natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Bäde for sä vidt angär Fellesskabets ansvaruden for kontraktforhold og medlemsstaternes ansvar er det afgarendekriterium for, om en tilsidesrettelse af frellesskabsretten kan anses fortilstrrekkelig kvalificeret, om en medlemsstat eller en frellesskabsinstitutionäbenbart og groft har overskredetgrrenserne for sine sksnsbefojelser.
Mr Haim, a dentist, brought an action against an association of dentalpractitioners of social security schemes,a publiclaw body, in order to obtaincompensation for the loss of earningswhich he claimed to have suffered as aresult of the refusal of that body to enrol him on the register of dentalpractitioners, in breach of Community law.
När denpägeldende medlemsstat eller institution räder over et strerktbegrrenset ellerintet skon, kan selve den omstendighed, at der er begäet en overtredelse affrellesskabsretten, v & re titstrekkelig til at bevise, at der foreligger entilstrrekkelig kvalificeret tilsidesaettelse.
The Court was asked for apreliminary ruling as to whether, where a national official has either appliednationallaw conflicting with Community law or applied national law in a mannernot in conformity with Community law, the mere fact that he did not have anydiscretion in taking his decision gives rise to a serious breach of Community law,within the meaning of the case-law of the Court.
Med hensyn til argumentet om, at Retten skulle have foretaget en urigtig retsanvendelse, da den fastslog, at detpägreldende direktiv var en generel retsakt, prreciseredeDomstolen, at detforhold, om en retsakt udstedt af en institution er generel eller individuel, ikkeer et kriterium, der er afgarcndefor fastleggelsenaf grensernefor det sksn,den pägreldende institution räder over.
The Court answeredthat theexistence and scope of the discretion which should be taken into account whenestablishing whether or not a Member State has committed a sufficiently seriousbreachof Community law must be determinedby reference to Community lawand not by reference to national law.
Haim-sagen(dom af 4.7.2000, sag C-424197,endnu ikke trykt i Sarnling af Afgorelser) indeholder ogsä visse oplysninger om det sksn, der skal tages i
The discretion which may be conferred bynational law on the official or the institution responsible for the breach of
betragtning ved afgorelsen af, om en medlemsstat har begäet en kvalificeretovertrredelse af frellesskabsretten.
Community law is thereforeirrelevant in this respect.
Domstolentilfojede, at det pähviler enhver medlemsstat at sikre, at borgerne opnärerstatning for den skade, de tilfojes ved manglende overholdelse affellesskabsretten, uanset hvilken offentlig myndighed der er skyld i dennetilsidesrettelse, og uanset hvem der i princippet er forpligtet til at betaleerstatningen i henhold til den pägaldende medlemsstats ret.
The Court added that it isfor each Member State to ensure that individuals obtain reparationfor loss anddamage caused to them by non-compliance with Community law, whicheverpublic authority is responsibtefor the breach and whichever public authority isin principle, under the law of the Member State concerned, responsible formaking reparation.
Betaling aferstatning for skader, der er forvoldt borgerne ved administrativeforanstaltninger, som er truffet under tilsidesrettelse af fellesskabsretten, skalikke nodvendigvis foretages af medlemsstaten selv for at opfylde densforpligtelser i henhold til frellesskabsretten.
Reparationfor loss and damage caused to individuals bynational measures taken in breach of Community law does not necessarily haveto be provided by the Member State itself in order for its obligations under Community law to be fulfilled.
I medlemsstater, hvor visselovgivningsmressige eller administrative opgaver pä decentralvis varetages aflokale kollektive enheder, der har en vis autonomi, eller ethvert andetoffentligretligt organ, som i retlig henseende er adskiltfra staten,kan betalingaf erstatning for disse skader, der er forvoldt borgerne ved administrativeforanstaltninger, som er truffet af et offentligretligt organ, säledes foretages afdette organ.
Thus, in those Member States where certainlegislative or administrative tasks are devolved to territorial bodies with a certaindegree of autonomy or to any other publiclaw body legally distinct from the State, reparationfor such loss and damage, caused by measures taken by a publiclaw body, may be made by that body.
Frellesskabsretten er derfor ikke til hinder for, at det ansvar, der pähviler et offentligretligt organ for skade, der er forvoldt borgerne vedforanstaltninger, som det har truffet under tilsidesrttelse af faellesskabsretten, som i den foreliggende sag vil kunne pädrages ved siden af selvemedlemsstatens ansvar.
Community law therefore does notpreclude, as in the case in point, a publiclaw body, in addition to the MemberState itself, from being liable to make reparationfor loss and damage caused toindividuals as a result of measures which it took in breach of Community law.
I sagen Nederlandene og van der Wal mod Kommissionen (dom af I 1.1.
In Joined CasesC-174198 P and C-189/98 P l,{etherlands and van der
2000, forenedesager C-I74198 P og C-189/98P, SmI. I, sa.
Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February 1994 (OJ 1994 L 46, p. 58).
Domstolen anledning til at udtale sig om forholdet mellem retten til enretfrerdig rettergang, det generelle princip om aktindsigt i Kommissionensdokumenter samt undtagelsen fra dette princip, som er begrundet i beskyttelsen af offentlige interesser i forbindelse med retslige procedurer, jf. afgorelse8.94/90/EKSF, EF, Euratom om aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter
FundamentalFreedoms, comprises the right to a tribunal that is independent ofthe executive in particular, but that it is not possible to deducefrom that right orfrom the constitutionaltraditions common to the Member States that the courthearing a dispute is necessarily the only body empowered to grant access to thedocuments in the proceedings in question.
Gerard van der Wal havde i sin egenskab af advokat og medindehaveraf etfirma, sombeskeftiger sig med sager, der rejser konkurrenceretlige sporgsmälpä frellesskabsplan,anmodet Kommissionen om at fä tilstillet kopier afn & rmere angivne skrivelser, hvorved Kommissionen havde besvaret sporgsmäl,som var blevet forelagt den af de nationale domstole som led i samarbejdetmellem Kommissionen og de nationale domstole om anvendelse af traktatensartikel 85 og 86 (nu artikel 81 og 82 EF) n. Under henvisning til, at enoffentliggsrelse af svarenekunne skade beskyttelsen af offentlige interesser,navnlig retsplejehensyn, havde Kommissionen truffet en afgorelse om ikke atgive van der Wal aktindsigt i de omhandlededokumenter.
The existence of an obligation on the Commission to refuse access to documents which it holds, on the ground that theprotection of the public interest within the meaning of Decision 94190may beundermined, depends, in the context of its cooperation with national courts witha view to the application by them of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, on themanner in which such cooperation works in practice.
Van der Walanlagde derefter sag om annullation af denne afgorelse ved Retten, somfrifandt Kommissionen.
Where the documentssupplied by the Commission to national courts are documents which it alreadypossessed or which, although drafted with a view to particular proceedings,merely refer to the earlier documents, or in which the Commission merelyexpresses an opinion of a general nature, independent of the data relating to thecase pending before the national court, the Commission must assess in eachindividual case whether such documents fall within the exceptions laid down by Decision 94190.
Dommen blev appelleret til Domstolen, somunderstregede, at det almindelige fellesskabsretlige princip, hvorefter enhverhar ret til en retfrerdig rettergang, sorn har sin baggrund i artikel 6 i deneuropeiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder oggrundlaeggende frihedsrettigheder,indeberer en ret til at fä sin sag behandletaf en domstol, der er uaftrrengig,navnlig af den udsvendemagt, men at detikke heraf, eller af de forfatningsmressigetraditioner, der er felles formedlemsstaterne, kan udledes,at det kun er den retsinstans,for hvilken en sager indbragt, der har kompetence til at give adgang til akternei den pägreldenderetslige procedure.
On the other hand, where the documents supplied by the Commission contain legal or economic analysesdrafted on the basis of datasupplied by the national court, they must be subject to national procedural rulesin the same way as any other expert report, in particular as regards disclosure.The Commission must ensure that disclosure of documents of this kind does notconstitute an infringement of national law.
Kommissionens pligt at nregte aktindsigt i dokumenter, somden ligger inde med, fordi der er risiko for skade for offentlige interesser somomhandlet i afgorelse 94190, aftrrenger inden for rammerne af samarbejdetmellem den og de nationale domstole om disses anvendelse af traktatensartikel85 og 86 af, hvorledes dette samarbejde nrermereforegär.
In the event of doubt, it must consultthe national court and refuse access only if that court objects to disclosure of thedocuments.
När de dokumenter,Kommissionen udleverer til nationale domstole, er dokumenter, som denallerede lä inde med, eller dokumenter, som ganske vist er udfrerdiget medhenblik pä en konkret procedure, men blot henviser til sädanne dokumenter,eller hvori Kommissionenafgiver en generel udtalelse, som ikke har relationtil oplysningerne i den sag, der verserer for den nationale domstol, skal Kommissionen i hvert enkelt tilfrelde vurdere, om de er omfattet af de
Accordingly, by interpreting Decision 94190as meaning that theexception based on protection of the public interest in the context of courtproceedings obliges the Commission to refuse access to documents which itdrafted solely for the purposes of such proceedings, the Court of First Instanceerred in law.
Meddelelse 93 l C 3915om samarbejdet mellem Kommissionen og de nationaledomstoleom anvendelse af traktatens artikel 85 og 36 (EFT C 39, s. 6).
That principle requires that the addressees of decisions whichsignificantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they mayeffectively make known their views.
undtagelser, der er opregnet i afgorelse 94190.
particular that its right to a prior hearing had not beenobserved.
Med hensyn til sädanne dokumenter skal Kommissionen sikre sig, at en udlevering af dokumenterne ikke udgsr enovertrredelse af nationale bestemmelser.
The Court of First Instance rejected the plea alleging breach of the rights of defence and thecompany thus brought an appeal before the Court of Justice.
Retten havde derfor foretaget en urigtig retsanvendelse ved atfortolke afgorelse 94190 säledes, at undtagelsen med hensyn til beskyttelsen afoffentlige interesser i forbindelse med en retslig procedure forpligter Kommissionen til at nregte aktindsigt i dokumenter, som den har udfrerdigetalene med henblik pä en sädan procedure. Folgelig ophevede DomstolenRettens dom og annullerede Kommissionens afgorelse om ikke at give Gerard van der Wal aktindsist.
The latter found thatthe appellanthad not been invited by or on behalf of the Commission to submitits observations after a reasonable period on the documents recording the actionsfor which it was criticised and on the basis of which the Commission adopted thedecisions reducing the assistance of the European Social Fund, and that theappellant therefore had not been placed in a position effectively to make knownits views on the accusations made against it.
Efter at Rettenhavde forkastet anbringendet om tilsidesrettelse af retten til kontradiktion,appellerede selskabet afgorelsen til Domstolen. Denne fastslog, at appellantenikke af Kommissionen eller pä Kommissionens vegne var blevet opfordret tilat fremsrette sine bemrerkninger inden for en rimelig frist vedrsrende dedokumenter, der attesterede de forhold, som foreholdtesappellanten, og somdannede grundlag for Kommissionens beslutninger om nedsettelseaf tilskuddetfra Den Europreiske Socialfond, og at appellanten derfor ikke var i stand til attage stilling til de forhold, som blev foreholdt selskabet.
The Court of Justice therefore set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and annulled the decisions of the Commission reducing theassistance of the European Social Fund.
Artikel234, stk. 2, forpligter dog medlemsstaterne tilat bringe alle egnedemidler i anvendelse med henblik pä at fierne eventuelleuoverensstemmelser mellem en sädan konvention og EF-traktaten. Domstolenkonstaterede, at den portugisiske regering ikke inden for de i forordningnr.
So far as concerns the relationship between Community law andinternational law, the Court was given the opportunity in judgments of4 July 2000 in Case C-62198 Commission v Portugal and Case C-84198Commission v Portugal to explain the effect of the first paragraph of Article 234of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 307 EC)relating to the rights and obligations of Member States arising from agreementsconcluded before the entry into force of the Treaty.
Der eri traktatens artikel 234 foretaget en afuejning af en medlemsstatsudenrigspolitiske interesser over for Fellesskabets interesser, idetbestemmelsen dels giver en medlemsstat ret til at undlade at anvende enfellesskabsbestemmelse for at kunne respektere tredjelandes rettigheder, somfolger af en tidligere konvention, og overholde sine deraf folgendeforpligtelser, dels giver den ret tit at vrlge de egnedemidler til at gste aftalenforenelig med frellesskabsretten.
However, the second paragraph of Article 234 requires Member States to take all appropriate stepsto eliminate any incompatibilitiesbetween such an agreement and the EC Treaty.
De omtvistede aftaler indeholdt en regel, derudtrykkeligt gav de kontraherende parter mulighed for at opsige aftalen,hvorfor en opsigelse af aftalen fra Den Portugisiske Republiks side ikke kunnekrrenke tredjelandenesrettigheder i henhold til aftalen.
The Court found that the Portuguese Republic had not succeeded in adjusting the agreements in questionby diplomatic means within the time-limit laid down by Regulation No 4055186.
Folgelig fastslogDomstolen, at Den Portugisiske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser.
It stated that the existence of a difficult political situation in a third State which
Domstolen vendte ogsä tilbage til sporgsmälet om sin kompetence til atfortolke artikel 50 i aftalen om handelsrelaterede intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder (TRlPs-aftalen, der er indeholdt i bilaget til WTO-overenskomsten). Man vil erindre, at Domstolen allerede i Hermds-dommenaf 16.juni1998 (sagC- 53 19 6, Srnl.
It replied that, in a field to which TRIPs applies and in respectof which the Community has already legislated, the judicial authorities of the Member Siates are required by virtue of Community law, when they applynational rules with a view to ordering provisional measures for the protection ofrights falling within such a field, to do so as far as possible in the light of thewording and purpose of Article 50 of TRIPs.
I,s. 3603) havdefastsläet,at den for atundgä senere fortolkningsuoverensstemmelser havde kompetence til at fortolkeartikel 50 i TRlPs-aftalen pä varem & rkeomrädet, selv om de retsmidler, dern & vnes i bestemmelsen, samt de hertil knyttede processuelle regler er dem, derer fastsat ved den pägeldende medlemsstats lovgivning, eftersom TRlPs-aftalen er en aftale, der er indgäet af Frellesskabet og dets medlemsstater i medfsr afen delt kompetence, og bestemmelsen kan finde anvendelse bäde pä situationerhenhsrendeunder national ret og pä situationer henhsrende under frellesskabsretten.
Accordingly, Community law neitherrequires nor forbids that the legal order of a Member State should accord toindividuals the right to rely directly on the rule laid down by Article 50(6) of TRIPs or that it should oblige the courts to apply that rule of their own motion.
TRIPs-aftalensartikel 50 er nemlig enprocessuel bestemmelse, som skal anvendes pä samme mäde i alle situationerinden for sit anvendelsesomräde, og som bäde kan finde anvendelse päsituationer henhsrende under national ret og pä situationer henhsrende underfrellesskabsretten.
First, in Case C-269197 Commission v Council (udgment of 4 April 2000) the Commission brought an action for annulment of a Council regulation establishinga system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and the labellingof beef and beef products, adopted unanimously on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty.
Medlemsstaternes og frellesskabsinstitutionernes forpligtelsetil at have et nrrt samarbejde for at kunne opfylde de forpligtelser, som de harpätaget sig i medfsr af en delt kompetence ved vedtagelsen af WTO-overenskomsten, der indeholder TRlPs-aftalen , indebrerer - bäde af praktiskeog af retlige grunde - et krav om, at medlemsstaternes og frllesskabernesinstanser anlregger en ensartet fortolkning af bestemmelsen.Det er kun Domstolen, der i samarbejde med medlemsstaternes retter i medfsr aftraktatens artikel 177 er i stand til at sikre en sädan ensartet fortolkning.Domstolen blev ligeledesspurgt, om TRlPs-aftalens artikel 50, stk. 6, hardirekte virkning i frellesskabsretten, og svarede, at for sä vidt angär et omräde,hvorpä TRlPs-aftalen finder anvendelse, og hvor Fellesskabet allerede harlovgivet, er medlemsstaternes retlige myndigheder i medfor affrellesskabsretten forpligtede til, när de anmodes om at anvende deres nationaleregler med henblik pä at trreffe afgorelse om forelsbige foranstaltninger for atbeskytte rettigheder inden for et sädant omräde, sä vidt muligt at gare dette ilyset af ordlyden af og formälet med TRlPs-aftalens artikel 50.
The Commission contended that the correct legal basis for that regulationwas Article 100a of the Treaty and that it therefore should have been adopted inaccordance with the co-decisionprocedure. According to the Commission,recourse to Article 100a of the Treaty was justified by the fact that the principalobjective of the regulation, adopted within the context of the bovine spongiformencephalopathy crisis, was the protection of human health referred to in Article 129 of the Treaty and that, in such an important field, the Parliament hadto be able to participate in the legislative process.
När det drejersig om et omräde, hvor Frellesskabet endnu ikke har lovgivet, og som derforhsrer under medlemsstaternes kompetence, horer beskyttelsen af intellektuelle
Dismissing the action, the Court recalled that, in the context of the organisation of the powers of the Community, the choice of the legal basis for a measure must rest on objectivefactors which are amenableto judicial review. Those factors include in particular
ejendomsrettigheder og de foranstaltninger, der skaltrcffes med henblik herpäaf de retlige myndigheder, ikke under fellesskabsretten.
the aim and the content of the measure. In this connection, the fact that aninstitution wishes to participate more fully in the adoption of a given measure, thework carried out in other respectsin the sphereof action covered by the measureand the context in which the measure was adopted are irrelevant.
Heraf falget, atfrellesskabsretten., hverken päbyder eller udelukker, at en medlemsstatsretsorden anerkender, at borgerne ststter direkte ret pä bestemmelsen i TRIPs-aftalensartikel 50, stk. 6, eller at den pälregger domstolene en forpligtelse tilat anvende denne bestemmelse af esen drift.
In regulating the conditions for the production and marketing of beef andbeef products with a view to improving the transparency of those conditions, thecontested regulation was essentially intended to attainthe objectives of Article 39of the Treaty, in particular the stabilisation of the market in the productsconcerned. It was, therefore, rightly adopted on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty.
I to sager preciserede Domstolen forholdet mellem traktatens artikel 129(efter rendringnu artikel I52 EF) og to andreartikler i traktaten, nemlig dels artikel43 (efterrendringnu artikel 37 EF), dels artikel 100 A (efter rendring nu artikel 95 EF).
Besides,the protection of health contributes to the attainment of theobjectives of the common agricultural policy which are laid down in Article 39(1)of the Treaty, particularly where agricultural production is directly dependent ondemand amongst consumers who are increasingly concerned to protect theirhealth.
I den fsrste sag, Kommissionen mod Rädet (dom af 4.4.2000, sag C-269197,Srnl.
Second, in Case C-376198Germany v Parliament and Council Qldgment of5 October 2000), the Federal Republic of Germany applied for the annulment of
Domstolenfrifandt Rädet og fastslog, at valget af hjemmel for en retsakt efterkompetencefordelingen i Frellesskabet skal ske pä grundlag af objektiveforhold, som gor det muligt at foretage en domstolskontrol. Disse forholdomfatter navnlig retsaktensformäl og indhold.
The FederalRepublic of Germany contended in supportof its application that Article 100a wasnot the proper legal basis for that directive.
I den forbindelse er det udenbetydning, om en institution snsker at deltage mere indgäende i vedtagelsen afen given retsakt, hvilket arbejde der i ovrigt er udfort inden for det omräde,den pägreldende retsakt henhsrerunder, eller hvilken sammenhreng udstedelsenaf retsaktenindgär i.
In its judgment, the Court consideredin turn the question of the internal market and that of distortion of competition.With regard to the internal market, it observedthat the measures referred to in Article 100a(1)are intended to improve the conditions for the establishment andfunctioning of the internal market.
Traktatens artikel43 er rette hjemmel for enhver retsakt,der regulerer sporgsmälet om produktion af og handel med de i bilag II tiltraktaten opregnede landbrugsvarer, og som bidrager til virkeliggorelsenaf eteller flere af de mäl med den felles landbrugspolitik, som er fastlagt itraktatens artikel 39 (nu artikel 33 EF).
To construethat article as meaning that itvests in the Community legislature a general power to regulatethe internal marketwould not only be contrary to the express wording of Articles 3(c) and7a of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 3(1Xc) EC and 14 EC), but would alsobe incompatible with the principle embodied in Article 3b of the Treaty (now Article 5 EC) that the powers of the Community are limited to those specificallyconferred on it.
Hovedformälet med den anfagtedeforordning, hvorved det tilsigtes, at betingelserne for produktion ogmarkedsforing af okseksdsprodukter bliver mere gennemsigtige, er at
Moreover, a measure adopted on the basis of Article 100a of the Treaty must genuinely have as its object the improvement of the conditions forthe establishment and functionins of the internal market. While it is true that
virkeliggsre mälsaetningerne i traktatens artikel 39, herunder bl.a. at genoprettemarkedets stabilitet.
recourse to Article 100a as a legal basis is possible if the aim is to prevent theemergence of future obstaclesto trade resulting from multifarious developmentof national laws, the emergenceof such obstacles must be likely and the measurein question must be designed to prevent them.
Forordningen er säledes med rette blevet udstedt medhjemmel i traktatens artikel 43.
However, the prohibition, in particular, of advertising on posters,parasols, ashtrays and other articles used in hotels, restaurants and cafösand theprohibition of advertising spots in cinemasin no way helpedto facilitate trade inthe products concerned.
Det er herved uden betydning, at den ordning,som er indfsrt ved den anfagtede forordning, vil have en positiv indvirkningpä beskyttelsen af menneskers sundhed.
Moreover, the contested directive did not ensure freemovement of products which were in conformity with its provisions.