natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I stedet for at udøve denne virksomhed i konkurrence med insemineringscentret og ud fra aftale indgået med en kunde, som er opdrætter, forekommer det, at disse aktører, såfremt de er i besiddelse af tilladelse hertil, udfører insemineringen som selvstændige erhvervsdrivende, der samarbejder med det pågældende insemineringscenter 31.
It actually appears that, far from providing that service in competition with the AIC, and on the basis of a professional relationship established with a client breeder, provided they held the requisite licence, such operators were in fact able to carry out insemination as collaborators — albeit independent collaborators — of the AIC itself. 31
Jeg finder derfor, at de to pågældende aspekter skal bedømmes samlet, med henblik både på at vurdere, om der foreligger restriktioner i den frie etableringsret og den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser, og at vurdere de begrundelser, den franske regering har fremført for eventuelle restriktioner.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the two aspects in question must be considered together, both for the purpose of determining whether there is any restriction of freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and for the purpose of assessing the reasons invoked by the French Government to justify any such restrictions.
Forpligtelsen til at indgå en aftale med insemineringscentret for at kunne opnå inseminørbevilling forstærker ikke blot insemineringscentrenes geografiske eneret, som Kommissionen påstår, men udgør efter min mening også et uadskilleligt aspekt i et system, hvor insemineringsvirksomheden var forbeholdt autoriserede insemineringscentre, men som alligevel ville tillade, at insemineringsvirksomhed — inden for rammerne af og ikke uden for dette forbehold — også kunne udføres af andre aktører, der ikke nødvendigvis var ansat ved et insemineringscenter.
Therefore, rather than reinforcing, as the Commission claims, the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred on the AICs, the requirement that an agreement be entered into with the AIC as a prerequisite for obtaining an inseminator’s licence, is, in my view, an inherent part of those exclusive rights in the context of a system that, by reserving the insemination service for the authorised AICs, in any event sought to ensure that insemination activities could also be carried out, within — and not outside — the framework of those exclusive rights, by qualified persons who were not necessarily on the staff of an AIC.
I øvrigt har den franske regering i sine indlæg klart angivet, at artikel L.653-7 i landbrugsloven tildelte insemineringscentrene
Furthermore, in its written pleadings, the French Government clearly states that Article L. 653-7 of the Rural Code accorded
31 — Det skal påpeges, at i henhold til artikel 4 i bekendtgørelse af 20.2.2003 fra ministeriet for landbrug, fødevarer, fiskeri og landdistriktsspørgsmål om afgiftsbetingelserne for inseminering af kvæg hos autoriserede centre for kunstig inseminering (JORF af 23.2.2003, s. 3290) fakturerede insemineringscentrene opdrætterne for insemineringen, uanset om den person, der udførte insemineringen, var ansat ved centret eller ej.
31 — Under Article 4 of the Decree of the Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs of 20 February 2003 concerning the charges for insemination carried out on cattle by authorised artificial insemination centres (JORF of 23 February 2003, p. 3290), the cost of the insemination was invoiced to the breeders by the AIC, regardless of whether the person who had carried out the insemination was an employee or an independent operator.
Som bekendt findes der i fællesskabsretten ikke et egentligt forbud mod, at medlemsstaterne lader en bestemt økonomisk virksomhed omfatte af et monopol.
As is well known, Community law does not generally prohibit the Member States from making a specific economic activity subject to a monopoly.
Dette bekræftes især af artikel 31 EF, stk. 1, som blot foreskriver en tilpasning af de nationale handelsmonopoler, og af artikel 86 EF, stk. 1, der generelt forbyder medlemsstaterne, for så vidt angår offentlige virksomheder og virksomheder, som de indrømmer særlige eller eksklusive rettigheder, at træffe eller opretholde foranstaltninger, der er i strid med EF-traktatens bestemmelser, hvilket nødvendigvis forudsætter, at medlemssta-
That is borne out by Article 31 EC in particular, for Article 31(1) simply requires the adjustment of any State monopolies of a commercial character; it is further borne out by Article 86(1) EC which, by generally prohibiting the Member States from enacting or maintaining in force, in relation to public undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, any measures contrary to the rules contained in the EC Treaty, necessarily implies that the Member States may accord
KOMMISSIONEN MOD FRANKRIG terne kan tillægge visse virksomheder enerettigheder og tildele dem et monopol 32.
COMMISSION v FRANCE certain undertakings exclusive rights and grant them a monopoly.
varebevægelser, idet den enkelte opdrætter frit kunne anmode det insemineringscenter, som han hørte under, om at skaffe sæd fra et produktionscenter efter hans eget valg, enten i Frankrig eller i udlandet 35.
32 ficial reproduction of cattle, indirectly established a monopoly hindering the free movement of goods, since any private breeder was free to request the AIC for his area to supply him with semen from a production centre of his choice, whether situated in France or abroad. 35
Som fastslået af Domstolen, betyder dette dog ikke, at alle særlige og eksklusive rettigheder nødvendigvis er forenelige med EF-traktaten 33.
As the Court has explained, however, that does not mean that all special and exclusive rights are necessarily compatible with the EC Treaty. 33
I dommen i sagen Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle påpegede Domstolen, at oprettelsen af en dominerende stilling ved tildeling af en eneret som omhandlet i artikel 90, stk. 1, i EF-traktaten ikke i sig selv er uforenelig med traktatens artikel 86, og at en medlemsstat kun overtræder forbuddet i disse to bestemmelser, hvis den pågældende virksomhed ved den blotte udøvelse af den eneret, som er indrømmet den, foranlediges til at udnytte sin dominerende stilling på en måde, der er udtryk for misbrug.
It in its judgment in Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle, the Court pointed out that the mere creation of a dom -inant position by the granting of an exclusive right within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty was not, as such, incompatible with Article 86 of the Treaty, and that a Member State contravened the prohibitions contained in those two provisions only if, in merely exercising the exclusive right granted to it, the undertaking in question could not avoid abusing its dominant position.
Domstolen undersøgte derefter den franske lovgivning, som gav de autoriserede insemineringscentre eneret til at udøve deres virksomhed på et begrænset område, og som gav dem ret til at kræve, at opdrættere, der anmodede om levering af sæd fra andre produktionscentre, betalte de ekstraomkostninger, som dette ville medføre. Domstolen konstaterede, at disse bestemmelser gav insemineringscentrene ret til at fastsætte disse omkostninger, men ikke til at opkræve uforholdsmæssigt store beløb og således misbruge deres dominerende stilling 36.
In that case, analysing the French legislation which set in place AICs authorised to operate exclusively in a defined zone, allowing them to require breeders who requested the AICs to provide them with semen from other production centres to pay the additional costs entailed by that choice, the Court found that although it left to the AICs the task of calculating those costs, that legislation did not lead the centres to charge disproportionate costs and thereby abuse their dom -inant position. 36
Hvad angår tjenesteydelsesmonopoler som dem, der ifølge Domstolen opstår som følge af den geografiske eneret, der tildeles de autoriserede insemineringscentre ved den omtvistede nationale lovgivning, har Domstolen fastslået, at selv om de ikke falder ind under anvendelsesområdet for artikel 37 i EF-traktaten, der vedrører udveksling af varer, tilsidesætter de princippet om frie varebevægelser i medfør af artikel 30 i EF-traktaten, hvis de har indirekte indflydelse på udvekslingen af disse varer ved at diskriminere indførte varer i forhold til indenlandske varer 34.
Specifically with reference to monopolies on the provision of services, such as those which, it has been determined, result from the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred on the authorised AICs by the national rules at issue, the Court has held that, even though they are not caught by Article 37 of the EC Treaty, which relates to trade in goods, they are incompatible with the principle of the free movement of goods under Article 30 of the EC Treaty, if they have an indirect influence on that trade by discriminating against imported products to the benefit of products of domestic origin.
I dommen i sagen Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn fastslog Domstolen i særdeleshed, at de omstændigheder, der var omtalt i forelæggelsesdommen, og de, der var kommet frem under retsforhandlingerne ved Domstolen, ikke var tilstrækkelige til, at det kunne antages, at bestemmelser af den karakter, der i Frankrig gjaldt vedrørende inseminering af hornkvæg, og som tildelte insemineringscentrene et geografisk monopol, indirekte indførte et monopol, som hindrede de frie
34In its judgment in Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn, in particular, the Court found that the circumstances referred to by the national court and those which had come to light in the course of the proceedings before the Court of Justice were not sufficient to support the view that legislation of the kind which, in France, governs the arti-
32 — Dom af 23.10.1997, sag C-159/94, Kommissionen mod Frankrig, Sml. I, s. 5815, præmis 44.
32 — Case C-159/94 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-5815, paragraph 44.
35 — Dommen i sagen Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn, præmis 11 og 12, hvortil der også henvises i dommen i sagen Gervais m.fl., præmis 37, hvori Domstolen imidlertid præciserede, at spørgsmålet, om de autoriserede centres virksomhed i praksis medførte en forskelsbehandling vedrørende importeret sæd i modstrid med EF-traktatens artikel 30, forudsætter en vurdering af de relevante omstændigheder, som hører under den nationale rets kompetence (som i sagen Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn faldt nemlig i en præjudiciel sag og ikke — som i nærværende sag — i en traktatbrudssag).
35 — Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn, cited in footnote 3, paragraphs 11 and 12, also mentioned in Gervais and Others, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 37, in which the Court made it clear that the question whether the operation of the authorised centres in practice involved discrimination against the imported semen, contrary to Article 30 of the EC Treaty, requires an assessment of the material facts which falls within the jurisdiction of the national court (in point of fact, as in Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn, that case concerned a reference for a preliminary ruling and not, as in this case, proceedings for failure by a State to fulfil its obligations).
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-389/05
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-389/05 precedent set by its judgment in Sacchi, 38that ‘Community law does not prevent the
Domstolen skal i nærværende sag afgøre, og denne gang direkte (idet der ikke er tale om en præjudiciel afgørelse, men om et traktatbrud), om den omtvistede nationale lovgivning, hvormed der oprettedes flere geografiske tjenesteydelsesmonopoler, er forenelig med andre bestemmelser i EF-trak-taten, nemlig de bestemmelser, der sikrer den frie etableringsret og den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser inden for Fællesskabet (artikel 43 EF og 49 EF).
In these proceedings, the Court is asked to rule, directly on this occasion (this not being a request for a preliminary ruling but an action for a declaration that a State has failed to fulfil an obligation), whether the national rules at issue, which have established a number of territorial monopolies on the provision of services, are compatible with other provisions of the EC Treaty, such as those which guarantee freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the Community (Articles 43 EC and 49 EC).
Den omstændighed, at Domstolen i de ovennævnte domme ikke har haft mulighed for at vurdere den omhandlede lovgivnings uforenelighed med de bestemmelser i EF-traktaten, som fremføres i disse domme, medfører ikke på nogen måde, at det vil være i strid med Domstolens retspraksis, hvis Kommissionens påstande eventuelt tages til følge i nærværende sag.
Consequently, the fact that, in the abovementioned judgments, the Court was not able to identify ways in which those rules were incompatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty certainly does not imply that a finding in favour of the Commission in these proceedings would be incompatible with the Court’s caselaw.
dommen 38, at »fællesskabsretten [ikke er] til hinder for, at der tildeles et fjernsynsmonopol på grund af almene interesser, som ikke er økonomiske«.
granting of a television monopoly for considerations of a non-economic nature relating to the public interest’.
Kravet om, at der i medfør af EF-traktatens bestemmelser om den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser skal foreligge gyldige begrundelser for, at en medlemsstat må indføre tjenesteydelsesmonopoler, fremgår i tydeligere grad af dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Nederlandene 39, som blev afsagt en måned efter ERT-dommen, hvori det bekræftes, at »spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en medlemsstat kan holde bestemte tjenesteydelser uden for den frie konkurrence, er ensbetydende med, at det må afgøres, om de således indførte restriktioner, der hindrer den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser, kan være begrundet i [tvingende] almene hensyn«.
The requirement, under the rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services, that a Member State should be able to cite valid reasons for establishing a monopoly on the provision of ser -vices emerges with greater clarity from the judgment in Commission v Netherlands, 39a month after the judgment in ERT, when the Court states that ‘in order to establish whether a Member State may exclude the provision of certain services from free competition, it is a matter of determining whether the restrictions on the freedom to provide services thereby created can be justified [by overriding reasons relating to the public interest]’.
I forlængelse heraf fastslog Domstolen i dommen i sagen Läärä m.fl. 40, at en national
That was how, in its judgment in Läärä and Others, 40 the Court was able to conclude
Domstolens mulighed for at prøve ud fra artikel 43 EF og 49 EF, om en medlemsstats tildeling af eksklusive rettigheder til udøvelse af økonomisk virksomhed er i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten, kan ikke betvivles.
There is no doubt that it is open to the Court to ascertain, on the basis of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, whether the conferring by a Member State of exclusive rights to engage in economic activities is compatible with Community law.
lovgivning, der forbyder alle andre end det autoriserede offentlige organ at udøve drift af spilleautomater, og som ikke indebærer nogen forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet og finder anvendelse uden forskel på de erhvervsdrivende, der måtte være involveret i en sådan virksomhed, hvad enten de er etableret i den pågældende medlemsstat eller en anden medlemsstat, udgør en hindring for den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser i medfør af artikel 59 i EF-traktaten, idet den direkte eller indirekte forhindrer de erhvervsdrivende fra andre medlemsstater i selv at stille apparater til rådighed for offentligheden. For at være forenelig med EF-trak-taten må en sådan lovgivning, for så vidt den
that national legislation prohibiting any person other than the licensed public body from running the operation of slot machines, which involves no discrimination on grounds of nationality and applies without distinction to operators who might be interested in that activity, whether they are established in the Member State concerned or in another Member State, constitutes an impediment to the freedom to provide services in that it directly or indirectly prevents operators in other Member States from themselves making such machines available to the public, and must, therefore, if it is to be compatible with the EC Treaty, if it does not fall within
I ERT-dommen 37fastslog Domstolen, at et monopol på tjenesteydelser, som det i denne sag var tilfældet med monopolet i tv-sektoren i Grækenland, kan stride mod især EF-traktatens regler om den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser på grund af den måde, hvorpå dette monopol er opbygget eller udøves.
In its judgment in ERT, 37 not only did the Court accept that a monopoly on the provision of services, such as, in that case, a monopoly in the television sector in Greece, may infringe the rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services, in particular, because of the manner in which it is organised or exercised, but it also held, citing the
Domstolen konstaterede desuden med henvisning til præcedens i Sacchi-
37 — Case C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925, paragraphs 10 to 12 and 20).
38 — Dom af 30.4.1974, sag 155/73, Sml. s. 409, præmis 14, min fremhævelse.
38 — Case 155/73 [1974] ECR 409, paragraph 14.
40 — Dom af 21.9.1999, sag C-124/97, Sml. I, s. 6067, præmis 28-30.
My emphasis.39 — Cited in footnote 33, paragraph 35.40 — Case C-124/97 [1999] ECR I-6067, paragraphs 28 to 30.
KOMMISSIONEN MOD FRANKRIG helt forhindres i at udføre kunstig inseminering af kvæg. Den indrømmer dog, at eneretten og det nævnte krav udgør en begrænsning af etableringsfriheden.
COMMISSION v FRANCE activity of artificially inseminating cattle, acknowledges that those exclusive rights and that condition represent a restriction of freedom of establishment.
ikke omfattes af nogen af de udtrykkeligt foreskrevne undtagelser (restriktioner, som begrundes i udøvelse af offentlig myndighed eller i hensynet til almenheden, den offentlige sikkerhed eller den offentlige sundhed) være begrundet i tvingende almene hensyn.
one of the derogations expressly provided for by the Treaty (restrictions justified by the exercise of public authority or on grounds of public order, public safety or public health) be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.
Det er jeg helt enig i.
I am completely in agreement with that view.
Disse betragtninger giver allerede en idé om konklusionerne i de efterfølgende punkter om, hvorvidt der i nærværende sag er tale om restriktioner i den frie etableringsret og den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
The considerations set out above in themselves intimate the conclusions which I shall reach below concerning the existence, in the case forming the subjectmatter of these proceedings, of restrictions of freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services.
Ifølge retspraksis skal alle foranstaltninger, der forbyder, medfører ulemper for eller gør udøvelsen af denne frihed mindre interessant, i henhold til artikel 43 EF betragtes som restriktioner for den frie etableringsret 41.
According to caselaw, all measures which prohibit, impede or render less at -tractive the exercise of freedom of establishment, under Article 43 EC, must be considered to be restrictions on that freedom.
at en national lovgivning, der gav bestemte organer, der opfyldte visse strenge vilkår, eneret til at drive en bestemt form for virksomhed med rådgivning og bistand i skattespørgsmål, udgjorde en begrænsning af etableringsfriheden, idet den gjorde det sværere for erhvervsdrivende fra andre medlemsstater at udøve deres ret til at etablere sig i den pågældende medlemsstat med henblik på at tilbyde de pågældende tjenester.
41 that national rules restricting the right to engage in certain activities to certain legal entities meeting strict conditions constituted a restriction of freedom of establishment, since they were liable to make more difficult, or even completely prevent, the exercise by economic operators from other Member States of their right to establish themselves in the Member State concerned, with the aim of providing the services in question.
Som illustreret af generaladvokat Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer 43, medførte nævnte nationale lovgivning en sådan restriktion, bl.a. fordi den gav disse organismer enekompetence til at udføre visse rådgivningsopgaver og således skabte to sektorer, én med fri adgang og én, der var forbeholdt ovennævnte organer og lukket for andre nationale virksomheder eller virksomheder fra andre medlemsstater med samme erhvervsmæssige kvalifikationer.
As Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer explained, 43those national rules involved such a restriction because, inter alia, they granted those organisations an exclusive right to provide certain types of advice, creating two sectors, one with open access and the other restricted to those organisations and denied to other operators with the relevant professional qualifications, whether they were national operators or operators from other Member States.
Den franske regering finder ikke — i modsætning til Kommissionen — at den geografiske eneret til fordel for insemineringscentrene og kravet om insemineringsbevilling ved indgåelse af aftale herom med det kompetente insemineringscenter i området medfører, at aktører fra andre medlemsstater
The French Government, although taking the view, contrary to the assumption made by the Commission, that the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area in favour of the AICs and the fact that the issue of an inseminator’s licence is conditional upon the conclusion of an agreement with the territorially competent AIC do not constitute a complete barrier to access for operators from other Member States to the
42 — Dom af 30.3.2006, sag C-451/03, Sml. I, s. 2941, præmis 34.
42 — Case C-451/03 [2006] ECR I-2941, paragraph 34.
41 — Dom af 5.10.2004, sag C-442/02, CaixaBank, Sml. I, s. 8961, præmis 11 og den deri nævnte retspraksis.
43 — Opinion of 28 June 2005 in Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, cited in footnote 42, points 42 and 44.
43 — Forslag til afgørelse af 28.6.2005 i sagen Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, punkt 42 og 44.
41 — Case C-442/02 CaixaBank France [2004] ECR I-8961, paragraph 11, and the caselaw cited therein.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-389/05 insemineringsmarkedet i Frankrig og således en begrænsning af etableringsfriheden i medfør af artikel 43 EF.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-389/05 serious obstacle to access to the market in artificial insemination in France and, consequently, a restriction of freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC, notwithstanding the fact that those measures applied without distinction to national operators and operators from other Member States.
Den omstændighed, at de samme regler gjaldt for både nationale aktører og aktører fra andre medlemsstater, giver ikke anledning til anden bedømmelse 44. At der ikke var tale om forskelsbehandling på baggrund af nationalitet, får nemlig kun betydning, da det gør det muligt ved vurderingen af, om den omstridte nationale lovgivning er forenelig med artikel 43 EF, at se på almene hensyn, der ikke omhandles af artikel 46, stk. 1, EF, som begrundelse for den påståede restriktion.
44 The fact that there was no discrimination depending on the operator’s Member State of origin is actually relevant only in the sense that it makes it possible to take into consideration, for the purposes of assessing the compatibility of the national rules at issue with Article 43 EC, reasons in the public interest, other than those set out in Article 46(1) EC, to justify the restriction which has been established.