natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Beskyttelsen af arbejdstagere er et af de tvingende almene hensyn, Domstolen har anerkendt (jf. bl.a. Webb-dommen, præmis 19, Arblade m.fl.dommen, præmis 36, og Mazzoleni og ISA-dommen, præmis 27).
It is, however, for the national court to determine whether, viewed objectively, the rules in question in the main proceedings promote the protection of posted workers {Finalane and Others, paragraph 41).
Ifølge fast retspraksis kan foranstaltninger, som udgør hindringer for den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser, ikke begrundes i formål af økonomisk art såsom beskyttelsen af nationale virksomheder (jf. senest dom af 25.10.2001, forenede sager C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98, C53/98, C-54/98 og C-68/98 - C-71/98, Finalarte m.fl., præmis 39).
It is therefore for the national authorities or, as the case may be, the courts of the host Member State, before applying the minimum-wage legislation to service providers established in another Member State, to determine whether that legislation does indeed pursue an objective of public interest and by appropriate means.
I så henseende bemærkes, at lovgivers hensigt, som denne kommer til udtryk i motiverne til en lov, kan udgøre et indicium for det med loven forfulgte formål, men dog ikke er afgørende (jf. Finalarte m.fl.dommen, præmis 40).
In the present case, the national court points out that, according to the stated grounds of the AEntG, the purpose ofthat Law is to protect the domestic construction industry and to reduce unemployment in order to avoid social tensions.
Det kan med andre ord principielt antages, at værtsmedlemsstatens anvendelse af sine bestemmelser om mindsteløn på tjenesteydere, der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat, forfølger et alment hensyn, nemlig at beskytte de ansatte.
However, according to settled case-law, measures forming a restriction on the freedom to provide services cannot be justified by economic aims, such as the protection of domestic businesses (see, most recently, the judgment of 25 October 2001 in Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98 Finalane and Others, paragraph 39).
Som Domstolen tidligere har fastslået, skal det ved afgørelsen heraf undersøges, om de pågældende bestemmelser yder de berørte arbejdstagere en egentlig fordel, som væsentligt bidrager til deres sociale beskyttelse.
The fact that, unlike an employer from the host Member State, an employer established in another Member State has no possibility of avoiding the obligation to pay the minimum wage laid down by the collective agreement governing the economic sector concerned creates unequal treatment contrary to Article 59 of the Treaty.
I den forbindelse kan lovgivers erklærede hensigt føre til en mere indgående undersøgelse af de fordele, som arbejdstagerne angiveligt tildeles ved de trufne foranstaltninger (jf. Finalarte m.fl.dommen, præmis 42).
It must be emphasised in this regard that no ground of justification provided for by the Treaty has been invoked.
Det kan dog ikke udelukkes, at der kan være omstændigheder, hvorunder anvendelsen af sådanne bestemmelser strider mod traktatens artikel 59 og 60 (jf. i denne retning Mazzoleni og ISA-dommen, præmis 30).
Whilst the intention of the legislature, as apparent from the statement of the grounds on which a Law was adopted, may be an indication of the aim ofthat Law, that declared intention is
Den omstændighed, at en arbejdsgiver med hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat i modsætning til en arbejdsgiver i værtsmedlemsstaten ikke har mulighed for at unddrage sig forpligtelsen til at betale mindsteløn i henhold til den kollektive overenskomst inden for den pågældende sektor, udgør en ulige behandling i strid med traktatens artikel 59.
The fact that, in concluding a collective agreement specific to one undertaking, a domestic employer can pay wages lower than the minimum wage laid down in a collective agreement declared to be generally applicable, whilst an employer established in another Member State cannot do so, constitutes an unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services.'
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 3. maj 2001.
Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 3 May 2001.
Sag C-372/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
Case C-372/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Environment and consumers
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 93/13/EØF — urimelige kontraktvilkår i forbrugeraftaler midler til at bringe anvendelsen af sådanne kontraktvilkår til ophør* (Femte Afdeling) foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige med henblik på at lade direktivets bestemmelser finde anvendelse på alle aftaler, der indgås mellem en forbruger og en erhvervsdrivende
— apply the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to all contracts concluded between consumers and sellers or suppliers (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, hereinafter 'the Directive'),
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 6. oktober 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 93/13/EØF af 5. april 1993 om urimelige kontraktvilkår i forbrugeraftaler, idet den ikke har truffet de at gennemføre direktivets artikel 5, tredje punktum, og
Since the Italian Government explained in its defence that Law No 526, of 21 December 1999 introduced into Chapter XlVa of the Civil Code the amendments requested by the Commission in respect of the first three grounds of complaint, the Commission informed the Court by a document issued on 17 May 2000 that, in accordance with Article 78 of its Rules of Procedure, it was in part discontinuing its action, which would be pursued only in respect of the ground of complaint relating to Article 7(3) of the Directive.
at gennemføre direktivets artikel 6, stk. 2, og artikel 7, stk. 3, fuldt ud.
Commission ν United Kingdom, paragraph 36, and C-300/95 Commission ν United Kingdom [1997] ECR 1-2649, paragraph 37).
C-244/98, præmis 27) har fastslået, at den ved direktivet indførte beskyttelsesordning hviler på den betragtning, at uligheden mellem forbrugeren og den erhvervsdrivende alene kan ophæves ved positive foranstaltninger, der er uafhængige af kontraktparterne selv.
It is a requirement of that objective that it should be possible to initiate that procedure not only against sellers or suppliers using such clauses, but also against professional bodies or other traders who recommend the use of such clauses.
Da Kommissionen fandt, at direktivet ikke var blevet gennemført fuldt ud i italiensk ret inden for den fastsatte frist, indledte den en traktatbrudsprocedure.
In the present case, in relation firstly to Article 1469e of the Civil Code, it should be noted that the wording of this provision affords a legal remedy only where unfair terms are used.
Efter en åbningsskrivelse, hvori den opfordrede Den Italienske Republik til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger, fremsatte Kommissionen den 18. december 1998 en begrundet udtalelse, hvori den opfordrede Den Italienske Republik til at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at efterkomme udtalelsen inden for en frist på to måneder efter meddelelsen.
However, the Advocate General of his Opinion that Italian case-law interprets the notion of 'use' widely enough to cover also the recommendation of such clauses.
Da Kommissionen ikke fandt svaret på udtalelsen fra Den Italienske Republik tilfredsstillende, har den anlagt nærværende sag.
However, it is clear from the decisions of the Italian courts, that this recent case-law cannot be considered as unanimous or at least as sufficiently well established to make certain such an interpretation.
Da de søgsmål, der skal gives adgang til, er af præventiv karakter og har til formål at afholde de erhvervsdrivende fra at anvende sådanne vilkår, og da de er uafhængige af enhver konkret individuel tvist, indebærer det, som Domstolen har anerkendt, at sådanne søgsmål kan anlægges, selv om de vilkår, der kræves forbudt, ikke er blevet anvendt i bestemte kontrakter, men alene er anbefalet af erhvervsdrivende eller deres sammenslutninger (jf. Océano Grupo Editorial og Salvat Editores-dommen, præmis 27).
Secondly, with respect to Article 3 of Law No 281/98, it should be noted that the wording of this provision does not exclude the bringing of an action against recommending the use of unfair terms. The Advocate General also pointed out at paragraph 40 of his Opinion that Italian case-law recognises the admissibility of such actions.
Den italienske regering har i sit svarskrift henvist til, at legge nr. 526 af 21. december 1999 ændrede kapitel XIV i codice civile, som krævet af Kommissionen for så vidt angår de tre første klagepunkter.
It should be noted that in its judgment in Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 Océano Grupo Editorial et Salvat Editores, paragraph 27) the Court held that the system of protection laid down by the Directive is based on the notion that the imbalance between the consumer and the seller or supplier may only be corrected by positive action unconnected with the actual parties to the contract.
Kommissionen har ved processkrift indleveret den 17. maj 2000 meddelt Domstolen, at den i overensstemmelse med artikel 78 i Domstolens procesreglement delvist hæver sagen og alene fastholder den for så vidt angår klagepunktet vedrørende direktivets artikel 7, stk. 3.
That is why Article 7 of the Directive, paragraph 1 of which requires Member States to implement adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms, specifies in paragraph 2 that those means are to include allowing authorised consumer associations to take action in order to obtain a decision as to whether contract terms drawn up for general use are unfair and, where appropriate, to have them prohibited.
Det følger heraf, at direktivets artikel 7, stk. 3, skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen kræver, at der indføres procedurer, der ligeledes kan rettes mod adfærd, der begrænser sig til en opfordring til anvendelse af urimelige kontraktvilkår.
However, the decision mentioned in footnote 14 of the Advocate General's Opinion (which does not concern the mere recommendation of the use of unfair terms) is not of such a nature as to contradict the interpretation of Article 3 of Law No 281/98 put forward by the Italian Government during the course of the present proceedings, according to which the admissibility of an action against a party making such a recommendation depends on an actual use of the unfair terms recommended. Such a condition is incompatible with the interpretation which should be given to Article 7(3) of the Directive.
Rækkevidden af forpligtelsen direktivets artikel 7, stk. 3
It follows that Article 7(3) of the Directive must be interpreted as requiring the setting up of procedures which may also be directed against conduct confined to the recommending of the use of unfair contract clauses.
Gennemførelsen af direktivets artikel 7, stk. 3, i italiensk ret
Transposition of Article 7(3) of the Directive into Italian law
Det er Kommissionens opfattelse, at direktivets artikel 7 regulerer et af de grundlæggende aspekter af den beskyttelse, der er indført ved direktivet, dvs. proceduren med henblik på at »bringe [anvendelsen af urimelige kontraktvilkår i aftaler, der indgås mellem forbrugere og erhvervsdrivende] til ophør«.
These concerns all the more serious since, the relationship between Article 1469e of the Civil Code and Article 3 of Law No 281/98 is not free of ambiguity.
Dette formål nødvendiggør, at proceduren ikke blot kan iværksættes mod erhvervsdrivende, der anvender sådanne kontraktvilkår, men tillige mod sammenslutninger af erhvervsdrivende eller andre erhvervsdrivende, der opfordrer til anvendelse af disse kontraktvilkår.
It appears that certain Italian courts consider that in relation to unfair terms, Article 1469e, as a special law, takes precedence over Article 3 of Law No 281/98.
I den foreliggende sag bemærkes, for så vidt angår artikel 1469e i codice civile, at denne bestemmelses ordlyd kun åbner mulighed for sagsanlæg, når der er sket en anvendelse af
Such an interpretation involves consequences as regards the group of bodies empowered to act, as the two provisions do not have the same field of application in that respect.
Hertil bemærkes, at Domstolen i dommen af 27. juni 2000 i Océano Grupo Editorial og Salvat Editores-sagen (forenede sager C-240/98
In this respect, it should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law of the Court, the scope of national laws, rules or administrative provisions must be assessed in the light of the of the interpretation given to them by national courts (see, in particular, Case C-382/92
anvendelse af de urimelige kontraktvilkår, der er genstand for opfordringen. Denne betingelse er imidlertid uforenelig med den fortolkning, der må anlægges af direktivets artikel 7, stk. 3.
In any event, even if the latter provision refers to persons or to approved consumers' organisations with legal knowledge in the field of consumer protection, it must be considered that the transposition of Article 7(3) into the Italian legal system does not take sufficient account of the principle of legal certainty.
urimelige kontraktvilkår. Generaladvokaten har imidlertid fremhævet, at man i italiensk retspraksis fortolker begrebet »anvendelse« så vidt, at det også omfatter en opfordring til anvendelse af urimelige kontraktvilkår.
In view of the doubts raised by the case-law as a whole, which comprises decisions of courts of first instance, it does not appear to have been established that the interpretation of Article 1469e of the Civil Code and Article 3 of Law No 281/98 given by the Italian courts makes it possible to attain the object of Article 7(3) of the Directive.
Det skal, for det andet for så vidt angår artikel 3 i lov nr. 281/98, bemærkes, at bestemmelsens ordlyd ikke udelukker sagsanlæg til prøvelse af en handlemåde, der går ud på at opfordre til anvendelse af urimelige kontraktvilkår.
Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to transpose in full Article 7(3) of Council Directive 93/13/CEE of 5 December 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 20. september 2001.
advance payment of special premiums for bulls for the 1996 and 1997 marketing years.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
That sum corresponds to the expenditure on those special premiums incurred in Finland between 20 May 1995 and 21 December 1996.
»EUGFL — regnskabsafslutning — regnskabsårene 1996 og 1997 — kødpræmier —procedure, som skal følges af Kommissionen* (Femte Afdeling) nr. 805/68 om den fælles markedsordning for oksekød og om ændring af samme forordning.
In April 1997, the EAGGF control services carried out checks, in Finland, concerning the application of the system of premiums for cows, bulls and ewes and the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 of 8 July 19% providing for additional payments to be made in 1996 with the premiums referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal and amending that Regulation.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 9. maj 2000 har Republikken Finland i medfør af artikel 230, stk. 1, EF anlagt sag med påstand om delvis annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 2000/216/EF af 1. marts 2000 om at udelukke visse udgifter, som medlemsstaterne har afholdt for Den Europæiske Udviklings- og Garantifond for Landbruget (EUGFL), Garantisektionen, fra EF-finansiering, for så vidt som den udelukker udgifter til et beløb på 7 270 885,76 FIM, som den sagsøgende medlemsstat har afholdt i form af forudbetalte kødpræmier i regnskabsårene 1996 og 1997, fra EF-finansiering.
After an exchange of correspondence, the Finnish Government informed the Commission, by letter of 5 August 1999, that it intended to rely on the time-limit laid down by Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and that it considered that the Commission had no grounds to exclude expenditure incurred more than 24 months before 22 December 1998, the date when it received the annex to the letter of 17 September 1998.
Beløbet svarer til udgifterne ved de særlige præmier, som Finland har afholdt mellem den 20. maj 1995 og den 21. december 1996.
However, by the contested decision, the Commission also excluded the contested expenditure incurred between 20 May 1995 and 21 December 19%.
Den 20. maj 1997 sendte Kommissionen til Finlands Faste Repræsentation ved Den Europæiske Union i Bruxelles (herefter »Den Faste Repræsentation«) og til det finske ministerium for land- og skovbrug i Helsinki (herefter »ministeriet«) et dokument på finsk (herefter »dokument af 20. maj 1997«), hvori Kommissionen henledte den finske regerings opmærksomhed på, at Kommissionen havde konstateret visse huller i den finske kontrolordning i forbindelse med undersøgelsen på stedet.
On 20 May 1997, the Commission sent to the Finnish permanent representation to the European Union in Brussels (hereinafter 'the permanent representation') and to the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Helsinki (hereinafter 'the Ministry·) a document in Finnish (hereinafter 'the document of 20 May 1997') in which it drew the attention of the Finnish Government to deficiencies in the Finnish monitoring system which it had detected in the course of its on-the-spot checks.
Kommissionen anførte, at den forbeholdt sig ret til på et senere tidspunkt at tage stilling til, om udgifter til kødpræmier til markedsføring i årene 1995 og 1996 skulle udelukkes fra EF-finansiering, og anmodede om at få svar på dokumentet senest to måneder efter dets modtagelse.
It stated that it reserved the right to decide subsequently whether the expenditure on special premiums for bulls for the 1995 and 1996 marketing years should be excluded from Community financing and that it would be grateful for a reply within two months of receipt of the document.
Tilsyneladende var der forud for det tidspunkt blevet afsendt en telex med et tilsvarende indhold, affattet på engelsk og
The Finnish Government replied to the document of 20 May 1997 by a letter of 21 July 1997 in which it stated that it had taken account of the proposals and observations made by the Commission.
I april 1997 foretog EUGFL's kontroltjeneste en undersøgelse i Finland af anvendelsen af præmieordningen for køer, tyre og får samt af gennemførelsen af Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1357/96 af 8. juli 1996 om tillægsbetalinger i 1996 til præmierne i forordning (EØF)
The Finnish Government submits that those conditions were not met by the document of 20 May 1997, which in its view does not constitute a written communication within the meaning of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95.
dateret den 7. maj 1997, idet dokumentet af 20. maj 1997 henviser hertil.
Findings of the Court carried out, as well as detailed findings and deficiencies uncovered during those checks.
undersøgelse og dens bemærkninger hertil samt en udtrykkelig henvisning til forordning nr. 1663/95.
It must be ascertained whether the document of 20 May 1997 meets the requirements of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95.
Den finske regering besvarede dokument af 20. maj 1997 ved skrivelse af 21. juli 1997, hvori det anførtes, at man havde taget hensyn til Kommissionens forslag og bemærkninger.
Accordingly, the document of 20 May 1997 meets the requirements for a communication of the results of on-the-spot checks and the corrective measures to be taken, on the basis of which the period of 24 months mentioned in the fifth subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 can be calculated.
Den finske regering har anført, at dokument af 20. maj 1997 ikke er en skriftlig meddelelse i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 5, stk. 2, litra c), i forordning nr. 729/70 og artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1663/95, idet det ikke opfylder de heri fastsatte betingelser.
First, as regards the formal requirements, it must be observed that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 makes a distinction between the communication of 'findings', referred to in the first subparagraph, which is what is in question here, and the 'formal' communication of 'conclusions', referred to in the second subparagraph, which happens at a later stage.
Domstolens bemærkninger
It follows that the first communication does not have to meet such strict formal conditions as the second.
Det skal undersøges, om dokumentet af 20. maj 1997 opfylder kravene i artikel 5, stk. 2, litra c), i forordning nr. 729/70, sammenholdt med artikel 8, stk. 1, første afsnit, i forordning nr. 1663/95.
In the present case, the document of 20 May 1997 thus meets the formal requirements set out in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95.
Kommissionen sendte den 17. september 1998 en skrivelse, der var affattet på finsk, hvori Kommissionen under henvisning til artikel 8 i forordning nr. 1663/95 og artikel 5, stk. 2, litra c), i forordning nr. 729/70 underrettede den finske regering om, at den havde til hensigt at foreslå at udelukke en del af de anmeldte udgifter for regnskabsårene 1996 og 1997 fra EF-finansiering.
It must be held that the Commission is bound, in its relations with the Member States, to respect the conditions it has imposed on itself by implementing regulations. However, the Member States cannot, in their relations with the Commission, adopt purely formalist positions, when it is clear from the circumstances that their rights were fully protected.
Denne ændring var begrundet i, at kontrollen ikke var blevet udført efter reglerne, hvilket fremgik af resultaterne af Kommissionens efterprøvning, som var beskrevet i et bilag til skrivelsen af 17. september 1998.
In the present case, as was pointed out above, the document of 20 May 1997 informed the Finnish Government fully about the Commission's reservations and the corrections which would probably be made to the premiums in question, so that it fulfilled the warning function conferred on a written communication by Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95.
Den finske regering blev gjort opmærksom på, at den havde en svarfrist på to måneder at regne fra modtagelsen af skrivelsen.
In those circumstances, the mere omission, in that document, of a reference to Regulation No 1663/95 does not appear to be a breach of an essential formal requirement.
Det skal for det første fastslås, at artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1663/95 for så vidt angår formkravene sondrer mellem »meddelelse af resultater«, som nævnt i stk. 1, første afsnit, hvilket er situationen i den foreliggende sag, og den »officielle underretning om konklusioner«, som nævnt i stk. 1, andet afsnit, der finder sted på et senere tidspunkt. Det følger heraf, at formkravene for den første meddelelse ikke er så strenge som for den anden.
Second, it must be considered whether the document of 20 May 1997 fulfils the other requirements laid down.
I den foreliggende sag opfylder dokumentet af 20. maj 1997 således de formkrav, der fremgår af artikel 8, stk. 1, første afsnit, i forordning nr. 1663/95.
It goes on to describe the system for monitoring meat premiums in the Member State concerned and then to explain the deficiencies in the treatment of requests for premiums, accounting considerations, problems in monitoring accounts encountered by the EAGGF services, an analysis of the risks, a description of the number of on-the-spot checks