natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med det femte spørgsmål, der herefter skal behandles, ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om den kompetente nationale myndighed under denne sags omstændigheder er forhindret i at opkræve et beløb i medfør af artikel 3, stk. 1, i Kommissionens forordning nr. 2670/81, hvis den ikke har givet virksomheden meddelelse om en sådan opkrævning inden for den frist, som er foreskrevet i forordningens artikel 3, stk. 2.
'The Netherlands Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries was authorised, under Article 8(l)(a) and/or Article 10(1) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC, to adopt on 3 April 19% national rules enabling compensation to be paid in respect of loss suffered as a result of the slaughter of Britishborn calves on public-health grounds.
Med henblik på at besvare det femte spørgsmål skal visse karakteristika ved ordningen for Csukker omtales.
However, from the time when Commission Regulation (EEC) No 717/% became applicable on 11 April 1996, the Netherlands authorities were precluded from implementing those rules in a manner inconsistent with that regulation.'
For det andet er al udførsel af sukker fra Fællesskabet i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 13 betinget af en eksportlicens, der i henhold til artikel 4 i forordning nr. 2130/81 først kan udstedes, når den pågældende fabrikant over for den national myndighed har ført bevis for, at den mængde, for hvilken der er ansøgt om licens, eller en tilsvarende mængde faktisk er produceret ud over fabrikantens A- og B-kvoter.
Preliminary ruling (Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Powers of the Member States — Decision to slaughter and determination of the timing of slaughter of United Kingdom calves during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis in March 1996) (Fifth Chamber)
For det tredje anses sukker, for hvilket der ikke er ført bevis for, at det er udført fra Fællesskabet, for at være afsat på det interne marked. I dette tilfælde bestemmer artikel 3, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2670/81, at den pågældende medlemsstat, inden den 1. maj efter den 1. januar, som følger efter afslutningen af det
92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425.
Det bemærkes i øvrigt, at den fælles markedsordning for sukker bygger på et princip om selvfinansiering. Der opkræves ikke afgift af producenternes C-sukkerproduktion.
By decision of 19 October 1999, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the power of the Member States to order the slaughter of United Kingdom calves and determine its timing during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy ('BSE') crisis of March 19% and on the interpretation of Article 8 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 224, p.
Omkostningerne ved eksportrestitutionerne finansieres ved bidrag til produktionen.
29), as amended by Council Directive
Fristen i artikel 3, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2670/81 skal overholdes, og der er ikke fastsat nogen undtagelser.
Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau (Office for the Purchase and Sale of Foodstuffs), concerning a request by Denkavit for authorisation to complete the fattening of United Kingdom calves which were to be slaughtered and, in the alternative, compensation for the loss allegedly suffered owing to the impossibility of completing their fattening.
Det kan imidlertid ikke udelukkes, at en overskridelse af en sådan frist kan være berettiget i tilfælde af uregelmæssigheder.
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Med det sjette spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om den kompetente nationale myndighed, uden at tilsidesætte artikel 3 og 4 i forordning nr. 3665/87 eller de almindelige fællesskabsretlige principper, med tilbagevirkende kraft kan afslå at antage en udførselsangivelse, der er indgivet med henblik på at opnå eksportrestitutioner, og desuden forlænge den fastsatte frist for at føre bevis for udførslen, når virksomheden, som følge af at den hos vedkommende myndighed har ansøgt om og fået en eksportlicens for C-sukker, der ikke kunne anses som sådan, hverken har ansøgt om eller opnået de eksportrestitutioner, som den ville have haft til gode, hvis sukkeret var blevet eksporteret som A- eller B-sukker.
Article 8(l)(a) of Directive 90/425 permits the competent authorities of the Member State to which a consignment of animals is sent to order inter alia the slaughter of animals where they establish the presence of agents responsible for a disease which is subject to notification in accordance with Directive 82/894, a zoonosis or disease, or any cause likely to constitute a serious hazard to animals or humans.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret at foretage den nødvendige kontrol i denne forbindelse og drage de eventuelle konsekvenser heraf ved bl.a. at tage hensyn til, i hvilket omfang den kompetente nationale myndighed har haft kendskab til de pågældende forhold og den omhu, som den har udvist.
That provision must be interpreted in the light of its objective, which is to ensure that the health of animals and humans is protected, and of developments in scientific knowledge.
Det fremgår klart af ordlyden af artikel 4, stk. 1 og 4, i forordning nr. 3665/87, at udførselsangivelsens antagelse og beviset for udførslen inden for en frist på 60 dage for antagelsen, medmindre der foreligger force majeure, er betingelser, der uomgængeligt skal være opfyldt, for at eksportrestitutionen kan udbetales.
By order in Case C-180/% R United Kingdom ν Commission, the Court accepted the ban, in March 19%, on the export of cattle from the United Kingdom by way of a protective measure under Article 10 of Directive 90/425.
Ifølge grundforordningens niende betragtning må de kompetente myndigheder have mulighed for til stadighed at følge bevægelserne i samhandelen med tredjelande for at kunne bedømme dennes udvikling og i givet fald anvende de i denne forordning hjemlede foranstaltninger, som denne udvikling måtte kræve.
In accordance with the national legislation set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this judgment, the Netherlands authorities required the United Kingdom calves owned by Denkavit to be surrendered and slaughtered. Denkavit sought authorisation to complete the calves' fattening before surrendering them for slaughter and, in the alternative, compensation for the loss resulting from being unable to bring the calves to the age at which their fattening would be completed.
Det følger heraf, at en udførselsangivelse ikke kan antages, efter at udførslen har fundet sted, hvis denne kontrol skal kunne opretholdes.
The same considerations mean that the Member States were entitled, at that time, to order the slaughter of calves originating from the United Kingdom present in their territory, under Article 8(l)(a) of Directive 90/425.
For så vidt angår de oplysninger, som de kompetente nationale myndigheder råder over, må det understreges, at det i henhold til artikel 4 i forordning nr. 2630/81 kræves, at de kontrollerer, at betingelserne for at udstede eksportlicens er opfyldt.
The issue as to who was competent to order the slaughter of the calves in question and to determine when their slaughter should take place was raised in the main proceedings.
De pågældende myndigheder skal derfor anses for regelmæssigt at modtage detaljerede oplysninger om produktionstal og for at råde over alle de oplysninger, der er nødvendige, for at kunne bestemme de fremstillede og eksporterede mængder sukker.
The power to order the slaughter of animals necessarily presupposes the power to arrange for slaughter to be carried out efficiently and, in particular, to dictate to the animals' keepers when slaughter takes place.
Hvad angår begrebet force majeure, som er anvendt i artikel 4, stk. 4, i forordning nr. 3665/87, bemærkes, at det skal forstås som usædvanlige uden for eksportørens vilje liggende omstændigheder (jf. i denne retning dom af 17.12.1970, sag 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, præmis 23).
The College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven accordingly decided to stay proceedings and refer a number of questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Den forelæggende rets henvisning til de almindelige fællesskabsretlige principper skal forstås således, at den ønsker oplyst, om den foreliggende sags omstændigheder, henset til
It does not replace a national measure ordering the slaughter of animals adopted in accordance with Article 8(l)(a) of Directive 90/425.
Ved afgørelsen af, om overskridelsen af fristen i artikel 3, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2630/81 kan anses for at være berettiget, skal den nationale domstol derfor tage hensyn til, at de kompetente nationale myndigheder er forpligtet til at undersøge, om den mængde, der er ansøgt om eksportlicens for, faktisk er blevet fremstillet ud over A- og B-kvoterne.
By its questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven essentially asks whether the Community provisions applicable to the common agricultural policy in the beef and veal sector are to be interpreted as meaning that, in response to information concerning a possible link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans and to the BSE crisis in the United Kingdom, the Member States were entitled, under Article 8(l)(a) of Directive 90/425 or any other Community provision, to order the slaughter of young bovine animals originating from the United Kingdom present in their territory and to
En overskridelse er ikke berettiget, såfremt den nationale myndighed, således som den forelæggende ret i nærværende tilfælde har konstateret, råder over alle oplysninger til at afgøre, om virksomheden havde eller ikke havde fremstillet en mængde sukker svarende til sine A- og Bkvoter tilsammen.
The words 'die door een producent voor verkoop worden aangeboden' which appear in Article 1(1) of the Dutch version of Regulation No 717/% and literally mean *which are offered for sale by a producer' do not necessarily signify that it was for the producer to determine the
skal tage hensyn til disse betingelser i en situation som den, der er beskrevet af den forelæggende ret.
timing of the calves' slaughter. At the very most those words imply that the producer could choose between selling his animals in compliance with the conditions of that regulation and having them slaughtered without compensation.
disse principper, forpligter de kompetente nationale myndigheder til at udbetale eksportrestitutionerne.
Furthermore, as stated in paragraph 39 of this judgment, the effect of Regulation No 717/% is not to replace a national measure ordering the slaughter of animals adopted in accordance with Article 8(l)(a) of Directive 90/425.
Der må derfor fastslås, at det i en situation som beskrevet af den forelæggende ret ikke er i strid med et fællesskabsretligt princip at afslå at udbetale eksportrestitutioner,
If the national authorities could limit access to the slaughter programme envisaged by that regulation, they could a fortiori organise it efficiently and, in particular, determine when slaughter took place.
Hertil bemærkes, at de betingelser, der gælder for udbetaling af restitutioner ved udførsel af landbrugsprodukter, er fastsat i forordning nr. 3665/87. Henset til besvarelsen af det første spørgsmål, er der intet der tyder på, at der ikke
As to the argument alleging discrimination between producers contrary to Article 40(3) of the Treaty, it should be remembered that, in accordance with settled case-law, the general principle of equality, which is one of the fundamental principles of Community law, precludes comparable situations from being treated in a different manner unless the difference in treatment is objectively justified (see, in particular, Case C-189/01 Jippes and Others).
»1) I henhold til artikel 24, stk 1, andet afsnit, litra c), i forordning (EØF) nr. 1785/81 af 30. juni 1981 om den fælles markedsordning for sukker, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 305/91 af 4. februar 1991, skal en virksomhed faktisk have fremstillet en mængde sukker, som svarer til dens A-og Bkvoter tilsammen, førend den kan udpege sukker som C-sukker.
Suffice it to state that the measure of slaughtering United Kingdom calves without delay, regardless of their age, their weight and, therefore, the profit which the farmer could derive from their sale, was objectively justified on grounds of public health.
En overskridelse af fristen kan accepteres, når den kompetente nationale myndighed, medmindre den har handlet forsømmeligt, var uvidende om detaljerne vedrørende virksomhedens sukkerproduktion, og denne uvidenhed fornuftigvis kan henregnes til den pågældende virksomhed, da virksomheden i så fald ikke har handlet i god tro og ikke har overholdt alle de relevante bestemmelser.
Since the power of the Member States to order the slaughter of the animals and to determine its timing has been established under Article 8(1 )(a) of Directive 90/425, it is unnecessary also to interpret Article 10(1) of that directive.
Den kompetente nationale myndighed kan, uden at tilsidesætte artikel 3 og 4 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3665/87 af 27. november 1987 om fælles gennemførelsesbestemmelser for eksportrestitutioner for landbrugsprodukter eller de almindelige fællesskabsretlige principper, med tilbagevirkende kraft afslå at antage en udførselsangivelse, der er indgivet med henblik på at opnå eksportrestitutioner og forlænge den fastsatte frist for beviset for udførslen, når virksomheden, som følge af at den hos vedkommende myndighed har ansøgt om og fået en eL·portlicens for C-sukker, der ikke kunne anses som sådan, hverken har ansøgt om eller opnået de eksportrestitutioner, som den vüle have haft til gode, hvis sukkeret var blevet eksporteret som A- euer B-sukker.*
'The Community provisions applicable to the common agricultural policy in the beef and veal sector are to be interpreted as meaning that, in response to information concerning a possible link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans and to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis in the United Kingdom, the Member States were entitled, under Article 8(1) (a) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market, as amended by Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425:
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 15. maj 2001.
— to order the slaughter of young bovine animals originating from the United Kingdom present in their territory and
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
— consequently, to determine when their slaughter took place.'
Sag C-480/99 Ρ Gerry Plant m.fl. / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber South Wales Small Mines Association EKSF
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 29 November 2001.
»Appel — annullationssøgsmål i henhold til EKSF-traktatens artikel 33 kontradiktionsprincippet i domstolsproceduren* (Sjette Afdeling) registreret, som er blevet dannet for at repræsentere interesserne hos de mindre erhvervsdrivende, der driver kulminer i det sydlige Wales.
'Article 8(l)(a) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC provided a sufficient basis in Community law for the adoption by the Netherlands authorities of rules requiring the slaughter, at a time to be determined by those authorities, of calves born in the United Kingdom, in the context of the BSE crisis in the months following March 19%.
Nogle af disse erhvervsdrivende indgav under det fælles navn SWSMA en klage til Kommissionen, der var dateret den 5. juni 1990, og hvori de kritiserede anvendelsen af diskriminerende forretningsvilkår, der stred mod EKSF­traktatens bestemmelser.
Nothing in that directive or in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 717/%, which authorises the payment of a flat rate of compensation in respect of that slaughter and on which such measures could also be based, in any way limits the discretion of the national authorities to determine the moment of slaughter in those circumstances.'
Faktiske omstændigheder og retsforhandlingerne ved Retten
Case C-101/99 The Queen ν Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar pic Agriculture
Afsnittet »Faktiske omstændigheder og retsforhandlinger« i den appellerede kendelse angiver bl.a. følgende:
Preliminary ruling (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets - Sugar —Attribution as C sugar of a quantity of sugar produced during a given marketing year — Charge payable in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market — Levied in the case of export with an export licence — Export refunds) (Sixth Chamber)
Kommissionen om formelt at meddele dem beslutningen, hvilket Kommissionen afslog ved skrivelse af 24. august 1998.
common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products.
Da sagsøgerne den 16. september 1998 var blevet bekendt med, at SWSMA ikke inden for de gældende frister havde anfægtet beslutningen, anlagde de ved stævning indgivet til Rettens Justitskontor den 21. september 1998 sag til anfægtelse af beslutningen i henhold til EKSF­traktatens artikel 33, stk. 2, og artikel 35 (sag T­148/98).
Regulation No 2670/81. In November 19%, IBAP informed British Sugar that it considered that the exports made between November 1992 and January 1993 were not exports of C sugar but rather exports of A and Β sugar and that a charge would probably be imposed on it pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81.
Bernard John Llewellyn antog, at idet SWSMA's advokat havde modtaget kopi af den omtvistede beslutning, ville denne herefter iværksætte de fornødne skridt.
On 19 May 1997 IBAP demanded £6 641 608.10 from British Sugar.
Men ifølge SWSMA modtog dets advokat faktisk ikke en kopi af den nævnte beslutning fra Kommissionen, og sammenslutningen blev først bekendt med beslutningen den 8. september 1998.
Those questions were raised in proceedings brought by British Sugar pic before the national court in response to the decision of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce ('IBAP') to demand the payment of a charge pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2670/81 for failure to dispose of C sugar outside the Community and to reject its application for refunds on sugar exports.
Ved skrivelse af 25. juni 1999 anmodede Rettens justitssekretær parterne i sagerne T­148/98 og Τ­Ι 62/98 om at fremkomme med bemærkninger til en eventuel forening af de to sager.
In those circumstances British Sugar requested IBAP, in light of the purported 'reclassification', to pay it the export refunds which would normally have been payable to it in respect of the sugar which IBAP was now treating as A and Β sugar. IBAP rejected that request by letter of 5 June 1997.
Ved stævning indgivet til Rettens Justitskontor den 6. oktober 1998 har SWSMA anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af beslutningen i henhold til EKSF­traktatens artikel 33, stk. 2 (sag T­162/98).
In September 1992 British Sugar signed a contract with a customer for the export of sugar produced during the marketing year 1992/93. That contract was subsequently altered to provide for the export of C sugar before a quantity equivalent to the A and Β quotas had actually been produced.
Det var kun Kommissionen, der ved skrivelser registreret på Justitskontoret den 3. juli 1999 svarede inden for den fastsatte frist.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, decided to refer a number of questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Ved skrivelse indgivet den 25. juni 1999 er der på vegne af nogle af sagsøgerne i sag T­148/98 indgivet ansøgning om fri proces til Retten i henhold til procesreglementets artikel 94.
By its first question, the national court seeks to ascertain whether an undertaking may attribute sugar as C sugar where it is undeniable that during a marketing year it has produced that sugar before it has actually produced a volume of sugar equivalent to its A and Β quotas.
Idet den formalitetsindsigelse, der blev fremsat over for sagsøgerne i sag T­148/98, der fremstillede sig som tidligere medlemmer af SWSMA, navnlig blev begrundet med en påstået manglende overholdelse af den i traktatens artikel 33, stk. 3, fastsatte søgsmålsfrist på en måned, stillede Retten skriftligt ved Justitskontorets skrivelse af 28. april 1999 de nævnte sagsøgere spørgsmål vedrørende de omstændigheder, under hvilke de havde fået kendskab til den omtvistede beslutning.
On 7 January 1993, the date on which British Sugar's total production exceeded the sum of its A and Β quotas, the quantity of sugar exported by British Sugar as C sugar was 16 650.465 tonnes.
Ved den appellerede kendelse har Retten: forenet sagerne T­148/98 og T­162/98 i medfør artikel 50 i dens procesreglement
Under the common organisation of the market in sugar all sugar produced within the Community falls into one of the following categories: A sugar, Β sugar or C sugar.
De forhold, der angives nedenfor, følger af den samlede fastlæggelse af de faktiske omstændigheder, Retten har foretaget på grundlag af sagsakterne i de to sager.
Following scrutiny visits beginning on 23 October 1993, IBAP found that sugar described as C sugar had been exported.
truffet afgørelse vedrørende de af Kommissionen fremsatte formalitetsindsigelser uden at indlede behandlingen af sagens realitet og uden mundtlige forhandling i overensstemmelse med procesreglementets artikel 114
In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the basic regulation, in respect of a given marketing year and a specific undertaking, A sugar means any quantity of sugar produced within the undertaking's A quota, Β sugar means any quantity of sugar outside its A quota but within the sum of its A and Β quotas, and C sugar means any quantity of sugar outside the sum of its A and Β quotas or produced by an undertaking without any quota.
Den omtvistede beslutning blev meddelt SWSMA på den eneste adresse, den havde givet Kommissionen oplysning om.
On receiving information from IBAP, the customs authorities opened an investigation which was completed in April 1995.
Skrivelsen, der indeholdt beslutningen, blev overgivet til Bernard John Llewellyn, der var sekretær for SWSMA på datoen for klagens indgivelse. Han bekræftede i afvist de to sager.
On being notified by IBAP of an alleged infringement of the rules regulating the common organisation of the sugar market, the Commission informed IBAP in July 1996 that in its view British Sugar was liable to pay a charge under Article 3 of
Retten fastslog endvidere, at det var ufornødent at tage stilling til ansøgningen om fri proces og begæringerne om intervention.
The one condition for sugar to be treated as C sugar is, in the case of an undertaking having a quota, that it should exceed the A and Β quotas.
Med henblik på at fastslå at de to sager, der var anlagt for Retten, skulle afvises, bemærkede Retten følgende:
circumstances, avoid payment of the levy on the quota sugar which they ought to have produced, thus increasing the costs borne by the other manufacturers of quota sugar.