natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endvidere må der henvises til fast retspraksis, hvorefter der kun er tale om ulovlig forskelsbehandling i de tilfælde, hvor ensartede situationer behandles forskelligt, medmindre en forskellig behandling er objektivt begrundet.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 7 October 1999 under the first paragraph of Article 230 EC, the Kingdom of Spain requested the partial annulment of Commission Decision 1999/603/EC of 28 July 1999 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, in respect of the financial adjustment imposed of 5% of certain expenditure declared by Spain under tariff headings 2111, 2112 and 2113, corresponding to the sector for public storage of bovine meat.
Herefter findes den spanske regering at have været i stand til at vurdere, om betingelserne for at forelægge sagen for forligsorganet, som de er fastlagt i artikel 2, stk. 2 i beslutning 94/442, var opfyldt.
In its first plea the Spanish Government claims that the adoption of the contested Decision infringed its rights of defence and the principle of legal certainty.
Den spanske regering har med sit andet anbringende gjort gældende, at vedtagelsen af den omstridte beslutning fandt sted under tilsidesættelse af ligebehandlingsprincippet.
It stated that enquiries carried out in Spain by its services between 20 and 24 January 1997 in the sector of public storage of beef had revealed that vital checks on weight, classification, presentation and temperature had not been conducted with the rigour required by Community legislation. It stated that, consequently:
I den foreliggende sag fremgår det af den sammenfattede rapport om resultaterne af kontrollen i forbindelse med regnskabsafslutningen for EUGFL, Garantisektionen, ifølge artikel 5, stk. 2, litra c), i forordning nr. 729/70 - hvad angår offentlig oplagring af oksekød, tobak, overskridelse af betalingsfrister, offentlig oplagring af korn, frugt og grøntsager, markafgrøder, erklæringen om regnskabernes rigtighed (DAS), kød og fisk (jf. dokument VI/4777/99) - at de forsømmelser, der er fastslået i på den ene side Kongeriget Spanien og på den anden side Det Forenede Kongerige og Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, er af forskellig art og alvor.
In the present case, the notification that the Commission sent to the Kingdom of Spain on 12 June 1998 set out the flat-rate percentage of the proposed adjustment, 5%, as well as the tariff headings to which that adjustment would be applied, namely headings 2111, 2112 and 2113.
Heraf følger af de grunde, generaladvokaten har fremlagt i forslaget til afgørelse, at situationerne ikke var sammenlignelige.
It also expressly stated that the adjustment would relate to 'purchase and stocks of forequarters delivered into intervention when the corresponding hindquarters are not part of an intervention scheme.'
Regeringen hævder, at de mangler, som Kongeriget Spanien foreholdes, svarer til dem, der er fundet i Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland samt i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, men at sanktionerne over for disse medlemsstater er
'...in the clearance of the accounts for the financial years 1996 and 1997, it is proposed to apply a flat-rate adjustment of 5% of the amounts declared by the Kingdom of Spain under tariff headings 2111, 2112 and 2113.
»1) Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber frifindes.
Moreover, it was all the more clear because the checks referred to by the Commission in its notification concerned compliance with Community provisions relating to public storage of bovine meat.
Generaladvokat L.A Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 6. marts 2001.
It also seems that the information contained in the notification of 12 June 1998 was enough to allow the Spanish Government, to whom the
Sag C-417/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Spanien Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
It follows that the Spanish Government was in a position to determine whether the conditions of referral to the Conciliation Body described in Article 2(2) of Decision 94/442 were satisfied.
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 96/62/EF — vurdering og styring af luftkvalitet — manglende af de kompetente myndigheder og organer, der skal gennemføre direktivet« (Femte Afdeling)
In its second plea the Spanish Government submits that the contested Decision was adopted in breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 29. oktober 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat en af sine forpligtelser i henhold til bestemmelserne i Rådets direktiv 96/62/EF af 27. september 1996 om vurdering og styring af luftkvalitet, idet det ikke har udpeget de kompetente myndigheder og organer, der er omhandlet i direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1.
It submits that the deficiencies complained of in its case are similar to those found in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in the Federal Republic of Germany, whereas the sanctions taken against those Member States were less severe.
Ved skrivelse af 2. marts 1999 svarede de spanske myndigheder, at der ikke var grund til at gennemføre bl.a. artikel 1 og 4, samt bilag I til direktiv 96/62, sålænge Rådet ikke havde fastsat grænse- og tærskelværdier i medfør af direktivets artikel 4.
In the present case the summary report relating to the results of checks in the clearance of accounts under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF in accordance with Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 concerning public stocks of bovine meat, tobacco, failing to comply with time-limits for payment, public storage of cereals, fruit and vegetables, arable crops, the statement of insurance (SOI), meat and fish (document VI/4777/99) shows that the deficiencies found in the Kingdom of Spain were of a different nature and seriousness to those found in the United Kingdom and in the Federal Republic of Germany. It follows that, for the reasons put forward by the Advocate General in his Opinion, the situations were not comparable.
Myndighederne gjorde desuden gældende, at forpligtelsen til at udpege de kompetente myndigheder og organer, der er omhandlet i artikel 3, stk. 1, i direktiv 96/62, er udskudt indtil Rådets vedtagelse af specifikke normer, der fastsætter grænse- og tærskelværdierne for luftforurenende stoffer opført i bilag I til direktivet.
In that respect, it must be observed first of all that each case must in principle be assessed separately to determine whether, when the Member State in question carried out operations
Faktiske omstændigheder og den administrative procedure
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.'
Kommissionen har kritiseret Kongeriget Spanien for at have tilsidesat den forpligtelse, der påhviler det i henhold til artikel 3, stk. 1, i direktiv 96/62.
He proposed that the Court should dismiss the application and order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Da Kommissionen ikke havde modtaget meddelelse fra Kongeriget Spanien om de foranstaltninger, som det skulle have truffet for at efterkomme direktiv 96/62, indledte den traktatbrudsproceduren.
Case C-417/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Spain Environment and consumers
Domstolens bemærkninger direktivet at fastsætte generelle foranstaltninger, som skulle suppleres med særforanstaltninger for de enkelte stoffer (jf. direktivets niende betragtning).
(Failure by a State to comply with its obligations — Directive 96/62/EC —Ambient air quality assessment and management — Failure to designate the competent authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the directive) (Fifth Chamber)
Den frist inden for hvilken forpligtelsen til at udpege de kompetente myndigheder og organer, der er omhandlet i direktivets artikel 3, stk 1, skal efterkommes
The Commission was not satisfied by the explanations provided by the Spanish authorities and decided to bring the present action, the subject-matter of which is confined to the designation of the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 96/62.
Det skal således afgøres, om forpligtelsen til at udpege har en generel karakter, og om den således skal opfyldes inden for en forud fastsat frist, eller om den snarere har en særlig karakter, således at opfyldelsen af den er undergivet fastsættelsen af grænse- og tærskelværdier.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 October 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an application under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under that directive.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at artikel 3 og 11 i direktiv 96/62 pålægger medlemsstaterne tre forskellige forpligtelser.
The Commission claims that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligation under the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 96/62.
For det første skal medlemsstaterne i medfør af artikel 3, stk. 1, på egnede niveauer udpege de kompetente myndigheder og organer, der bl.a. har til opgave at gennemføre direktivet (herefter »forpligtelsen til at udpege«).
Under the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive, it was required to designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 by 21 May 1998 at the latest.
Det fremgår af det foregående, at forpligtelsen til at udpege, der er fastsat i artikel 3, stk. 1, i direktiv 96/62, henhører under den første gennemførelsesfase.
The period within which the obligation to designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 96/62 must be complied with
Den spanske regering har i sit svar på den begrundede udtalelse gjort gældende, at det fremgår af artikel 3, stk. 2, i direktiv 96/62, at fristen for opfyldelse af forpligtelsen til at udpege er forbundet med forpligtelsen til at underrette på samme måde som forpligtelsen til at offentliggøre.
Since it had received no notification from the Kingdom of Spain concerning the measures which that Member State was required to take in order to comply with Directive 96/62, the Commission instituted proceedings against it for failure to fulfil its obligations.
Forpligtelsen til at udpege var således i henhold til direktivets artikel 11 blevet udskudt, indtil Rådet vedtog det første forslag forelagt af Kommissionen i medfør af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, første led, dvs. indtil den 22. april 1999.
Having given the Member State notice to submit its observations, by a letter of 25 August 1998 to which the Kingdom of Spain did not reply, the Commission addressed a reasoned opinion to it on 11 December 1998 requesting it to take the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under the directive within two months of notification of that opinion.
Det bemærkes i denne forbindelse, at direktiv 96/62 blev vedtaget, mens man afventede resultaterne af det videnskabelige arbejde, der var sat igang på det tidspunkt, vedrørende grænseog tærskelværdierne, der skulle finde anvendelse på visse luftforurenende stoffer.
First, the first paragraph of Article 3 states that Member States are required to designate at the appropriate levels the competent authorities and bodies responsible inter alia for implementing the directive ('the obligation to designate').
Direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1 og 5, bestemmer således, at når den videnskabelige forskning er tilendebragt, fastsætter Rådet efter forslag fra Kommissionen de nævnte grænseværdier og tærskler.
Second, Article 11 requires that Member States inform the Commission of the competent authorities, laboratories and bodies referred to in Article 3 ('the obligation to inform').
Da datoen for denne rådsbeslutning ikke kunne forudses på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af direktiv 96/62, besluttede fællesskabslovgiver ved
Third, the second paragraph of Article 3 provides that Member States must make the information referred to in the first paragraph of that article available to the public at the same time as they supply it to the Commission (the obligation to make public').
Det kan således konstateres, at i henhold til artikel 13, stk. 1, første afsnit, i direktiv 96/62, burde Kongeriget Spanien senest den 21. maj 1998 have udpeget de kompetente myndigheder og organer, der er omhandlet i direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1.
The Spanish authorities replied by letter of 2 March 1999 that it was not necessary to transpose inter alia Articles 1 and 4 or Annex I to Directive 96/62 until the Council had set the limit values and alert thresholds pursuant to Article 4 of that directive.
Det kan ikke påberåbe sig den længere frist, der er fastsat i direktivets artikel 11, for at udskyde forpligtelsen til at træffe de nødvendige
They maintained, moreover, that the obligation to designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 96/62 was suspended until the Council adopted the specific rules setting the limit values and alert thresholds for the atmospheric pollutants listed in Annex I to that directive.
lovgivningsmæssige og administrative foranstaltninger for at foretage en sådan udpegning.
It is clear from the foregoing that the obligation to designate provided for in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 96/62 falls within that first stage of transposition.
retstilstand med den fornødne bestemthed, klarhed og forståelighed, hvorved den enkelte borger har mulighed for at kende sine rettigheder og pligter.
In its reply to the reasoned opinion, the Spanish Government maintains that it is clear from the second paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 96/62 that the time-limit for complying with the obligation to designate is linked to that for the obligation to inform and also to that for the obligation to make public.
I den foreliggende sag bemærkes, at de normer, som den spanske regering henviser til, ikke har en tilstrækkelig præcisionsgrad. For eksempel nævner decreto n° 256/1995 fra Diputación General de Aragón ikke beskyttelsen mod luftforurening.
In that regard, it should be noted that Directive 96/62 was adopted pending the results of the scientific research being undertaken at that time, concerning limit values and alert thresholds applying to certain atmospheric pollutants.
Andre normer vedrørende »miljøkvaliteten« er for generelle i den forstand, at de hverken angiver de tildelte specifikke opgaver eller de berørte myndigheder.
It cannot rely on the extended time-limit provided for in Article 11 of the directive in order to postpone compliance with its obligation to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to make such designation.
Det bemærkes, at enhver medlemsstat frit kan fordele kompetencen på nationalt plan, som den finder det hensigtsmæssigt, og kan gennemføre et direktiv ved foranstaltninger, der træffes af de regionale eller de lokale myndigheder, men medlemsstaten fritages ikke herved for forpligtelsen til at omsætte direktivets bestemmelser til bindende internretlige bestemmelser.
Because the date of that Council decision could not be predicted when Directive 96/62 was adopted, the Community legislature decided to lay down general measures in the directive, which were to be supplemented by specific ones for individual substances (see the ninth recital in the preamble to the directive).
Gennemførelsen af et direktiv i national ret skal ske ved bestemmelser, der kan skabe en
The requirements to be met by national measures implementing Directive 96/62
Bestemmelserne i artikel 3, stk. 1, i direktiv 96/62 kan således ikke betragtes som gennemført ved de spanske normer med den bestemthed, klarhed og forståelighed, der er påkrævet for fuldt ud at opfylde retssikkerhedskravet.
It is therefore necessary to determine whether the obligation to designate is of a general nature and so can be complied with within a set period, or whether it is of a more specific nature in that compliance with it is conditional on the setting of limit values and alert thresholds.
»1) Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 96/62/EF af 27. september 1996 om vurdering og styring af luftkvalitet, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at udpege de kompetente myndigheder og organer, der er omhandlet i direktivets artikel 3, stk 1.
In that regard, a directive must be transposed into national law by provisions capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and transparent to enable individuals to ascertain their rights and obligations.
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger.«
In that regard, it should be noted, that the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 96/62 provides for implementation to take place in two stages.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 3. maj 2001.
In the first stage, Member States were to bring into force the provisions implementing Articles 1 to 4 and 12 of Annexes II, III and IV to the directive within 18 months of the entry into force of the directive.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
In the present case, it is clear that the provisions to which the Spanish Government refers are not sufficiently detailed.
»Tjenestemænd — meddelelse om ledig stilling — udnævnelse — begrundelsespligt — sammenlignende bedømmelse af kandidaternesfortjenester — ansættelsesmyndighedens skøn — bedømmelsesrapport — anmodning om forftyttehe« (En enkelt dommer)
Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under that directive;
»Tjenestemænd — intern udvælgesesprøve — udvælgelseskomiteens sammensæming« (Fjerde Afdeling)
Case T-351/99 Christian Brumter ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag C-35/00 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Det Forenede Kongerige
Case C-35/00 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom
Præjudiciel — Vestre Landsret — fortolkning af artikel 2, litra c) og i), i Rådets direktiv 90/434/EØF af 23. juli 1990 om en fælles beskatningsordning vedfusion, spaltning tilførsel af aktiver og ombytning afaktier vedrørende selskaber i forskellige medlemsstater — begreberne »tilførsel af aktiver« og »gren af en virksomhed« — muligheden for at holde et låneprovenu adskilt fra låntagerens gældsforpligtelse
Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 luly 1975 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, of Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste and of Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste declare that, by not adopting all the measures necessary to implement Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said directives;
Generaladvokat A Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling·) den 11. september 2001.
Advocate General A Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 11 September 2001.
Det er derimod ikke udelukket, at der kan være tale om en tilførsel af aktiver, som omhandlet i direktivets artikel 2, litra c) og i), såfremt det indskydende selskab i forbindelse med en overførsel af en gren af en virksomhed bevarer en selvstændig aktiepost i et tredje selskab.
However, the possibility that a transfer of assets, within the meaning of Article 2(c) and (i) of the directive, has taken place cannot be excluded where, in the event of the transfer of a branch of activity, the transferring company retains an independent shareholding in a third company.
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fFjerde Afdeling') den 11. september 2001.
Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fourth Chamber on 11 September 2001.
For at der kan være tale om en tilførsel af aktiver, som omhandlet i artikel 2, litra c) og i), i direktiv 90/434, skal det modtagende selskab være uafhængigt af det indskydende selskab og have passende midler til at drive egen erhvervsmæssig virksomhed, eventuelt ved optagelse af en kredit på normale markedsvilkår.
For there to be a transfer of assets within the meaning of Article 2(c) and (i) of Directive 90/434, the receiving company must be independent of the transferring company and have adequate means enabling it to perform its own business activity - where appropriate by taking out a loan under normal market conditions.
Såfremt det indskydende selskab stiller sikkerhed for en kredit, som det modtagende selskab har optaget, skal de nationale myndigheder vurdere, om en sådan sikkerhed er uomgængeligt nødvendig for, at det modtagende selskab kan drive sin egen virksomhed.
Where the transferring company guarantees a loan taken out by the receiving company, the national authorities need to assess whether this guarantee is indispensable for the purpose of enabling the receiving company to perform its own activity.
Såfremt dette er tilfældet, må det antages, at det modtagende
If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the conclusion must be that the latter is not capable of functioning by its own means'.
Sag C-233/99 Anklagemyndigheden (Ministère public) / Tonny Haugsted Hansen
Case C-233/99 Anklagemyndigheden (Public Prosecutor's Office) v Tonny Haugsted Hansen
Præjudiciel — Københavns Byret — fortolkning af artikel 5, 7, 9 og 18 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 94/62/EF af 20. december 1994 om emballage og emballageaffald — fortolkning af EF-traktatens artikel 30 (nu artikel 28 EF) — forbud mod markedsføring af importerede drikkevarer på dåse — lovligheden af strafsanktioner — direktivets direkte virkning
Preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 2(c) and (i) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Notions of 'transfer of assets' and 'branch of activity' — Whether possible to separate a loan from the obligations of the party taking out that loan
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Domstolens plenumi den 13. september 2001.
Advocate General A. Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 11 September 2001.