natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For det første indrømmes der præferencetakster til visse dagblade og til visse ugeblade samt til pressebureauet Belga. Dette går ud over, hvad der er tilladt i henhold til bilag I til direktivet, som begrænser de særlige foranstaltninger, der kan finansieres som forsyningspligtydelser, til faciliteter for »handicappede eller abonnenter med særlige sociale behov«.
— Third, the method for calculating the cost of the universal service, which is currently described in general terms by the Law of 21 March 1991, as amended, is incorrect in so far as it fails to take into account the 'nonmaterial' benefits connected with the provision of the universal service and therefore does not comply with Article 5(4) of the Directive.
Med hensyn til Kommissionens andet og tredje klagepunkt har den belgiske regering forklaret, at den den 23. december 1999 udstedte en kongelig anordning om tilpasning af artikel 1 og 4 i bilag 2 til loven af 21. marts 1991 om reform af visse offentlige økonomiske virksomheder til direktiv 97/33/EF {Moniteur beige af 9.2.2000, s. 3926).
In a letter sent to the Court on 3 April 2000, the Commission observes that, in its view, the Belgian legislation now complies with the Directive as regards the aspects referred to in the second and third complaints.
De nye bestemmelser, som finder anvendelse, indeholder detaljerede regler om den metode for beregning afnettoomkostningen ved forpligtelsen til at præstere forsyningspligtydelser, idet der tages højde for de fordele, som kan opnås af en erhvervsdrivende, som præsterer forsyningspligtydelser, samt til de kriterier, der er opstillet i bilag III til direktivet.
However, in respect of the first complaint, the Commission claims that it is still in the process of assessing the compatibility of the preferential tariffs granted to the Belgian press under the new legislation with the provisions of the Treaty on State aid. In that letter, the Commission did not, however, withdraw any of its three complaints.
For det andet er metoden til beregning af de erhvervsdrivendes bidrag til finansieringen af nettoomkostningerne ved forsyningspligtydelserne ufuldstændig og overholder ikke de krav til gennemsigtighed, som er opstillet i direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1.
The Belgian Government does not deny that Article 5 of the Directive, in conjunction with Annexes I and III thereto, have not been correctly implemented within the time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 23(1).
Nærmere bestemt har Kongeriget Belgien ikke udstedt og offentliggjort, eller under alle omstændigheder ikke underrettet Kommissionen om nogen foranstaltning, som fastsætter det nærmere indhold af denne beregningsmetode.
In this respect, it should be pointed out that, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.
Ved skrivelse af 3. april 2000 til Domstolen har Kommissionen anført, at den belgiske lovgivning efter Kommissionens opfattelse nu opfylder direktivet for så vidt angår de forhold, som er fremført i andet og tredje klagepunkt.
However, the Government contends that, in respect of the Commission's first complaint, on 3 December 1999, it adopted a Bill which provides, essentially, that the preferential tariffs
af forholdene i medlemsstaten, som de var ved udløbet af fristen i den begrundede udtalelse, og at ændringer af forholdene i tiden derefter ikke kan tages i betragtning af Domstolen.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 15 June 2000.
»1) Kongeriget Belgien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/33/EF af 30. juni 1997 om samtrafik på teleområdet med henblik på at sikre forsyningspligtydelser og interoperabilitet ved anvendelse af ONP-prinápperne, idet det ikke inden f or den fastsatte frist har sat de nødvendige love eller administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme bestemmelserne i artikel 5, sammenholdt med bestemmelserne i bilag I og III til direktivet
'(1) declare that by failing to transpose correctly Article 5, read in conjunction with Annex I, and by failing to adopt the measures required to transpose fully Article 5, read in conjunction with Annex I and III, of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 30 June 1997, on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive;
Kongeriget Belgien betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Case C-422/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Competition
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
State to fulfil its obligations
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 97/51/EF* (Tredje Afdeling) udstedt de ved lov og administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme dette direktiv, eller i al fald ikke har givet Kommissionen underretning herom.
(Failure of a Member 97I51IEC) (Third Chamber) regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive no later than 31 December 1997 and that they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof.
Direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, bestemmer, at medlemsstaterne sætter de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet senest den 31. december 1997 og straks underretter Kommissionen herom.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 October 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by failing to communicate to it the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives 90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation to a competitive environment in telecommunications, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Ved stævning indgivet til Domstolens Justitskontor den 29. oktober 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/5l/EF af 6. oktober 1997 om ændring af Rådets direktiv 90/387/EØF og 92/44/EØF med henblik på tilpasning til konkurrenceforhold på telekommunikationsområdet, idet den ikke har
Since the Commission had established that the period prescribed by the Directive had expired without the Italian authorities having communicated any national implementing measures and since it had no other information from which to conclude that the Italian Republic had adopted the necessary provisions, by letter of 25 August 1998, it gave the Italian Government formal notice to submit its observations in that respect within two months.
Den 12. april 1999 besvarede Den Italienske Republik den begrundede udtalelse og vedlagde dette svar et forslag til dekret om gennemførelse af flere fællesskabsdirektiver, herunder det i denne sag omhandlede direktiv.
By letter of 16 October 1998, the Italian Government replied to the Commission that it was in the process of drawing up the measures necessary to comply with the Directive.
Da Kommissionen i øvrigt ikke besad oplysninger, på grundlag af hvilke det kunne fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik havde efterkommet den begrundede udtalelse, besluttede den at anlægge nærværende sag.
However, since it had no other information from which to conclude that the Italian Republic had complied with the provisions of that opinion, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Den italienske regering svarede ved skrivelse af 16. oktober 1998, at den var i færd med at udarbejde de bestemmelser, der var nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet.
In its defence, the Italian Government does not deny having failed to adopt the implementing measures necessary to comply with the Directive.
Da Kommissionen ikke formelt fik underretning om endelige foranstaltninger, tilstillede den den 26. januar 1999 Den Italienske Republik en begrundet udtalelse og fremhævede herved, at denne endnu ikke havde underrettet den om de bestemmelser, den havde vedtaget for at efterkomme direktivet, hvorfor den opfordrede den til inden to måneder efter den begrundede udtalelses meddelelse at træffe foranstaltninger med henblik herpå og at give den underretning
Since no final legislative text had been communicated to it, on 26 January 1999, the Commission sent to the Italian Republic a reasoned opinion stating that it had not yet informed the Commission of the provisions which it had adopted to comply with the Directive and calling on it to adopt measures to that effect within two months of the notification of the opinion and to communicate them to the Commission.
Det bemærkes i denne forbindelse, at ifølge fast retspraksis kan en medlemsstat ikke påberåbe sig bestemmelser, fremgangsmåder eller forhold i sin nationale retsorden til støtte for, at forpligtelser og frister, der følger af et direktiv, ikke overholdes.
In that regard, it must be pointed out that, according to settled case-law, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 14. september 2000.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 14 September 2000.
Præjudiciel »EF-traktatens artikel 177 (nu artikel 234 EF) — begrebet ret i en medlemsstat — fri bevægelighed for personer — ligebehandling — oprykningpå grundlag af anciennitet — karriere delvis tilbagelagt i udlandet* (Femte Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — Freedom of movement f or persons — Equal treatment — Seniority — Part of career spent abroad) (Fifth Chamber)
Indklagede i hovedsagen er Republikken Østrig i sin egenskab af arbejdsgiver for overenskomstansatte lærere og assistenter.
By letter of 13 December 19%, the State Secretary for the Public Service rejected an application by the Gewerkschaftsbund asking for account to be taken, pursuant to Paragraph 26 of the VBG, of periods of previous employment spent by contractual teachers or teaching assistants in other Member States.
Ved kendelse af 30. april 1998 har Oberster Gerichtshof forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 48 (efter ændring nu artikel 39 EF) og artikel 177, samt af artikel 7 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet.
By order of 30 April 1998, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 177 of that Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475, hereinafter the Regulation').
Ved skrivelse af 13. december 1996 afviste Statssekretæren for Offentligt Ansatte en anmodning fra Gewerkschaftsbund om, at tidligere beskæftigelsesperioder, som overenskomstansatte lærere eller assistenter havde tilbagelagt i andre medlemsstater, blev godskrevet, jf. VBG's § 26.
To establish the reference date for the purposes of determining advancement and hence the pay scale of a contractual employee of the public administration, Paragraph 26(1) and (2) of the VBG provides that previous periods of employment spent in the service of an Austrian public authority or in public or State­recognised private teaching establishments in Austria are automatically deemed to precede in full the date of engagement of the person concerned as a contractual employee.
For så vidt angår det tidspunkt, der lægges til grund for oprykningen, og dermed også det løntrin, en overenskomstansat i det offentlige skal indplaceres på, bestemmer VBG's § 26, stk. 1 og 2, at tidligere beskæftigelsesperioder, der er tilbagelagt i et ansættelsesforhold med en østrigsk myndighed, en offentlig undervisningsinstitution eller en statsanerkendt privat undervisningsinstitution, automatisk godskrives fuldt ud i forhold til det tidspunkt, hvor den pågældende ansættes som overenskomstansat.
On the other hand, other periods of employment, that is to say those spent in another Member State or in an institution in Austria which is not covered by Paragraph 26(2) of the VBG are taken into account in full only with the approval of the competent authorities.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst og Republikken Østrig.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between the Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst and Republik Österreich (the Republic of Austria') concerning the compatibility with Article 48 of the Treaty and Article 7 of the Regulation of the rules contained in the Vertragsbedienstetengesetz 1948 (Federal Law on Contractual Public Servants of 1948, hereinafter the VBG') for the determination of certain teachers' pay.
Sagen drejer sig om, hvorvidt bestemmelserne i Vertragsbedienstetengesetz 1948 (forbundsloven af 1948 om overenskomstansatte, herefter »VBG«) om den lønmæssige indplacering af visse lærere er forenelige med traktatens artikel 48 og forordningens artikel 7.
The effect of those rules is that previous periods of employment spent in Austria are treated differently from those spent in other Member States for the purpose of determining the pay of contractual teachers and teaching assistants.
De nævnte bestemmelser medfører, at med hensyn til den lønmæssige indplacering af overenskomstansatte lærere og assistenter behandles tidligere beskæftigelsesperioder, der er tilbagelagt i Østrig, anderledes end beskæftigelsesperioder, der er tilbagelagt i andre medlemsstater.
By application of 14 July 1997, the Gewerkschaftsbund submitted an application, on the basis of Paragraph 54(2) of the ASGG, concerning the position of certain categories of contractual teachers and teaching assistants employed by the respondent in the main proceedings.
Tvisten i hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
The applicant in the main proceedings, the Gewerkschaftsbund, is a union representing inter alia public sector employees.
Derimod godskrives andre beskæftigelsesperioder, dvs. perioder, der er tilbagelagt i en anden medlemsstat eller i en institution i Østrig, som ikke er omfattet af VBG's § 26, stk. 2, kun fuldt ud, såfremt det er i det offentliges interesse, og de kompetente myndigheder meddeler deres godkendelse.
The respondent in the main proceedings is the Republic of Austria, as the employer of contractual teachers and teaching assistants.
Klageren i hovedsagen, Gewerkschaftsbund, er en faglig sammenslutning, som bl.a. repræsenterer de offentligt ansatte.
The Republic of Austria contended, however, that the rule in Paragraph 26 of the VBG simply took account of the different forms of employment in the public service of the various
Domstolen en hel række forhold i betragtning, nemlig om organet er oprettet ved lov, har permanent karakter, virker som obligatorisk retsinstans, anvender en kontradiktorisk sagsbehandling, træffer afgørelse på grundlag af retsregler, samt om det er uafhængigt.
Member States, that it was, therefore, consistent with the principle of proportionality and, moreover necessary in order to maintain the special regime applied in the public administration as regards promotion and pay.
Endvidere bemærkes, at nationale retsinstanser kun kan forelægge spørgsmål for Domstolen, hvis der verserer en tvist for dem, og hvis forelæggelsen sker med henblik på afgørelse af en retssag.
It is common ground that, from an institutional point of view, the Oberster Gerichtshof fulfils all the criteria to be a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty.
Det er ubestridt, at Oberster Gerichtshof i institutionel henseende opfylder alle de kriterier, der kendetegner en ret i traktatens artikel 177's forstand.
The Oberster Gerichtshof considers that the procedure provided for in Paragraph 54(2) to (4) of the ASGG does not correspond to the conventional view of litigation.
Oberster Gerichtshof er således oprettet ved lov, er uafhængig og udøver sine funktioner permanent.
It is rather, in its view, a matter of giving an advisory opinion on the law with the appearance of a judicial decision.
Oberster Gerichtshof har bemærket, at proceduren i henhold til ASGG's § 54, stk. 2, 3 og 4, ikke svarer til den almindelige opfattelse af begrebet judiciel kompetence. Efter rettens opfattelse er der snarere tale om et responsum, som retten skal afgive, og som udadtil har form af en retsafgørelse.
As regards the principle of freedom of movement the Oberster Gerichtshof considers that the Court has never ruled in a comparable case since, under Paragraph 26 of the VBG, previous periods of employment spent in other Member States are not automatically ignored but can be taken into account in full with the agreement of the competent authorities.
For så vidt angår de særlige omstændigheder ved den procedure, der er fastsat i ASGG's § 54, må det først fastslås, at de fleste af disse omstændigheder er karakteristiske for retslige procedurer.
As regards the characteristics of the procedure provided for by Paragraph 54 of the ASGG, it is to be noted, first, that most elements of that procedure are typical of judicial proceedings.
Navnlig virker Oberster Gerichtshof i henhold til ASGG's § 54, stk. 25, som obligatorisk retsinstans i den forstand, at begge parter i en tvist kan indbringe sagen for Oberster Gerichtshof uden hensyn til modpartens indsigelser.
In particular, the Oberster Gerichtshofs jurisdiction under Paragraph 54(2) to (5) of the ASGG is compulsory in the sense that either party may bring a case before the Oberster Gerichtshof regardless of the objections of the other.
Proceduren er reguleret af retsregler og er kontradiktorisk, idet parterne fastlægger sagens omfang.
The procedure is governed by law and it is inter partes, the parties determining the scope of the proceedings.
Endvidere bemærkes, at det fremgår af sagen, at den nævnte procedure indebærer, at der ikke kan forelægges rent hypotetiske spørgsmål for Oberster Gerichtshof.
Next, it appears from the court file that the procedure does not entail the referral of purely hypothetical questions to the Oberster Gerichtshof.
Oberster Gerichtshof finder, at sagens afgørelse afhænger af en fortolkning af de fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser, og har derfor udsat sagen og forelagt Domstolen nogle præjudicielle spørgsmål.
Taking the view that the case turns on the interpretation of Community legislation, the Oberster Gerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and refer a number of questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker Oberster Gerichtshof nærmere bestemt oplyst, om den, når den udøver funktioner som dem, der er fastsat i ASGG's § 54, stk. 25, er en ret i traktatens artikel 177's forstand og følgelig kan forelægge præjudicielle spørgsmål.
By its first question, the national court wishes to know essentially whether, in exercising the functions provided for by Paragraph 54(2) to (5) of the ASGG, it constitutes a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty and whether it is therefore admissible for it to refer a question for a preliminary ruling.
Endelig bemærkes, at selv om proceduren også udviser aspekter, der er mindre karakteriske for retslige procedurer end dem, der er omtalt i de to foregående præmisser — nemlig at Oberster Gerichtshof ikke træffer afgørelse i tvister, der vedrører en konkret sag, som involverer navngivne personer, at den ved sin retlige vurderingskal lægge de faktiske omstændigheder, klageren har anført, uprøvet til grund, at afgørelsen er konstaterende, og at retten til at indgive en begæring udøves kollektivt — er formålet med proceduren dog at nå frem til en afgørelse, der har karakter af en retsafgørelse.
Finally, although the procedure at issue also has features which are less characteristic of judicial proceedings than those mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, that is to say, the fact that the Oberster Gerichtshof does not rule on disputes in a specific case involving identified persons, that it must base its legal assessment on the facts alleged by the applicant without further examination, that the decision is declaratory in nature and the right to bring proceedings is exercised collectively, the procedure is none the less intended to result in a decision that is judicial in character.
Det bemærkes, at det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at for at bedømme, om det organ, der forelægger en sag, er en ret efter betydningen i traktatens artikel 177 — et spørgsmål, som alene skal afgøres på grundlag af fællesskabsretten — tager
It is settled case-law that in order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty, which is a question governed by Community law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent.
Navnlig bemærkes, at den endelige afgørelse er bindende for parterne, som ikke kan indgive
Moreover, a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment
forholdsregler over for dem vedrørende aflønning eller andre arbejdsvilkår.
Question 2 application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result.
endnu en begæring med henblik på at opnå en konstaterende afgørelse, der vedrører de samme faktiske omstændigheder, og som rejser de samme retlige spørgsmål. Endvidere er sigtet med proceduren, at den skal tjene som afgørende referencegrundlag i tilsvarende procedurer, der vedrører individuelle arbejdsgivere og arbejdstagere.
A provision of national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory if it is intrinsically liable to affect migrant workers more than national workers and there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage and if it is not justified by objective considerations independent of the nationality of the workers concerned, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by that law.
Heraf følger, at artikel 48, stk. 4, ikke finder anvendelse i hovedsagen. Der må herefter tages stilling til, om en bestemmelse som VBG's § 26 må antages at være i strid med det princip om forbud mod forskelsbehandling, der er fastsat i traktatens artikel 48 og i forordningens artikel 7, stk. 1 og 4.
By its second question, the national court is essentially asking whether Article 48 of the Treaty or Article 7(1) and (4) of the Regulation preclude a national rule such as Paragraph 26 of the VBG concerning the account to be taken of previous periods of service for the purposes of determining the pay of contractual teachers and teaching assistants, under which the requirements which apply to periods spent in other Member States are striaer than those applicable to periods spent in comparable institutions of the Member State concerned.
Det følger af ovenstående bemærkninger, at de præjudicielle spørgsmål kan antages til realitetsbehandling.
The Court has already held that national rules under which previous periods of employment in the public service of another Member State may not be taken into consideration constituted unjustified indirect discrimination and contravened Article 48(2) of the Treaty.