natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved skrivelse af 31. juli 1998, underskrevet af generaldirektøren for Kommissionens Generaldirektorat for Landbrug og indgået til Cantine den 14. august 1998, afviste Kommissionen denne anmodning. Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at støtten i første række tilfaldt destilleriet som kompensation for den høje opkøbspris på vin.
By letter of 31 July 1998, signed by the Director-General of the Commission’s Dir -ectorate-General for Agriculture, which reached the Cantine on 14 August 1998, the Commission rejected that request.
Sikkerheden var stillet gennem Assedile til fordel for AIMA, og producenterne kunne ikke gøre noget krav herpå.
The security was provided by Assedile for the benefit of AIMA, and the producers could not claim any rights to that security.
I samme brev bemærkede Kommissionen endvidere, at AIMA’s godkendelse af de kontrakter, som var indgået mellem Cantine og DAI, ikke ændrede disses karakter af privatretlige aftaler, hvorfor Kommissionens påståede forpligtelser over for sagsøgerne ikke udsprang af en kontrakt.
In that letter, the Commission also pointed out that the approval by AIMA of the contracts entered into between the Cantine and DAI did not alter the private-law nature of those contracts, with the result that the Commission’s alleged obligations towards the applicants were of a noncontractual nature.
Følgelig var ethvert krav på De Europæiske Fællesskaber forældet i medfør af artikel 46 i statutten for Domstolen, idet sikkerheden stillet gennem Assedile var blevet udbetalt til AIMA den 16. januar 1990 og tilbageført til EUGFL i løbet af regnskabsåret 1991.
Consequently, any action against the Community was henceforth timebarred, under Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, as the amount of the security provided by Assedile was paid to AIMA on 16 January 1990 and refunded to the EAGGF during the 1991 financial year.
Søgsmålet for Retten og den appellerede dom
The proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
Ved stævning indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 12. oktober 1998 anlagde Cantine søgsmål med påstand om, for det første, annullation i henhold til EF-trak-tatens artikel 173 (efter ændring nu artikel 230 EF) af Kommissionens skrivelse af 31. juli 1998 og, for det andet, at det blev fastslået, at Kommissionen i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 175 (nu artikel 232 EF) havde udvist passivitet, der udgjordes af den omstændighed, at Kommissionen havde undladt at vedtage en afgørelse om at yde den fællesskabsstøtte til Cantine, som burde være blevet udbetalt til Cantine af DAI og, for det tredje, at Kommissionen som følge af ugrundet berigelse og/eller i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 178 (nu artikel 235 EF) tilpligtedes at betale Cantine en erstatning svarende til deres ubetalte fordringer på DAI.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 12 October 1998, the Cantine brought an action seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s letter of 31 July 1998 under Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), second, a declaration that the Commission’s failure to adopt a decision regarding the grant of the Community aid to the Cantine which should have been paid to them by DAI was an unlawful failure to act contrary to Article 175 of the EC Treaty (now Article 232 EC) and, third, an order that the Commission pay to the Cantine, on the ground of unjust enrichment and/or pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC), compensation equivalent to the outstanding amounts owed to them by DAI.
Kommissionen nedlagde påstand om afvisning, subsidiært, frifindelse.
The Commission contended that the action should be dismissed as being inadmissible and, in the alternative, as unfounded.
Med den appellerede dom afviste Retten i dommens præmis 80 henholdsvis 83 Cantines påstande om annullation af Kommissionens skrivelse af 31. juli 1998, og om at det blev fastslået, at Kommissionen havde udvist passivitet.
By the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance, in paragraphs 80 and 83 thereof respectively, dismissed as inadmissible the Cantines’ requests for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 31 July 1998 and for a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act.
Retten afviste ligeledes i nævnte doms præmis 84 påstanden om, at Kommissionen blev tilpligtet at tilbagebetale en ugrundet berigelse.
It also rejected, in paragraph 84 of that judgment, the request that the Court find against the Commission on the basis of unjust enrichment.
Derimod lagde Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 150 til grund, at den i medfør af artikel 235 EF fremsatte erstatningspåstand kunne antages til realitetsbehandling, og fastslog i domskonklusionens punkt 1: »Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber er erstatningspligtig for det tab, [Cantine] har lidt som følge af [DAI]’s konkurs, idet der i forbindelse med den ordning, som var indført ved artikel 9 i forordning [nr. 2499/82] ikke var fastsat regler til sikring af, at der skete udbetaling til de berørte producenter af den ved forordningen fastsatte fællesskabsstøtte.«
On the other hand, the Court of First Instance found, in paragraph 150 of the judgment under appeal, that the claim for compensation under Article 235 EC was admissible and held, in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment, that ‘[t]he Commission is required to make good the damage sustained by the [Cantine] following the bankruptcy of [DAI], as a result of the absence of a procedure that would guarantee, under the system introduced by Article 9 of Regulation [No 2499/82], payment to the producers concerned of the Community aid provided for in that regulation.’
For så vidt angår formaliteten vedrørende den i medfør af artikel 235 EF fremsatte påstand bemærkede Retten nærmere i dommens præmis 129 inden for rammerne af et anbringende, som Kommissionen gjorde gældende vedrørende forældelse af Fællesskabets ansvar uden for kontraktforhold, at forældelsesfristen i henhold til artikel 46 i statutten for Domstolen ikke kan begynde at løbe, før alle betingelser for erstatningspligtens indtræden er opfyldt, dvs. at Fællesskabets institutioner har handlet retsstridigt, at der er lidt et tab, og at der er årsagsforbindelse mellem institutionernes adfærd og tabet.
In particular, with regard to the admissibility of the claim under Article 235 EC, the Court of First Instance, in the context of the plea raised by the Commission alleging that the proceedings against the Community for noncontractual liability were timebarred, first stated, in paragraph 129 of the judgment under appeal, that the limitation period laid down by Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice could not begin to run before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage had been satisfied, namely the existence of unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions, the fact of the damage alleged and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage claimed.
Retten bemærkede i nævnte doms præmis 130, at i et tilfælde som det foreliggende, hvor Fællesskabets ansvar har sin oprindelse i en generel retsakt, kan forældelsesfristen ikke begynde at løbe, førend retsaktens skadevoldende følger har vist sig, og følgelig ikke førend det tidspunkt, hvor der er vished for, at sagsøgerne har lidt et tab.
The Court of First Instance then stated, in paragraph 130 of the judgment under appeal, that in cases in which the Community’s liability stemmed from a legislative measure, as in this instance, the limitation period could not begin to run before the injurious effects of the measure had been produced and hence before the time at which the persons concerned had suffered certain damage.
Retten fastslog således i den appellerede doms præmis 131, at forældelsesfristen i den foreliggende sag var begyndt at løbe på det tidspunkt, hvor der forelå vished for, at Cantine havde lidt et tab som følge af, at fællesskabsstøtten ikke helt eller delvist blev udbetalt.
The Court of First Instance then held, in paragraph 131 of the judgment under appeal, that, in the case under examination, the limitation period had begun to run when the damage resulting from the total or partial absence of payment of Community aid had been suffered for certain by the Cantine.
Retten bemærkede i nævnte doms præmis 132, at det i denne sag var ubestridt, at Cantines sidste leverancer af vin havde fundet sted i marts 1983, og at DAI i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 2499/82 skulle have betalt vinkooperativerne minimumsopkøbsprisen for vin senest 90 dage efter leveringen af vin til destilleriet, dvs. senest ved udgangen af juni 1983.
It observed, in paragraph 132 thereof, that it was not disputed in the case that the last deliveries of wine by the Cantine took place in March 1983 and that DAI should have paid them the minimum buyingin price for wine under Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2499/82 not later than 90 days after the entry of the wine into the distillery, that is to say, not later than the end of June 1983.
Imidlertid fastslog Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 133, at Cantines tab som følge af, at minimumsopkøbsprisen for vin ikke eller ikke fuldt ud blev betalt inden for den fastsatte frist, under de konkrete omstændigheder ikke kan anses for allerede at have været omfattet af vished, dvs. at have været umiddelbart forestående og påregneligt, ved udgangen af juni 1983.
In paragraph 133 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held, however, that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the damage suffered by the Cantine at the end of June 1983 due to the total or partial absence of payment of the minimum buyingin price within the timelimit laid down could not be regarded as being certain, that is to say, imminent and foreseeable from that date on.
Retten har i den appellerede doms præmis 136 og 145 tilføjet, at det med henblik på bedømmelsen af, hvorvidt der forelå vished om tabet, var nødvendigt at tage de søgsmål, som DAI havde anlagt ved de italienske retter vedrørende behandlingen af den gennem Assedile stillede sikkerhed, i betragtning, henset til kompleksiteten af den ordning, som er indført ved forordning nr. 2499/82 og sagens helt særlige omstændigheder, hvorunder det var umådeligt vanskeligt for en forudseende og påpasselig erhvervsdrivende forud for disse sagers afgørelse at indse, at han ikke ville opnå betaling af den omhandlede støtte ved hjælp af den nævnte sikkerhedsstillelse ved de nationale domstole.
The Court of First Instance added, in paragraphs 136 and 145 of the judgment under appeal, that, in order to assess whether damage was certain, it was necessary to take account of the proceedings brought by DAI before the Italian courts specifically concerning the fate of the security provided by Assedile, in light of the complexity of the system introduced by Regulation No 2499/82 and the exceptional circumstances of the case, in which it was extremely difficult for a prudent and wellinformed economic operator to be certain, before the outcome of those proceedings, that he could not obtain payment of the aid concerned by means of that security before a national court.
Retten har i den appellerede doms præmis 146 vedrørende den foreliggende sag lagt til grund, at den begunstigede i forhold til den af Assedile stillede sikkerhed først blev endeligt fastslået af de nationale retter efter dommen afsagt af Corte suprema di cassazione den 28. november 1994, og at der følgelig ikke kunne foreligge vished om det tab, som Cantine havde lidt, før denne dato.
In paragraph 146 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that, in the case before it, the beneficiary of the security provided by Assedile was not finally decided by the national courts until after the Corte suprema di Cassazione had delivered its judgment on 28 November 1994 and that, therefore, the damage suffered by the Cantine could not have been certain before that date.
I nævnte doms præmis 147 har Retten konkluderet, at forældelsesfristen på fem år i artikel 46 i statutten for Domstolen ikke kunne begynde at løbe før den 28. november 1994, således at den påstand, der i medfør af artikel 235 EF er blevet nedlagt ved et i 1998 anlagt søgsmål, ikke kunne anses for at være fremsat for sent.
The Court of First Instance concluded, in paragraph 147 of the judgment under appeal, that the fiveyear limitation period provided for in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice could not have begun to run before 28 November 1994, with the result that the action under Article 235 EC brought in 1998 could not be considered to be out of time.
Retten har følgelig i den appellerede doms præmis 148 erklæret, at det anbringende vedrørende forældelse, som Kommissionen havde gjort gældende, burde forkastes, og i den appellerede doms præmis 150 har Retten fastslået, at nævnte påstand skulle antages til realitetsbehandling.
It therefore stated, in paragraph 148 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission’s plea that the action was timebarred had to be dismissed and, in paragraph 150 of that judgment, ruled that the claim for compensation was admissible.
— Den appellerede dom ophæves, for så vidt som Kommissionen ikke blev frifundet for den nedlagte erstatningspåstand.
— set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds the claim for compensation against it;
— Der træffes endelig afgørelse i tvisten, idet søgsmålet afvises.
— by giving final judgment in the matter, dismiss the appeal as inadmissible; and
— Cantine tilpligtes at betale omkostningerne i forbindelse med retsforhandlingerne for Domstolen og Retten.
— order the Cantine to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those incurred before the Court of First Instance.
— Subsidiært, såfremt appellen antages til realitetsbehandling, stadfæstes den appellerede dom, for så vidt som Kommissionen herved tilpligtes at betale erstatning, idet den af Kommissionen rejste indsigelse om forældelse forkastes.
— in the alternative, if the appeal is allowed, uphold the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders the Commission to pay compensation for damage by dismissing the objection of limitation raised by the latter; and
Kommissionen gør til støtte for appellen et enkelt anbringende gældende, hvorefter der i den appellerede doms præmis 129-150 er sket tilsidesættelse af artikel 46 i statutten for Domstolen og retssikkerhedsprincippet.
In support of its appeal the Commission raises a single plea alleging infringement, in paragraphs 129 to 150 of the judgment under appeal, of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and of the principle of legal certainty.
Kommissionen gør gældende, at der i Domstolens og Rettens faste praksis opstilles et princip, hvorefter den femårige forældelsesfrist for krav mod Fællesskabet, der støttes på ansvar uden for kontraktforhold, som er fastsat i artikel 46 i statutten for Domstolen, først begynder at løbe fra det tidspunkt, hvor den skade, der skal erstattes, har vist sig.
The Commission submits that the settled caselaw of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance lays down the principle that the fiveyear limitation period for proceedings against the Community for noncontractual liability provided for in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice does not begin to run until the damage to be made good has materialised.
For så vidt som dette ansvar udspringer af en normativ retsakt, kan denne forældelsesfrist ikke begynde at løbe før fra det øjeblik, hvor der er vished for, at de berørte personer har lidt et tab.
If that liability has its origin in a legislative measure, the limitation period can begin to run only once the persons concerned were bound to have incurred damage which was certain in character.
Kommissionen kritiserer nærmere Retten for, at den i den appellerede dom ikke har taget den omstændighed i betragtning, at forordning nr. 2499/82 siden 1983 faktisk har forvoldt Cantine skade, idet forordningen ikke hjemler mulighed for at udbetale fællesskabsstøtten direkte til producenten i tilfælde af destillatørens insolvens.
In particular, the Commission criticises the Court of First Instance for failing to take account, in the judgment under appeal, of the fact that since 1983 Regulation No 2499/82 had caused actual damage to the Cantine by failing to provide for the possibility of Community aid being paid directly to the producer if the distiller became insolvent.
Tidspunktet for, hvornår den nævnte forældelsesfrist begyndte at løbe, burde således have været fastsat til den dag, hvor producenterne som følge af DAI’s insolvens ikke kunne opnå betaling af nævnte støtte inden for den i nævnte forordning fastsatte frist på 90 dage efter vinens levering til destilleriet.
The point at which that limitation period began to run should therefore have been fixed as the day on which, because of DAI’s insolvency, the Cantine were unable to obtain payment of that aid within the 90-day period after the entry of the wine into the distillery provided for by that regulation.
Ifølge Kommissionen har Retten derimod støttet dommen på den opfattelse, at forordning nr. 2499/82 havde forvoldt Cantine skade.
According to the Commission, the Court of First Instance based its judgment, to the contrary, on the perception that the Cantine had suffered harmful effects from Regulation No 2499/82.
Kommissionen gør i den henseende gældende, at Retten, der ikke fandt, at den omstændighed, at Cantine vidste, at vinkooperativerne havde lidt skade som følge af anvendelsen af denne forordning, var tilstrækkelig, har lagt til grund, at det var nødvendigt, at der forelå et rent subjektivt element, nemlig at Cantine, efter vinkooperativernes forsøg på i
In that regard, it submits that the Court of First Instance, which considered as being insufficient the fact that the Cantine knew that they had suffered damage stemming from the application of that regulation, held that a wholly subjective element was required, namely that the Cantine should be aware that they
denne sag ved de nationale domstoles mellemkomst at opnå udbetaling af fællesskabsstøtte gennem udbetaling til dem af den gennem Assedile stillede sikkerhed var mislykkedes, blev bekendt med, at de alene kunne opnå erstatning ved at anlægge et erstatningssøgsmål mod Kommissionen.
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS could obtain redress only by way of an action for compensation brought against the Commission after the failure in this case of their attempts to obtain in the national courts payment of the Community aid by means of the attribution to them of the security provided by Assedile.
Kommissionen gør ligeledes gældende, at den appellerede dom ikke er i overensstemmelse med de principper, der er anført i Domstolens dom af 7. november 1985, Adams mod Kommissionen (sag 145/83, Sml. s. 3539).
The Commission also submits that the judgment under appeal does not even comply with the principles laid down in Case 145/83 Adams v Commission [1985] ECR 3539.
Det er Kommissionens opfattelse, at Cantine ikke kan påberåbe sig denne dom, eftersom det heri tages i betragtning, at der forelå et ufrivilligt ukendskab til skadens oprindelse.
It takes the view that the Cantine cannot rely on that judgment since it takes account of involuntary ignorance of the event giving rise to the damage.
Således som det er blevet konstateret i den appellerede doms præmis 139 og 140, var der ingen tvivl om den omstændighed, at Cantine havde kendskab til ordningen i henhold til forordning nr. 2499/82.
As held in paragraphs 139 and 140 of the judgment under appeal, there is no doubt that the Cantine were aware of the procedure under Regulation No 2499/82.
Kommissionen kritiserer endvidere Retten for i den appellerede dom at have tilsidesat de krav, der i henhold til retssikkerhedsprincippet gælder for anvendelsen af forældelsesfrister.
The Commission also claims that the Court of First Instance failed to respect, in the judgment under appeal, the requirement of legal certainty necessary for the application of limitation periods.
Ved at knytte fastlæggelsen af det tidspunkt, hvor femårsfristen i henhold til artikel 46 i statutten for Domstolen begynder at løbe, til den subjektive opfattelse, som enhver part kan have angående, hvorvidt der foreligger vished om den skade, der er lidt, medfører, at det tilkommer skadelidte efter forgodtbefindende at afgøre, hvornår betingelserne for at anlægge erstatningssøgsmål endelig er opfyldt.
Linking the determination of the point at which the fiveyear limitation period laid down in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice starts to run to the subjective perception that any interested party may have of the certainty of the harm suffered would amount to leaving it up to the injured party to decide when the action for compensation would be finally timebarred.
Kommissionen tilføjer i den henseende, at de appel- og kassationssager, som Cantine har indledt i denne sag, i øvrigt ikke påvirkede vinkooperativernes antagelse om visheden for skaden.
The Commission adds, in that connection, that the appeal proceedings brought by the Cantine could not, moreover, have had any influence on their conviction as to the certainty of the damage.
Kommissionen bemærker endvidere, at Rettens dom er behæftet med en selvmodsigende begrundelse.
The Commission also submits that the Court of First Instance vitiated its judgment by a contradiction in the grounds thereof.
For det første afviste Retten nemlig at betragte udtømningen af nationale retsmidler som en betingelse for antagelse af det af Cantine mod Kommissionen anlagte søgsmål støttet på ansvar uden for kontraktforhold til realitetsbehandling, og for det andet knyttede den tidspunktet for, hvornår den vedrørende dette søgsmål anvendelige forældelsesfrist begyndte at løbe, til den dag, hvor en endelig dom blev afsagt på nationalt plan, nemlig dommen afsagt af Corte suprema di cassazione den 28. november 1994.
First, it refused to consider the exhaustion of domestic remedies as a condition for admissibility of the action for compensation brought by the Cantine against the Commission and, second, it linked the point from which the limitation period applicable to that action started to run to the date of a definitive judgment delivered at national level, in this case the judgment of the Corte suprema di cassazione of 28 November 1994.
Cantine gør gældende, at appellen ikke er begrundet, og at Retten i den appellerede dom korrekt fastslog, at betingelserne for anlæggelse af et søgsmål mod
For their part, the Cantine submit that the appeal is unfounded and that the Court of First Instance correctly held in the judgment under appeal that the conditions
Kommissionen ikke var opfyldt, så længe den tvist, der verserede for de nationale domstole, ikke var afgjort ved dommen afsagt af Corte suprema di cassazione.
2008 — CASE C-51/05 P for bringing proceedings against the Commission on the ground of noncontractual liability were not satisfied until the action brought before the national courts was settled by the judgment of the Corte suprema di cassazione.
Cantine er af den opfattelse, at vinkooperativerne var nødsaget til at afvente afgørelsen af tvisten på nationalt plan, inden de indbragte sagen for fællesskabsmyndighederne, bl.a. henset til, at der i denne sag ikke forelå nogen bestemmelser, der regulerer den situation, hvor en destillatør er insolvent.
The Cantine take the view that it was necessary for them to await the outcome of the litigation at national level before referring the matter to the Community authorities, taking account, in particular, of the absence in this case of any provision regulating the position of the insolvent distiller.
Cantine tilføjer i den henseende, at Retten med sikkerhed ville have afvist deres erstatningssøgsmål med den begrundelse, at nationale retsmidler ikke var blevet udtømt.
In that connection, they add that the Court of First Instance would undoubtedly have dismissed their action claiming liability on the ground that the domestic rights of action had not been exhausted.