommissionen mod Den HellenskeRepublik, Republik,
Since the infringements in the casebefore it were serious or particularly serious and of considerableduration, the Court ordered Greece to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 2000C for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply withthe judgment in Case C-45191, from delivery of its judgment until the judgmentin Case C-45191 has been complied with.
I sagen Kommissionen mod Ir{ederlandene (kendelse af 13.9.2000, sagC- 34 119 7, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser) fastslog Domstolen, atden udfsrlige udtalelse, Kommissionen retter til en medlemsstat i henhold tilartikel 9, stk. 1, i direktiv 83/189lEgF 7 om en informationsprocedure medhensyntil tekniske standarder og forskrifter, ikke udgat en äbningsskrivelse,der opfylder kravene i traktatens artikel 169 (nu artikel 226 EF).
By order of 13 September 2000 in Case C-341197 Commissionv Netherlands, the Court held that a detailed opinion sent by the Commission to a Member State under Article 9(1) of Directive 83lI89lEEC laying down a procedure for thet provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations does not amount to a letter of formal notice meeting the requirements of Article 169of the Treaty (now Article 226 EC).
Pä dettidspunkt, hvor en sädan udtalelse afgives, kan den medlemsstat, den er rettettil, nemlig ikke have gf stort sig skyldig i en tilsidesrttelse af fellesskabsretten,da den retsakt, der fastsretter en teknisk forskrift, kun foreligger i udkast.Domstolen bemrerkede, at den modsatte opfattelse ville indebrere,at denudforlige udtalelse udgor en betinget äbningsskrivelse, hvis bestäen villeaftrenge af, hvordan den pägreldende medlemsstat reagererpä udtalelsen, ogat kravene til retssikkerheden, der ligger til grund for enhver procedure, derkan blive til en retssag,er til hinder for en sädan uvished.
At the time when such an opinion isdelivered, the Member State to which it is addressed cannot have infringed Community law, since the measure providing for a technical regulation exists onlyin draft form. The Court observedthat the contrary view would result in thedetailed opinion constituting a conditional formal notice whose existence wouldbe dependent on the action taken by the Member State concerned in relation tothe opinion and that the requirements of legal certainty, which are inherent in anyprocedure capable of becoming contentious, preclude such incertitude.
Domstolen afuistederfor den af Kommissionen anlagte traktatbrudssag.
Itaccordingly dismissed as inadmissibte the action for failure to fulfil obligationsbrought by the Commission.
Begrebet "retsakt, der kan v & re genstand for et annullationssogsmäl " ,var kerneni sagen Frankrig mod Kommissionen (kendelse af 2I.6.2000, sag
The concept of a measure against which an action for annulment maybe brought was at the heart of Case C-514199 France v Commission (order of 2l June 2000), which forms part of the body of litigation concerning the emergencymeasures adopted by the Commission to protect against bovine spongiformencephalopathy.
Rädets direktiv 83ll89tBgF af 28.3.1983 ß FT L 109.s. 8).
Council Directive 83lI89lEEC of 28 March 1983 (OJ 1983 L 109' p. 8).
beskyttelse mod bovin spongiform encephalopati.
notice for failure to compiy with the act lifting the ban.
I,s. 3659) traf Domstolen afgorelse af sporgsmälet om, hvorvidt organer, der reprcsenterer arbejdstagerne i envirksomhed, der har modtaget statsststte, er individuelt bersrt af enkommissionsbeslutning, hvorved ststten erklrres uforenelig medfellesmarkedet.
The Court of FirstInstance had declared an application by bodies representing employees forannulment of such a decision inadmissible on the ground that it was not of directand individual concern to them.
De organer, der reprresenterede arbejdstagerne,appellerede afgorelsen til Domstolen, som bekrreftede Rettens opfattelse,hvorefter sagssgerne ikke var individuelt bersrt.
In an appeal brought by those bodies, the Courtof Justice upheld the analysis of the Court of First Instance relating to their lackof individual interest.
Domstolen forkastedeappellen og fast s lo E , at organernes egenskab af forhandlingsledere vedrsrendede sociale aspekter af en afgorelse, hvorved en statsststte erklares uforeneligmed frllesmarkedet, ikke i sig selv er tilstrekkelig til at individualisereorganer, der reprresenterer arbejdstagerne i den virksomhed, der har modtagetstotte, pä lignende mäde som adressaterne for den omtvistede beslutning, närdet fremgär af begrundelsen for den omtvistede beslutning, at denne egenskabkun har en svag forbindelse med selve genstandenfor beslutningen, og närappellanterne ikke deltog i proceduren i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 93,stk. 2 (nu artikel 88, stk. 2, EF). Appellanternes stilling kunne derfor ikke
Dismissing the appeal, it held that, by itself, the status asnegotiators with regard to social aspects of a decision declaring State aidincompatible with the common market does not suffice to distinguish individuallybodies representing the employees of the undertaking in receipt of the aidjust asin the case of the person to whom that decision was addressed,where it is clearfrom the account of the facts in the decision at issue that that status constitutesonly a tenuouslink with the actual subjectmatter of the decision and the bodiesdid not participate in the procedure initiated under Article 93(2) of the Treaty(now Article 88(2) EC).
I dommen i sagen Sardegna Lines anfsrte Domstolen, at en virksomhed undervisse omstandigheder kan anfegte en beslutning fra Kommissionen, derforbyder en ststteordning til fordel for en bestemt sektor (dom af 19.10.2000,forenede sager C-15198 og C-105/98, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser).
undertaking which is concerned not only by virtue of being an undertaking in thesector which might benefit from the aid scheme at issue but also by virtue ofbeing an actual beneficiary of individual aid granted under that scheme, therecovery of which has been ordered by the Commission.
Med hensyn til den prcjudicielle procedure vil man erindre sagerne G ab al fri s a m.fl., Ab rahams s on m.fl . og Ö s rcrreichi s cher Gewerkschaft sbund, hvor Domstolen sä sig foranlediget til at fortolke begrebet ret i EF-traktatensartikel 177's forstand (nu artikel2S4 EF).
With regard to the preliminary reference procedure, the cases of Gabalfrisa, Abrahamsson and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund may be noted,in which the Court found it necessary to interpret the concept of a court ortribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234EC).
Det bemrrkes i denne forbindelse, at Domstolen for at kunne bedemme, or det organ, der forelregger en sag, er en ret i traktatens artikel I77's forstand- et sporgsmäI, som alene skal afgores pä grundlag af fellesskabsretten - tager en hel rekke forhold i betragtning,nemlig om organeter oprettet vedlov, har permanent karakter, virker som obligatoriskretsinstans, anvender enkontradiktorisk sagsbehandling, traeffer afgorelse pä grundlag af retsregler, samt om det er uaflrrengigt0f. bl.a dom af 17.9.1997,Dorsch Consult, sag C-54196, Srnl. I, s. 4951, prremis 23, og de nrevnteafgorelser).
It should be rememberedthat, in order to determine whether a body making areference is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty,which is a question governed by Community law alone, the Court takes accountof a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whetherit is permanent,whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure isadversarial, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, in particular, Case C-54196 Dorsch Consultll997l ECR l-4961, paragraph23, andthe case-lawcited). cited).
I sagerne Gabalfrisa m.fl. (dom af 2L 3.2000, forenede sager C-110/98 - C-147198, Sml. I,s.1577) og Abrahamsson m.fl.(domaf 6.7.2000, sag C-407198, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgarelser) havde Domstolen mulighedfor at precisere, hvad der ligger i organets uaftrrengighed.
In Joined Cases C-l10/98 to C-147198 Gabalfrisa and Others (fudgmentof 2IMarch 2000) and Case C-407198 Abrahamsson (udgment of 6 July 2000), the Court was given the opportunity to explain the factor related to the independenceof the body making the reference. ln Gabalfrisa, a question was referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling by a Tribunal Econdmico-Administrativo(Economic and Administrative Court) enjoying jurisdiction, in the Spanish taxadministration, to hear and decide fiscal complaints within the framework of akind of internal administrative action.
I sagerneGabalfrisam.fl. havde Domstolen fäet forelagt en prejudiciel anmodning af Tribunal E c o n ö m i c o - Administrativo , som i det spanske skatte- og afgiftssystem harkompetence til at behandle klager i skatte- og afgiftssagersom led i en slags intern administrativrekurs.
The Court found that a separation offunctions was ensuredby law between, on the one hand, the departmentsof thetax authority responsible for taking the decisions and, on the other hand, the Tribunales Econömico-Administrativos which ruled on complaints lodged againstthose decisions without receiving any instruction from the tax authority.
Domstolen fastslog, at loven indeholdt garantierfor en funktionel adskillelse mellem pä den ene side skatte- og afgiftsmyndighedernes denestegrene, som traffer afgarelserne,og pä denanden side Tribunales Econömico-Administrativos.som traffer afssrelse
Excise Duties Directorate)in question in Case C-24192Corbiau [1993] ECR l-I277 , at paragraphs15 and 16, had the character of a third party in relation tothe departmentswhich adopted the decision forming the subjectmatter of the complaint and the independence necessary for them to be regarded as courts ortribunals for the purposes of Article L77 of the Treaty. ln Abrahamsson, the Court referred to the same criteria of functional separation and third-party statusin concluding that the Överklagandenämnden,an appeals committee with
vedrsrende klager, der indbringes vedrsrende de nrevnte tjenestegrenesafgorelser, uden at modtage nogen form for instruks fra skatte- ogafgiftsmyndighederne, og udledte heraf, at disse Tribunales - til forskel fradirektsren for direkte skatter og punktafgifter, som var omhandlet i dom af 30.marts 1993, C o rb i a u (sagC- 24 l 92, Sml.
jurisdiction in Sweden to undertakean independent examination of appeals lodgedagainst decisions on appointmentswhich are taken in universities and highereducational institutions, had the necessary independence for it to be treatedas acourt or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty.
I sagen ÖstemeichischerGewerkschafisbund (dom af 30.11.2000, sag C-lg5lg8, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgarelser) havde Domstolen fäetforelagt en prrejudiciel anmodning af Oberster Gerichtshof, der trefferafgorelse i fsrste og sidste instans vedrsrende begreringer, der omhandler etmaterielt arbejdsretligt sporgsmäI, og som forelegges af en fagligsammenslutning af arbejdsgivere og arbejdstagere, der har befojelsetil at indgäkollektive overenskomster.
In its judgment of 30 November 2000 in Case C-195/98 Österueichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, the Court dealt with a reference for a preliminary ruling fromthe Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) adjudicating as a court of firstand last instance on applications relating to substantivelaw in the field ofemployment law disputes which are brought by employers' or employees' bodiescapable of entering into collective agreements.
Under en sädan procedure trreffer Oberster Gerichtshof ikke afgorelse i tvister, der vedrsrer en konkret sag, sominvolverer navngivne personer.
In such proceedings, the Oberster Gerichtshof does not rule on disputes in a specific case involving identifiedpersons.
Ved sin retlige vurdering skal den lregge defaktiske omstendigheder, klageren har anfott, uprovet til grund.
It must baseits legal assessment on the facts alleged by the applicantwithout further examination.
Densafgorelse er konstaterende,og retten til at indgive en begaring udsveskollektivt.
Its decision is declaratoryin nature and the right tobring proceedings is exercisedcollectively.
Domstolen understregede, at formälet med proceduren dog er at näfrem til en afgorelse, der har karakter af en retsafgorelse, og bemerkede, atden endelige afgorelse er bindende for parterne, som ikke kan indgive endnuen begrering med henblik pä at opnä en konstaterende afgorelse, der vedrsrerde sarnme faktiske omstrendigheder, og som rejser de samme retligesporgsmäl. Endvidere er sigtet med proceduren, at den skal tjene somafgorende referencegrundlag i tilsvarende procedurer, der vedrsrer individuellearbejdsgivere og arbejdstagere.
Pointing out that the procedure isnone the less intended to result in a decision that is judicial in character,the Courtobserved that the final decision is binding on the parties who cannot make asecond application for a declaration relating to the same factual situation andraising the same legal questions and that, in addition, the decision is intended tohave persuasive authority for parallel proceedings concerning individualemployers and employees.
Under disse omstrendigheder fandt Domstolen,at Oberster Gerichtshof er en ret i traktatens artikel 177's forstand, när dentreffer afgorelse under en sädan procedure.
The Court accordingly held that the Oberster Gerichtshof constitutes a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 ofthe Treaty when it is called on to rule in such proceedings.
Med hensyn til Frellesskabets ansvar uden for kontraktforhold giorde Domstolen ende pä sagerne Mulder m.fl. mod Rädet og Kommissionen, hvori Det Europreiske Frellesskab ved Rädet og Kommissionen ved mellemdom af19. maj 1992 (Srnl.
In the area of noncontractual liability of the Community, the Courtbrought to a closeMulder and Others v Council and Commission, in which the European Community, represented by the Council and the Commission, had beenordered by interlocutory judgment of 19 May 1992(ll992l ECR I-3061) to makegood the damage suffered by the applicants by reasonof the fact that a Councilregulation, as supplemented by a Commission regulation, did not provide for theallocation of a reference quantity to certain milk producers.
Denne sag drejedesig om en beslutning truffetaf Kommissionen om ikke at godkende den tyske regerings projekt vedrsrendestotte til en stälvirksomhedi en af de nye tyske delstater,ikke fordi projektetvar anmeldt for sent, men fordi Kommissionen ikke havde kompetence itidsmressig henseende til at godkende det.
An action for annulment of the Commission's decisionwas dismissed by the Court of First Instance without the question of the latenessof the notification being addressed in its judgment.
Da der var anlagtannullationsssgsmäl til provelse af Kommissionens beslutning, frifandt RettenKommissionen uden i sin dom at komme ind pä sporgsmälet om den for seneanmeldelse.
In an appeal brought againstthat judgment, the Court of Justice stated that the period for notification of aidplans laid down by the Fifth Steel Aid Code operates as a time-bar such as topreclude the approval of any aid plan notified subsequent to it.
Domstolen, som Rettens dom var blevet appelleret til,understregede, at anmeldelsesfristen for stotteprojekteri den femte kodeks varen prreklusivfrist i den forstand, at den afskar Kommissionen fra at godkendestotteprojekter anmeldt efter dette tidspunkt, Heraf fulgte, at Kommissionenikke kunne godkende ststte, hvis stotteprojektetikke var blevet anmeldt til deninden udlsbet af den foreskrevnefrist.
Accordingly,where the plan has not been notified to it before the time-limit specifically laiddown, the Commission is not entitled to authorise the aid.
Da der var tale om en konstatering,som vedrsrte Kommissionens kompetence, og som derfor skulle foretages exofficio af Frellesskabets retsinstanser, fastslog Domstolen, at det säledes varforkert, at Retten ikke fastslog, at Kommissionen pä ingen mäde kunnegodkende den pägaeldende ststte, eftersom projektet fsrst blev anmeldt efterudlsbet af fristen i artikel 6 i den femte kodeks. Da konklusionen i Rettensdom imidlertid var berettiget af andre retlige grunde, forkastede Domstolen appellen.
Inasmuch as that wasa question which touchedon the competence of the Commission and therefore hadto be raised by the Court of its own motion, the Court of Justice found that the Court of First Instance erred in not holding that the aid plan had not been notifieduntil after the expiry of the period laid down in Article 6 of the Fifth Code andthat the Commission could in no way authorise the corresponding aid.
I det forlsbne är har der vreret en betydelig udvikling i Domstolenspraksis vedrsrende de generelleprincipper.
During the past year, there were certain important developments in the Court's case-law relating to general principles.
Et medicinalselskabi likvidation og selskabetsadministrerende direktsr og bestyrelsesformand havde anlagt sag med pästandom erstatning for det tab, de hrevdede at have lidt som falge af udarbejdelsenog udstedelsen af et kommissionsdirektivom kosmetiskemidler.
Community law confers a right to reparation wherethree conditions are met: the rule of law infringed must be intended to conferrights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious;and there must bea direct causal link between that breach and the damage sustained by the injuredparties.
I denne sagfrifandt Retten Kommissionen. Dommen blev appelleret til Domstolen, somforkastede appellen under henvisning til princippet i dommen i sagen Brasseriedu pöcheurog Factortame(dom af 5.3.1996, forenede sager C-46193 og C-48193, Sml.
As regards both noncontractual liability of the Community and that ofthe Member States,the decisive test for finding that a breach of Community lawis sufficiently serious is whether the Member State or the Community institutionconcerned manifestly and gravely disregardedthe limits on its discretion.
I, s. 1029),hvori Domstolen fastslog, at betingelserne for statensansvar for tab, der er forvoldt borgerne som folge af tilsidesettelse affellesskabsretten, ikke - medmindre der er en sarlig grund hertil - mäafuige fra betingelserne for Frellesskabets ansvar under lignendeomstrendigheder.
Wherethe Member State or the institution has only considerably reduced, or even no,discretion, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establishthe existence of a sufficiently serious breach.
Beskyttelsen af borgernes rettigheder i henhold tilfellesskabsretten kan nemlig ikke variere, alt efter om den myndighed, der harforärsaget skaden, er en national myndighed eller en frellesskabsmyndighed.Fallesskabsretten anerkender en ret til erstatning, säfremt tre betingelser eropfyldt, nemlig at den bestemmelse, der er tilsidesat,har til formäl at tillaggeborgerne rettigheder, at tilsidesrettelsener tilstrrkkelig kvalificeret,og endelig,at der er en direkte ärsagsforbindelse mellem statens tilsidesettelse af sinforpligtelse og de skadelidtestab.
With regard to the argument thatthe Court of First Instance erred in law in considering that the directive at issuewas a legislative measure,the Court of Justice stated that the general or individualnature of a measure taken by an institution is not a decisive criterion foridentifying the limits of the discretion enjoyed by that institution.