natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvad angår det andet område bekræftede Domstolen derimod, at fællesskabsretten nder anvendelse, hvilket indebærer forpligtelsen til så vidt muligt at anlægge en fortolkning i overensstemmelse med TRIPs-aftalen, uden at der dog kan tillægges den omhandlede bestemmelse i aftalen direkte virkning.
In the case of the latter elds, on the other hand, Community law applies, which means that it is necessary, as far as may be possible, to supply an interpretation in keeping with the TRIPs Agreement, although no direct eect may be given to the provision of that agreement at issue.
I det konkrete tilfælde fastslog Domstolen, at Fællesskabet endnu ikke havde udøvet sine beføjelser på patentområdet, hvilket område er omfattet af artikel 33 i TRIPs-aftalen, eller – i det mindste på det interne plan – indtil nu har udøvet disse beføjelser i et så begrænset omfang, at dette område på det nuværende udviklingstrin ikke kan anses for undergivet fællesskabsretten.
In the case in point, the Court found that the Community has not yet exercised its powers in the sphere of patents, within which Article 33 of the TRIPs Agreement falls, or that, at the very least, at internal level, that exercise has not to date been of sucient importance to lead to the conclusion that, as matters now stand, that sphere falls within the scope of Community law.
Heraf sluttede Domstolen, at fællesskabsretten på patentområdet aktuelt ikke er til hinder for, at denne artikel 33 anvendes direkte af den nationale ret på de i den nationale lovgivning fastsatte betingelser.
In Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, the Court, after pointing out that the principle of eective judicial protection is a general principle of Community law, repeated the standard caselaw that, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for each Member State, in accordance with its duty of cooperation, to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law.
I Unibet-sagen (dom af 13.3.2007, sag C-432/05) fastslog Domstolen, efter at have bemærket, at der er tale om et almindeligt fællesskabsretligt princip, at når der ikke ndes fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser på området, tilkommer det hver enkelt medlemsstat, i overensstemmelse med samarbejdspligten at udpege de kompetente domstole og fastsætte de processuelle regler for sagsanlæg til sikring af beskyttelsen af de rettigheder, som fællesskabsretten medfører for borgerne.
That having been said, the Court observed that the principle of eective judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law does not require domestic law to provide a free-standing action for an examination of whether national provisions are compatible with Community law, provided that other eective legal remedies, which are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions, make it possible for such a question of compatibility to be determined as a preliminary issue, which is a matter for the national court to establish.
Denne procesautonomi, som afgrænses af principperne om ækvivalens og eektivitet, kan kun anfægtes, hvis det følger af den omhandlede nationale retsordens opbygning, at der ikke foreligger et retsmiddel, der giver mulighed for, under en verserende sag at sikre, at borgernes rettigheder i henhold til fællesskabsretten overholdes.
In concrete terms, if an individual is forced to be subject to administrative or criminal proceedings and to any penalties that may result as the sole form of legal remedy for disputing the compatibility of the contested national provision with Community law, his judicial protection is not eectively secured.
Dog bemærkede Domstolen, at princippet om eektiv retsbeskyttelse af borgernes rettigheder i henhold til fællesskabsretten ikke indebærer krav om, at der i medlemsstatens retsorden skal være mulighed for at anlægge et selvstændigt søgsmål med det formål principalt at undersøge foreneligheden mellem de nationale bestemmelser og fællesskabsretten, når andre eektive retsmidler, der ikke er mindre gunstige end dem, som gælder for tilsvarende nationale søgsmål, giver mulighed for under en verserende sag at vurdere en sådan forenelighed, hvilket det tilkommer den nationale domstol at efterprøve.
Finally, the Court inferred from the principle of eective judicial protection that the Member States are obliged to provide for the possibility of interim relief being granted to an individual until the competent court has given a ruling on whether the national provisions at issue are compatible with Community law, where the grant of such relief is necessary to ensure the full eectiveness of the judgment to be given. However, this possibility does not have to exist where the individual’s application is inadmissible under the law of the Member State concerned, provided that Community law does not call into question that inadmissibility.
Konkret er en eektiv retsbeskyttelse nemlig ikke sikret, hvis borgeren er tvunget til at udsætte sig for administrative procedurer eller straesager og for de heraf følgende sanktioner, som det eneste retsmiddel til at anfægte foreneligheden mellem de omtvistede nationale regler og fællesskabsretten.
In the absence of relevant Community legislation, the grant of any interim relief is governed by the criteria in national law, subject to observance of the principles of equivalence and eectiveness referred to above.
Da der ikke ndes fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser på området, reguleres en eventuel anordning af foreløbige foranstaltninger af kriterier i nationale ret, forudsat at de ovenfor nævnte principper om ækvivalens og eektivitet overholdes.
In Case C-524/04 Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation [2007] ECR I-2107, the Court pointed out that, where a Member State has levied charges in breach of the rules of Community law, individuals are entitled to reimbursement of the tax unduly levied and of the amounts paid which relate directly to that tax.
I sagen Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation (dom af 13.3.2007, sag C- 524/04) bemærkede Domstolen bl.a., at i tilfælde, hvor en medlemsstat har opkrævet skatter i strid med fællesskabsrettens regler, har borgerne ret til tilbagebetaling af den skat, der er opkrævet med urette, og af beløb, der er betalt i direkte forbindelse med denne skat.
As regards other loss or damage which a person has sustained by reason of a breach of Community law for which a Member State is liable, the latter is under a duty to make reparation for the loss or damage caused in the circumstances set out in the Court’s caselaw and — subject to the principles of equivalence and eectiveness — on the basis of the rules of national law on liability.
Hvad angår andre tab, som en person har lidt som følge af en tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsretten, der kan tilregnes en medlemsstat, er medlemsstaten, under de betingelser, der fremgår af Domstolens praksis, forpligtet til at erstatte det tab, der således er forvoldt, efter nationale erstatningsregler, idet denne autonomi afgrænses af principperne om ækvivalens og eektivitet.
Specically, where it is established that the legislation of a Member State constitutes an obstacle to freedom of establishment prohibited by Article 43 EC, the national court may, in order to establish the recoverable losses, determine whether the injured parties have shown reasonable diligence in order to avoid those losses or to limit their extent and whether, in particular, they availed themselves in time of all legal remedies available to them.
Efter denne præcisering gjorde Domstolen endvidere opmærksom på, at der med henblik på at afgøre, om fællesskabsretten er tilsidesat, skal tages hensyn til alle de forhold, som kendetegner den situation, der er blevet forelagt den nationale ret.
The Court also pointed out that, in order to determine whether there has been a suciently serious breach of Community law, it is necessary to take account of all the factors which characterise the situation brought before the national court.
På et område som direkte beskatning skal den nationale ret tage hensyn til den omstændighed, at de konsekvenser, der følger af den frie bevægelighed, der er sikret ved traktaten, kun gradvist er blevet klarlagt, bl.a. ved de principper, der er udviklet i Domstolens praksis.
In a eld such as direct taxation, the national court must take into account the fact that the consequences arising from the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the Treaty have been only gradually made clear, in particular by the principles identied by the Court’s case-law.
I sagen van der Weerd m.. (dom af 7.6.2007, forenede sager C-222/05 – C-225/05) blev Domstolen bl.a. forelagt spørgsmålet, om den nationale ret i henhold til fællesskabsretten er forpligtet til, inden for rammerne af et søgsmål om legalitetsprøvelse af en forvaltningsakt, af egen drift at foretage en prøvelse på grundlag af anbringender, som falder uden for grundlaget for sagen, men som støttes på direktiv 85/511 om fællesskabsforanstaltninger til bekæmpelse af mund- og klovesyge 14.
In Joined Cases C-222/05 to C-225/05 van der Weerd and Others (judgment of 7 June 2007), the Court was asked in particular whether, in judicial proceedings concerning the legality of an administrative measure, Community law required a national court to conduct an examination of its own motion of grounds which were outside the terms of the dispute but based on Directive 85/511 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (14).
Domstolen besvarede spørgsmålet afkræftende, idet den fandt, at hverken ækvivalensprincippet eller eektivitetsprincippet, der følger af Domstolens praksis, kræver, at den nationale ret af egen drift tager et anbringende om tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsretten under påkendelse.
The Court replied in the negative, holding that neither the principle of equivalence nor the principle of eectiveness enshrined in its caselaw required the national court to raise of its own motion a plea alleging infringement of Community law.
Hvad angår det første af disse principper fastslog Domstolen nærmere bestemt, at de i direktivet omhandlede bestemmelser nemlig hverken fastlægger betingelserne for, hvorledes procedurerne vedrørende bekæmpelse af mund- og klovesyge kan indledes, eller de administrative myndigheder, der i henhold til bestemmelserne er kompetente til at bestemme rækkevidden af borgernes rettigheder og forpligtelser, hvorfor bestemmelserne ikke kan anses for at svare til de nationale regler om den oentlige orden, som ligger til grund for de nationale procedurer, eftersom de fastlægger betingelserne for, hvorledes sidstnævnte kan indledes, og de administrative myndigheder, der i henhold til bestemmelserne er kompetente til at bestemme rækkevidden af borgernes rettigheder og forpligtelser.
As regards the principle of equivalence, the Court held, more specically, that the provisions of the directive which were at issue laid down neither the conditions in which procedures relating to the control of foot-and-mouth disease could be initiated nor the authorities which had the power, within the framework of those procedures, to determine the extent of the rights and obligations of individuals. Those provisions could not therefore be considered equivalent to the national rules of public policy, which lay at the very basis of the national procedures since they dened the conditions in which those procedures could be initiated and the authorities which had the power, within the framework of those procedures, to determine the extent of the rights and obligations of individuals.
Hvad angår det andet princip fastslog Domstolen, at når parterne har haft en faktisk mulighed for at gøre et anbringende gældende på grundlag af fællesskabsretten for den nationale ret, er eektivitetsprincippet ikke til hinder for en national bestemmelse,
So far as concerns the principle of eectiveness, the Court stated that, provided that the parties are given a genuine opportunity to raise a plea based on Community law before a national court, this principle does not preclude a provision of domestic law which prevents national courts from raising of their own motion an issue as to whether the provisions of Community law have been infringed, where examination of that issue would oblige them to abandon the passive role assigned to them by going beyond the ambit of the dispute dened by the parties themselves and relying on facts and circumstances other than those on which the party with an interest in application of the Community provisions has based his claim; this is so, irrespective of the importance of those provisions to the Community legal order.
Unionsborgerskab
Court of Justice
På området for uddannelsesstøtte tog Domstolen i Morgan og Bucher-sagen (dom af 23.10.2007, forenede sager C-11/06 og C-12/06) udgangspunkt i konstateringen af, at borgere fra en medlemsstat, som studerer i en anden medlemsstat, har status som unionsborgere i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 1, EF og således eventuelt kan påberåbe sig de rettigheder, der er knyttet til denne status, herunder over for deres oprindelsesmedlemsstat.
With regard to education and training grants, in its judgment of 23 October 2007 in Joined Cases C-11/06 and C-12/06 Morgan and Bucher the Court proceeded on the basis that nationals of a Member State studying in another Member State enjoy the status of citizens of the Union under Article 17(1) EC and may therefore rely on the rights conferred on those having that status, inter alia against their Member State of origin.
Domstolen anførte dernæst, at selv om en medlemsstat i princippet har ret til, med henblik på at undgå, at uddannelsesstøtte til studerende, som ønsker at gennemføre deres studier i andre medlemsstater, bliver en urimelig byrde, kun at yde sådan støtte til studerende, som har godtgjort til en vis grad at være integreret i samfundet, skal medlemsstaten ikke desto mindre drage omsorg for, at de nærmere bestemmelser om tildeling af støtten ikke skaber en ubegrundet hindring for borgernes frie bevægelighed og er sammenhængende med og står i rimeligt forhold til målet om at sikre gennemførsel af et studium på kortest mulig tid eller at fremme et velovervejet studievalg.
The Court then held that while, in principle, a Member State is entitled, in order to prevent education or training grants to students wishing to study in other Member States from becoming an unreasonable burden, to grant such assistance only to students who have demonstrated a certain degree of social integration, it must nevertheless see to it that the detailed rules for the award of the grants do not create an unjustied restriction of the free movement of citizens and that they are consistent with and proportionate to the objectives of ensuring that courses are completed in a short period of time or of facilitating an appropriate choice of education or training course.
Domstolen fastslog på baggrund heraf, at artikel 17 EF og 18 EF er til hinder for bestemmelser, hvorefter tildeling af uddannelsesstøtte til en studerende, som studerer i en anden medlemsstat end den stat, hvori den studerende er statsborger, betinges af, at disse studier skal udgøre en fortsættelse af studierne efter mindst ét års uddannelse i den studerendes oprindelsesmedlemsstat, idet de er egnede til at afskrække unionsborgerne fra at gøre brug af deres ret til fri bevægelighed og ophold på andre medlemsstaters område som fastsat i artikel 18 EF.
The Court drew the conclusion that Articles 17 and 18 EC preclude provisions under which the award of an education or training grant to a student who is studying in a Member State other than that of which he is a national is subject to the condition that those studies must be a continuation of studies pursued for at least one year in his Member State of origin, in that such provisions are liable to deter citizens of the Union from making use of their freedom, provided for in Article 18 EC, to move and reside within the territory of the Member States.
På skattelovgivningens område, i sagerne Schwarz og Gootjes-Schwarz og Kommissionen mod Tyskland (domme af 11.9.2007, sag C-76/05 og sag C-318/05), undersøgte Domstolen bestemmelser i den tyske indkomstskattelov, som gør det muligt for skattepligtige at anvende et skattefradrag for deres børns skolepenge betalt til visse privatskoler på betingelse af, at skolerne er etableret på det nationale område.
With regard to tax legislation, in its judgments of 11 September 2007 in Case C-76/05 Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz and C-318/05 Commission v Germany, the Court examined provisions of the German law on income tax according to which taxpayers are granted tax relief for their children’s school fees paid to certain private schools, provided that the schools are established on German territory.
Domstolen fastslog, at fællesskabsretten er til hinder for, at skattefradraget generelt nægtes for skolepenge betalt til skoler beliggende i andre medlemsstater. Domstolen sondrede i sin argumentation mellem to former for nansiering af skoler. Det er kun skoler,
The Court held that Community law precluded the tax relief from being refused generally for school fees paid to schools in another Member State.
Udviklingen og arbejdet som hovedsageligt nansieres med private midler, som kan påberåbe sig den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
Swedish law prohibiting the importation by private individuals of alcoholic beverages, the sale of which is subject, in Sweden, to a monopoly established by the same law.
Hvad angår skoler etableret i en anden medlemsstat end Tyskland, og som ikke hovedsageligt nansieres med private midler, nder den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser ikke anvendelse, men skattefradraget bør ikke nægtes af denne grund.
The Court held this prohibition to be incompatible with Community law, having first established that the prohibition had to be assessed in the light of Article 28 EC, and not in the light of Article 31 EC on State monopolies of a commercial character, since it did not amount to a rule relating to the existence or operation of the monopoly, which concerned retail sale and not importation.
De rettigheder, som er tillagt unionsborgerne, er til hinder for en sådan udelukkelse: Selv et mindreårigt barn kan påberåbe sig retten til fri bevægelighed og frit ophold, og de omhandlede bestemmelser bevirker, at børn, som er rejst til en skole etableret i en anden medlemsstat for at følge undervisningen dér, uberettiget stilles ringere, set i forhold til børn, som ikke har gjort brug af deres ret til fri bevægelighed.
In so holding, the Court found that the Swedish measure amounted to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC given, first, the possibility for the holder of the monopoly to refuse an order for the supply and therefore, if necessary, the importation of the beverages concerned and, second, the inconveniences of such a measure for consumers.
På området for varernes frie bevægelighed udtalte Domstolen sig om forskellige nationale lovgivningers forenelighed med bestemmelserne i traktaten.
The Court then found that the measure could not be justied, under Article 30 EC, on grounds of protection of the health and life of humans: the Swedish law was unsuitable for attaining the objective of limiting alcohol consumption generally, because of the marginal nature of its eects in that regard, and was not proportionate to the objective of protecting young persons against the harmful eects of such consumption, since the prohibition was applied irrespective of the age of the private individual wishing to obtain the beverages concerned.
For det første bør nævnes dommen i sagen Rosengren m.. (dom af 5.6.2007, sag C-170/04), som har baggrund i en anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse af spørgsmålet, om en svensk lovgivning, som forbyder privatpersoner at indføre alkoholholdige drikkevarer, hvis salg i Sverige er underlagt et monopolsystem indført i medfør af samme lov, er forenelig med EF-traktaten.
Second, in Case C-319/05 Commission v Germany (judgment of 15 November 2007), the Court was faced once again, in an action for failure to full obligations under the Treaty, with the question whether a substance should be classied as a medicinal product or as a foodstu.
Domstolen fastslog, at dette forbud er uforeneligt med fællesskabsretten efter at have fastslået, at forbuddet skal undersøges i lyset af artikel 28 EF og ikke i lyset af artikel 31 EF vedrørende statslige handelsmonopoler, for så vidt som det ikke udgør en regel om monopolet og dets funktion, som vedrører detailsalg, med undtagelse af indførsel.
The Federal Republic of Germany had classied as a medicinal product a garlic preparation in capsule form that was legally marketed as a food supplement in other Member States, and had consequently required prior marketing authorisation to be obtained for it.
I denne forbindelse fandt Domstolen, at den svenske foranstaltning udgør en kvantitativ indførselsrestriktion som omhandlet i artikel 28 EF, for det første henset til, at indehaveren af monopolet har mulighed for at modsætte sig en leveringsanmodning og dermed i givet fald en anmodning om indførsel af de pågældende drikkevarer, og for det andet henset til de ulemper, som en sådan foranstaltning indebærer for forbrugerne.
In accordance with its settled caselaw the Court found that, in so doing, the Federal Republic of Germany had failed to full its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 EC.
Domstolen fandt dernæst, at denne foranstaltning ikke kan begrundes i medfør af artikel 30 EF i hensynet til beskyttelsen af menneskers liv og sundhed.
After establishing that the product did not satisfy either the denition of medicinal product by presentation or the denition of medicinal product by function for the purposes of the relevant Community legislation (15), the Court held that the German measure created an obstacle to intra-Community trade.
Den svenske lovgivning er således ikke egnet til at virkeliggøre målet om generelt at begrænse forbruget af alkohol på grund af dens begrænsede virkninger i denne henseende og er ikke proportional med henblik på at virkeliggøre målet om at beskytte de yngste mod skadevirkningerne forbundet med et sådant forbrug, eftersom importforbuddet nder anvendelse på alle, uafhængigt af alderen på den person, som ønsker at skae sig de pågældende drikkevarer.
Furthermore, the measure could not be justied by reasons relating to the protection of public health, in accordance with Article 30 EC, since a provision of that type had to be based on a detailed assessment of the alleged health risk and a measure that restricted the free movement of goods less, such as suitable labelling warning consumers of the potential risks related to taking the product, could have met the objective of protecting health.
For det andet, i dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Tyskland (dom af 15.11.2007, sag C-319/05), skulle Domstolen, i anledning af et traktatbrudssøgsmål, endnu en gang tage stilling til spørgsmålet om kvalicering af et stof som lægemiddel eller som kosttilskud.
Finally, it is appropriate to mention the judgment of 20 September 2007 in Case C-297/05 Commission v Netherlands, which renes the Court’s caselaw concerning national rules applicable to the import of vehicles registered in another Member State.
Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde klassiceret et hvidløgspræparat i kapselform, som i andre medlemsstater lovligt blev markedsført som et kosttilskud, som lægemiddel og havde som følge heraf underlagt dets markedsføring en forudgående tilladelse til markedsføring.
Asked to decide whether Netherlands legislation requiring such vehicles to undergo an identication check and a roadworthiness test prior to registration in the Netherlands was compatible with Community law, the Court held, first of all, that the vehicle identication check did not constitute a hindrance to the free movement of goods.
Domstolen fastslog i overensstemmelse med sin faste retspraksis, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland herved havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 28 EF og 30 EF.
It was unlikely to have any deterrent eect whatsoever on the import of a vehicle into the Netherlands or to make the import of vehicles less attractive, given the manner in which it was carried out and the fact