natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
På denne baggrund skal gravide arbejdstageres ret til barselsorlov anses for et middel til beskyttelse af en social rettighed af særlig betydning. Fællesskabslovgiver har således været af den overbevisning, at væsentlige ændringer i den berørtes levevilkår i løbet af den periode, der er begrænset til mindst 14 uger før og efter en fødsel, er en begrundet årsag til at afbryde udøvelsen af dennes erhvervsaktivitet, uden at der på nogen måde kan rejses tvivl om årsagens rimelighed af de offentlige myndigheder eller af arbejdsgiverne.
That is the case in regard to benefits the payment of which is dependent on the prior existence of an employment relationship which has come to an end and is intrinsically linked to the recipients’ objective status as workers (Meints, cited above, paragraph 41, and Case C-43/99 Leclere and Deaconescu [2001] ECR I-4265, paragraph 57).
Som det fremgår af Domstolens praksis, der er gengivet i denne doms præmis 46, har den beskyttelse, moderen tildeles i form af barselsorlov, til hensigt at undgå en dobbeltbelastning.
In a situation like the one in the main proceedings, where the benefit at issue was intended to provide income for an unemployed applicant for an invalidity pension who had worked as an employed person in the Member State concerned, it must be stated that since, as the Advocate General points out in point 72 of his Opinion, such a benefit is linked to the risks of both unemployment and invalidity, it flows directly from an ‘employment relationship’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC.
Den pasning, det første barn kræver i overensstemmelse med formålet med forældreorloven i henhold til rammeaftalen, udgør i moderens sidste fase af graviditeten en med hensyn til karakter og betydning sammenlignelig dobbeltbelastning.
It follows that a national of a Member State in a situation such as that of Mr Petersen must be regarded as continuing to be a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC for the purposes of obtaining the benefit at issue and, consequently, such a national comes within the scope of that article.
Det er derfor begrundet at kræve, at en sådan dobbeltbelastning undgås ved, at den berørte, som følge af denne situation, kan ændre orlovsperioden.
It must therefore be considered whether a residence requirement such as that imposed for the grant of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings constitutes an ‘obstacle to the freedom of movement for workers’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC.
På baggrund af ovenstående følger det, at den periode, der er begrænset til mindst 14 uger før og efter fødslen, skal anses for en situation, der i lyset af formålet med forældreorloven i henhold til rammeaftalen udgør en hindring af gennemførelsen af orloven og derfor må anses som en begrundet årsag til, at perioden for denne orlov ændres.
According to settled caselaw, the equal treatment rule which appears in Article 39(2) EC prohibits not only overt discrimination on grounds of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead in fact to the same result (see, in particular, Meints, cited above, paragraph 44; Case C-212/05 Hartmann [2007] ECR I-6303, paragraph 29; and Case C-213/05 Geven [2007] ECR I-6347, paragraph 18).
Da forskelsbehandling som følge af bestemmelser som de i hovedsagen omhandlede kun kan berøre kvinder, indebærer bestemmelserne, der fastsætter vilkårene for arbejdsforholdet, direkte forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn, hvilket er forbudt i henhold til artikel 2 i direktiv 76/207 (jf. i denne retning Busch-dommen, præmis 38).
That is true of a residence condition such as the one to which the grant of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings is subject, which can be more easily met by national workers than by those from other Member States, since the latter workers above all, particularly in the case of unemployment or invalidity, tend to leave the country in which they were formerly employed to return to their countries of origin (see, to that effect, Paraschi, cited above, paragraph 24, and Case C-290/00 Duchon [2002] ECR I-3567, paragraph 38).
Desuden har Domstolen allerede fastslået, at en orlov, der er foreskrevet i fællesskabsretten, ikke kan påvirke retten til at tage en anden orlov, der er sikret ved fællesskabsretten (dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Luxembourg, præmis 33, og dom af 6.4.2006, sag C-124/05, Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, Sml. I, s. 3423, præmis 24).
The Austrian Government has not sought to explain the objective which is to be achieved by the residence requirement imposed by the national rules for the grant of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings and, consequently, has not put forward any factor whatsoever to justify that condition in relation to the overriding reasons in the general interest protected by Article 39 EC.
Heraf følger, at fællesskabsretten er til hinder for en arbejdsgivers afgørelse som den, der i hovedsagen blev truffet den 10. december 2004, hvilken afgørelse indebærer, at en gravid arbejdstager ikke efter ansøgning kan opnå en ændring af perioden for børnepasningsorloven på det tidspunkt, hvor hun ansøger om barselsorlov, og således fratager hende de rettigheder, der følger af barselsorloven i henhold til artikel 8 og 11 i direktiv 92/85.
In order to provide the national court with a complete answer, it should be pointed out, however, that although it is possible that the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system may, in particular, constitute an overriding reason in the general interest (see, in particular, Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931, paragraph 41, and Case C-208/05 ITC [2007] ECR I-181, paragraph 43), the existence of such a risk would be difficult to establish since, as the Advocate General points out in point 81 of his Opinion, by granting the benefit at issue in the main proceedings to applicants for an invalidity pension who, at the time that they submit their application, reside in the national territory, the competent authorities have in fact demonstrated their capacity to bear the economic burden of that benefit until such time as a definitive decision has been adopted in regard to it.
På baggrund af ovenstående betragtninger skal det første og det tredje spørgsmål besvares med, at artikel 2 i direktiv 76/207, der forbyder enhver direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn for så vidt angår arbejdsvilkår, og artikel 8 og 11 i direktiv 92/85, der vedrører barselsorlov, er til hinder for nationale bestemmelser om børnepasningsorlov, der, idet omfang de ikke tager hensyn til de ændringer, der følger af den pågældende arbejdstagers graviditet i den periode, som er begrænset til mindst 14 uger før og efter en fødsel, ikke giver den berørte adgang til, efter ansøgning, at opnå en ændring i perioden for børnepasningsorloven på det tidspunkt, hun gør sin ret til barselsorlov gældende, og således fratager hende de rettigheder, der følger af barselsorloven.
In addition, it must be pointed out that the residence requirement at issue in the main proceedings seems disproportionate since it is imposed in respect of a social security benefit which, like the benefit at issue in the main proceedings, is intended to be paid to applicants for an invalidity pension for a limited period which, according to the Austrian Government, does not exceed, on average, three to four months during which, while waiting for a definitive decision on the grant of such a pension, they are not required to be capable of working, willing to work and available for work (see, to that effect, Collins, cited above, paragraphs 68 and 69).
Det andet spørgsmål stilles kun i tilfælde af, at Domstolen er af den opfattelse, at de i hovedsagen omhandlede nationale bestemmelser indebærer en indirekte forskelsbehandling.
If, at the end of that waiting period, the invalidity pension is granted, the competent authorities in the Member State concerned, who must deduct from it the amounts paid by way of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings, will, in any event be required by Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 to pay the pension in question, even if the recipient transfers his residence to another Member State.
Da sagens behandling i forhold til hovedsagens parter udgør et led i den sag, der verserer for den nationale ret, tilkommer det denne at træffe afgørelse om sagens omkostninger.
In any event, even if such checks were provided for, it would still have to be ascertained whether it was not sufficient to request that the recipient go to the Member State concerned for the purpose of undergoing such checks, if necessary, on pain of suspension of payment of the benefit in the event of unwarranted refusal on the part of the recipient (see, to that effect, Case C-499/06 Nerkowska [2008] ECR I-3993, paragraph 45).
Bortset fra nævnte parters udgifter kan de udgifter, som er afholdt i forbindelse med afgivelse af indlæg for Domstolen, ikke erstattes.
It follows from the foregoing that, with regard to the grant of a benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings and inasmuch as the file submitted to the Court does not contain any factor which might objectively justify a residence requirement, that requirement must be regarded as incompatible with Article 39 EC.
Artikel 2 i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår, som ændret ved Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2002/73/EF af 23. september 2002, der forbyder enhver direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn for så vidt angår arbejdsvilkår, samt artikel 8 og 11 i Rådets direktiv 92/85/EØF af 19. oktober 1992 om iværksættelse af foranstaltninger til forbedring af sikkerheden og sundheden under arbejdet for arbejdstagere, som er gravide, som lige har født, eller som ammer (tiende særdirektiv i henhold til artikel 16, stk. 1, i direktiv 89/391/EØF), der fastsætter regler for barselsorlov,
Consequently, the answer to the second question must be that, inasmuch as no factor has been put forward which shows that such a condition is objectively justified and proportionate, Article 39 EC must be interpreted as preventing a Member State from making the grant of a benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which must be regarded as an ‘unemployment benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71, subject to the condition that the recipients be resident in the national territory of that State.
Sag C-177/06
Case C-251/07
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Kongeriget Spanien
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen)
»Statsstøtte — støtteordning — uforenelig med fællesmarkedet — Kommissionens beslutning — gennemførelse — ophævelse af støtteordningen — indstilling af støtte, der endnu ikke er udbetalt — tilbagesøgning af støtte, der allerede er stillet til rådighed — undladelse— sagsøgtes anbringender — beslutningens ugyldighed — absolut umulighed for gennemførelsen«
(Environment — Directive 2000/76/EC — Incineration of waste — Classification of an installation for the production of heat and electricity — Concepts of incineration plant and co-incineration plant)
Domstolens dom (Anden Afdeling) af 20. september 2007 . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 11 September 2008 . . . . . . . .
Traktatbrudssøgsmål — manglende efterkommelse af en beslutning fra Kommissionen om en statsstøtteforanstaltning — sagsøgtes anbringender
Environment — Waste — Incineration — Directive 2000/76 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/76, Art. 3(4) and (5))
Traktatbrudssøgsmål — manglende efterkommelse af en beslutning fra Kommissionen om en statsstøtteforanstaltning — sagsøgtes anbringender
For the purposes of applying Direct- ive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste, where a co-generation plant comprises a number of boilers, each boiler and its associated equipment is to be regarded as constituting a separate plant.
(jf. præmis 30-32 og 37)
II — Legal framework
Noget andet gælder kun, såfremt den anfægtede retsakter behæftet med så grove og åbenbare mangler, at den må betragtes som ikke-eksisterende. Dette gælder ligeledes for traktatbrudssøgsmål i henhold til artikel 88, stk. 2, andet afsnit, EF.
‘The aim of this Directive is to prevent or to limit as far as practicable negative effects on the environment, in particular pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface water and groundwater, and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-incineration of waste.
Den eneste indsigelse, som kan gøres gældende af en medlemsstat over for et af Kommissionen anlagt traktatbrudssøgsmål i henhold til artikel 88, stk. 2, EF, er indsigelsen om, at det er absolut umuligt at gennemføre beslutningen korrekt.
More precisely, it is necessary to establish whether a plant for the production of heat and electricity (‘co-gener-ation plant’) 3falls to be considered as a whole or whether each boiler must be taken into account separately and new incineration plants are to be distinguished from co-incin-eration plants.
ordningen afskaffes samt at al endnu ikke udbetalt støtte indstilles og allerede udbetalt støtte tilbagesøges, når denne medlemsstat ikke har taget skridt til at gennemføre disse forpligtelser inden for de fastsatte frister.
Incineration plants and co-incineration plants are defined in Article 3(4) and (5):
Inden for rammerne af et af Kommissionen anlagt traktatbrudssøgsmål i henhold til artikel 88, stk. 2, EF skal Domstolen ikke tage stilling til en påstand om, at det fastslås, at en medlemsstat har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser ved ikke at have oplyst Kommissionen om foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af en beslutning, hvorved en statsstøtteordning erklæres uforenelig med fællemarkedet og det pålægges, at
This definition covers the site and the entire incineration plant including all incineration lines, waste reception, storage, on-site pretreatment facilities, [waste-, fuel- and air-supply systems], boiler, facilities for the treatment of exhaust gases, on-site facilities for treatment or storage of residues and waste water, stack, devices and systems for controlling incineration operations, recording and monitoring incineration conditions;
(jf. præmis 53 og 54)
‘For the purposes of this Directive:
DOM AF 20.9.2007 — SAG C-177/06
— which uses wastes as a regular or additional fuel; or
I sag C-177/06, angående et traktatbrudssøgsmål i henhold til artikel 88, stk. 2, EF, anlagt den 4. april 2006,
— in which waste is thermally treated for the purpose of disposal.
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber ved F. Castillo de la Torre og C. Urraca Caviedes, som befuldmægtigede, og med valgt adresse i Luxembourg, sagsøger, mod
“incineration plant” means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of wastes with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated.
Kongeriget Spanien ved N. Díaz Abad, som befuldmægtiget, og med valgt adresse i Luxembourg, sagsøgt,
This includes the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma processes in so far as the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated.
DOMSTOLEN (Anden Afdeling) sammensat af dommerne K. Schiemann, som fungerende formand for Anden Afdeling, L. Bay Larsen (refererende dommer), J.-C. Bonichot, T. von Danwitz og C. Toader, generaladvokat: E. Sharpston justitssekretær: ekspeditionssekretær M. Ferreira, på grundlag af den skriftlige forhandling og efter retsmødet den 26. april 2007, og idet Domstolen efter at have hørt generaladvokaten har besluttet, at sagen skal pådømmes uden forslag til afgørelse, afsagt følgende
If co-incineration takes place in such a way that the main purpose of the plant is not the generation of energy or production of material products but rather the thermal treatment of waste, the plant shall be regarded as an incineration plant within the meaning of point 4.
I stævningen har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber nedlagt påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 2 og 3 i de følgende beslutninger (herefter »de anfægtede beslutninger«), idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har truffet alle de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at efterkomme de nævnte bestemmelser, eller under alle omstændigheder har undladt at underrette Kommissionen om disse foranstaltninger i henhold til artikel 4 i disse beslutninger:
Incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the gas resulting from the process is raised, after the last injection of combustion air, in a controlled and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions, to a temperature of 850°C, as measured near the inner wall or at another representative point of the combustion chamber as authorised by the competent authority, for two seconds. If hazardous wastes with a content of more than 1% of halogenated organic substances, expressed as chlorine, are incinerated, the temperature has to be raised to 1 100°C for at least two seconds.
DOM AF 20.9.2007 — SAG C-177/06
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-251/07 at all times during these operations and as long as unburned waste is in the combustion chamber.
Kommissionens beslutning 2003/28/EF af 20. december 2001 om den spanske statsstøtteordning fra 1993 for nyoprettede virksomheder i Álava (Spanien) (EFT 2003 L 17, s. 20)
which concerns the relationship of that directive with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control: 4
I 1993 vedtog de baskiske provinser Álava, Vizcaya og Guipúzcoa en række skatteforanstaltninger, der havde til formål at støtte oprettelse af virksomheder.
Co-incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the gas resulting from the co-inciner-ation of waste is raised in a controlled and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions, to a temperature of 850°C for two seconds.
Artikel 14 i provinsen Álavas lov nr. 18/1993 af 5. juli, i provinsen Vizcayas lov nr. 5/1993 af 24. juni og i provinsen Guipúzcoas lov nr. 11/1993 af 26. juni, hvilke tre love alle var benævnt »Presserende skatteforanstaltninger til styrkelse af investeringer og økonomiske aktiviteter« (Medidas Fiscales Urgentes de Apoyo a la Inversión e impulso de la Actividad Económica), fritager virksomheder, som er
If hazardous wastes with a content of more than 1% of halogenated organic substances, expressed as chlorine, are co-incinerated, the temperature has to be raised to 1 100°C.’
KOMMISSIONEN MOD SPANIEN oprettet i perioden mellem provinslovens ikrafttræden og den 31. december 1994, for selskabsbeskatning, hvis de bl.a. opfylder følgende betingelser:
Gävle Kraftvärme AB is an undertaking within the Gävle Energi group of companies, which, in turn, is wholly owned by an undertaking owned by the municipality of Gävle.
Der skal oprettes mindst ti arbejdspladser i de første seks måneder efter starten.
It is, inter alia, responsible for producing
DOM AF 20.9.2007 — SAG C-177/06
In that case, the undertaking may install a new, larger, biofuel boiler of a maximum of 85 MW which covers all future needs.
I hver af disse beslutningers artikel 1 kvalificeres den omhandlede skatteordning som statsstøtte, der erklæres uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
The application was also for a permit to carry out any additional changes and for any additional plant necessary for the increased operations.
Spanien træffer alle nødvendige forholdsregler for, at støttemodtagerne tilbagebetaler den støtte, der er omhandlet i artikel 1, og som er tildelt ulovligt.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-251/07 therefore seeks a preliminary ruling on the following questions:
Hver af de omtvistede beslutninger blev meddelt Kongeriget Spanien ved skrivelse af 28. december 2001.
A maximum of 10 000 tonnes of that waste will consist of hazardous waste, in the form of surface-treated wood or wood treated with wood preservative.
Den i artikel 4 i hver beslutning fastsatte frist på to måneder udløb, uden at Kommissionen, så vidt den har oplyst, blev underrettet om vedtagelse af gennemførelsesforanstaltninger.
‘(1) Where a combined power and heating plant consists of a number of units (boilers), for the purposes of the interpretation of [the Waste Incineration Directive] …, is each unit to be assessed as a separate plant or is the assessment to cover the combined power and heating plant as a whole?
Ved stævninger indleveret den 26. marts 2006 anlagde Diputación Foral de Álava (sag T-86/02), Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (sag T-87/02) og Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (sag T-88/02) tre annullationssøgsmål for Retten, der alle var rettet mod den negative beslutning vedrørende dem.
(2) For the purposes of the interpretation of [the Waste Incineration Directive], is a plant constructed for waste incineration but having as its main purpose the production of energy to be classified as an incineration plant or as a co-inciner-ation plant?’
Sagerne T-30/01 — T-32/01 og T-86/02 — T-88/02 er blevet forenet af Retten og verserer nu for denne retsinstans.
Gävle Kraftvärme’s case is now pending before the referring court. Gävle Kraftvärme objects to classification of the boilers individually.
DOM AF 20.9.2007 — SAG C-177/06
The referring court, the domstolen (Supreme Court,
Den 27. februar 2007 afviste Domstolen en begæring, som Kongeriget Spanien havde fremsat i henhold til procesreglementets artikel 82a om udsættelse af sagen indtil afsigelse af dommene i de seks for Retten verserende sager .
The Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Commission of the European Communities took part in the written procedure.
III — Om søgsmålet
Only the Commission took part in the hearing of 17 April 2008.
Kommissionen bemærker, at beslutningerne på trods af flere påmindelser ikke var blevet gennemført på tidspunktet for dette søgsmåls anlæggelse.
Incineration plants are thus technical units or equipment.
Kommissionen gør gældende, at den eneste indsigelse, som kan gøres gældende af en medlemsstat over for et af Kommissionen anlagt traktatbrudssøgsmål i henhold til traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2, EF, er indsigelsen om, at det er absolut umuligt at gennemføre beslutningen om tilbagesøgning korrekt.
In Article 3(5) of the Waste Incineration Directive, however, the different language versions agree on the definition of ‘co-incineration plant’: they are always defined as plants. Nevertheless, this cannot be understood as meaning that in relation to a co-incineration plant a different concept of ‘plant’ applies to that which applies to incineration plants.
Denne betingelse er ikke opfyldt i denne sag .
Rather that definition impli -citly builds on the definition of incineration plant.
Under alle omstændigheder kan et anbringende fra Kongeriget Spanien, hvorefter de omtvistede beslutninger er ugyldige, ikke antages til realitetsbehandling, eftersom Kongeriget Spanien ikke har anlagt søgsmål med påstand om annullation heraf.
That unitary concept of ‘plant’ is evident in particular in the almost identical
Den spanske regering har principalt gjort gældende, at de omtvistede beslutninger er ugyldige.
The Waste Incineration Directive differentiates between incineration plants and co-incineration plants.
Subsidiært bestrider den, at den i denne sag kan tilskrives ansvar for traktatbrud ved gennemførelsen af disse beslutninger.
The defin -ition set out in Article 3(4) of the German language version of the directive provides that ‘incineration plant’ was any ‘technische Einheit’ (technical unit) or ‘Anlage’ (equipment).
Den spanske regering har henvist til dom af 1. april 2004, Kommissionen mod Italien (sag C-99/02, Sml.
Other language versions avoid the double usage of the term ‘Anlage’.