natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dette spørgsmål overskrider, som det er fastslået ovenfor, rammerne for gennemførelsen af direktiv 93/16 og derfor også rammerne for dette traktatbrudssøgsmål, der vedrører ukorrekt gennemførelse af et direktiv.
The objective of that article is set out in the 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 93/16, according to which, in the case of provision of services, the requirement of registration with or membership of professional organisations or bodies should be abolished, since it is related to the fixed and permanent nature of the activity pursued in the host country, for such a requirement would undoubtedly constitute an obstacle to the person wishing to provide the service by reason of the temporary nature of his activity.
En konstatering af, at pligten til at gennemføre artikel 18 i direktiv 93/16 er tilsidesat, forudsætter således dels, at national ret stiller krav om optagelse i et offentligretligt socialsikringsorgan for at kunne opgøre de mellemværender, der opstår i forbindelse med
The same recital adds that in such cases, in order to guarantee control over professional discipline, which is the responsibility of those professional organisations or bodies, it should be provided that the person concerned may be required to submit to the competent authority of the host Member State particulars relating to the provision of services.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
In Spain, however, such registration is not required.
2) I øvrigt frifindes Kongeriget Spanien.
Findings of the Court
3) Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber og Kongeriget Spanien bærer deres egne omkostninger.«
Article 18 of Directive 93/16 exempts nationals of Member States established in another Member State, in cases of provision of services entailing travel on the part of the person concerned, from another requirement that may be laid down by the national law of the Member State where services are provided, namely registration with a public social security body to enable settlement, in that State, with insurance bodies of accounts relating to services rendered to persons insured under social securitv schemes.
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 4. oktober 2001.
Article 18 of Directive 93/16 forms part of Section B. entitled 'Special provisions relating to the provision of services', of Chapter VI, entitled 'Provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of the activities of doctors'.
Det pågældende investeringsprojekt havde til formål at skabe produktion af den kvote hvidt sukker, som blev tildelt Den Portugisiske Republik ved tiltrædelsesakten for Kongeriget Spanien og Republikken Portugal.
Thus, as the Advocate General has observed in her Opinion, that would go beyond the bounds of a directive on the mutual recognition of diplomas and would, in addition, not be consistent with the 22nd recital in the preamble to Directive 93/16, according to which that directive does not affect the power of the Member States to organise their national social security schemes.
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 27. august 1999 har Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias Açúcares SA og Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR) i medfør af artikel 49 i EF-statutten for Domstolen iværksat appel af dom afsagt den 17. juni 1999 af Retten i Første Instans i sagen ARAP m.fl. mod Kommissionen (sag T-82/96, herefter »den appellerede dom«).
Any finding of a failure to fulfil the obligation to transpose Article 18 of Directive 93/16 thus presupposes, first, that national law requires registration with a public social security body for settlement with an insurance body of accounts relating to services rendered to persons insured
Undersøgelsen af den støtte, der blev givet til DAI, forløb på følgende måde i Kommissionen.
That issue is to be distinguished from the question as to what registration those doctors are exempted from under Article 18 of Directive 93/16.
Først anmeldte de portugisiske myndigheder disse støtteforanstaltninger for at opnå et tilskud fra strukturfondene.
As found above, it is extraneous to the question of the transposition of Directive 93/16 and, consequently, to this action for failure to transpose a directive correctly.
Denne ansøgning om fællesskabsstøtte, som oprindelig blev indgivet til Den Europæiske Fond for Regionaludvikling (EFRU), blev ændret for senere at blive indgivet til EUGFL, Udviklingssektionen, da den skulle behandles efter reglerne for landbrugssektoren og ikke for industrisektoren.
Declares that, by failing to transpose, within the prescribed timelimit, Article 8 of Council Directive 96/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that directive;
De faktiske omstændigheder i sagen
Dismisses the remainder of the application;
Ifølge den anfægtede beslutning, som blev meddelt den portugisiske regering ved skrivelse af 11. januar 1996, rejste Kommissionen ingen indvendinger i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 92 (efter ændring nu artikel 87 EF) og EF-
Orders the Commission of the European Communities bear their own costs.'
I den anfægtede beslutning hedder det herom, at »ifølge Kommissionens praksis er foranstaltninger af denne art bestemt til erhvervelse af nye kundskaber tilladt indtil 100% af de udgifter, der kan finansieres, og at »i dette tilfælde overskrider støtten ifølge de portugisiske myndigheders oplysninger ikke 68% af de udgifter, der kan finansieres««.
(Appeal — State aid — Common agricultural policy - Sugar Aid granted in implementation of a general State aid scheme approved by the Commission Contribution by a Member State to the financing of a project eligible for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section Aid for vocational training) (Sixth Chamber)
En første støtte på 1 275 290 000 PTE fremtræder i form af skattefritagelser som et led i den almindelige støtteordning, der blev indført i Portugal ved lovdekret nr. 95/90 af 20. marts 1990.
Coruche (Portugal) in the Tagus and Sorraia valley.
Den henviste til en senere undersøgelse af spørgsmålet, om det projekterede sukkerraffinaderi opfyldte betingelserne for fællesskabsfinansiering i denne forordning.
That investment project was intended for the production of the white sugar quota allocated to the Portuguese Republic by the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.
Den ved lovdekret nr. 95/90 indførte ordning blev i henhold til traktatens artikel 92 godkendt ved Kommissionens beslutning (SG(91) D/13312) af 3. juli 1991, som blev meddelt den portugisiske regering den 15. juli 1991 på betingelse af, at de individuelle støtteforanstaltninger overholder »Fællesskabets bestemmelser og rammebestemmelser om visse sektorer inden for industri, landbrug og fiskeri«. Desuden pålægger denne den portugisiske regering at anmelde »alle projekter, der er omfattet af skattefritagelser på mellem 10 og 20% (ESL), samt alle projekter inden for følsomme sektorer«.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 August 1999, Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR) brought an appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 1999 in Case T-82/96 ARAP and Others ν Commission [1999] ('the judgment under appeal'), by which that Court dismissed their application for annulment of the Commission decision of 11 January 1996 not to raise objections to State aid in favour of Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial SA ('DAI') notified under No NI 1/95 (hereinafter 'the contested decision' or 'the contested measure'), and of the Commission's letter of 19 March 1996, informing the applicants of that decision (hereinafter 'the letter of 19 March 1996').
Retsforhandlingerne appellerede dom
Background to the dispute
Ved stævning registreret på Rettens Justitskontor den 29. maj 1996 anlagde appellanterne i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 173 (efter ændring nu artikel 230 EF) sag med påstand om annullation af den anfægtede beslutning samt skrivelsen af 19. marts 1996.
The procedure for examination by the Commission of the aid in favour of DAI was as follows: initially, the Portuguese authorities notified the aid with a view to obtaining financial assistance from the Structural Funds.
I den anfægtede beslutning fastslog Kommissionen først, at den offentlige støtte til investeringen, der blev givet i form af skattefritagelser til fordel for DAI, faktisk var givet i henhold til den støtteordning, der blev indført ved lovdekret nr. 95/90.
In the contested decision, notified to the Portuguese Government by letter of 11 January 1996, the Commission raised no objection under Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment.
Den præciserede endelig, at dens undersøgelse i henhold til traktatens artikel 92 og 93 af den del, der vedrørte investeringerne, drejede sig om at kontrollere, at fællesskabsbestemmelserne om statsstøtte i landbrugssektoren var overholdt, og
Article 87 EC) and Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) with regard to State aid Ν11/95 granted by the Portuguese Republic to DAI's investment project for the establishment of a beet sugar refining plant at
Med hensyn til den anfægtede beslutning materielt set behandlede Retten successivt de anbringender, som appellanterne havde anført mod de tre kategorier støtte til DAI, nemlig skattefritagelserne, støtten til faglig uddannelse
The cane sugar refineries Alcântara Refinarias Açúcares SA and Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR), which were then the only sugar producers established in mainland Portugal, and the association of which those two refineries were members. Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), lodged complaints against the aid granted to DAI.
Appellanternes første anbringende mod skattefritagelserne var, at beslutningen af 3. juli 1991 var ulovlig.
regard that, 'according to Commission practice, measures of this kind intended to impart new knowledge are authorised for up to 100% of the eligible expenses' and that, '[i]n this case, the aid does not exceed 68% of eligible expenses'.
I den appellerede doms præmis 55-57 forkastede Retten første led af det første anbringende om en angiveligt manglende kontrol af den almindelige skattefritagelsesordnings sektorbestemte konsekvenser.
A first grant of aid of PTE 1 275 290 000 takes the form of tax reliefs granted under the general aid scheme introduced in Portugal by Decree-Law No 95/90 of 20 March 1990.
Den fastslog, at sagsøgerne ikke havde godtgjort, at betingelserne i beslutningen af 3. juli 1991 ikke havde givet sikkerhed for, at de regler, der var gældende i sukkersektoren blev overholdt.
The scheme provides for special tax reliefs, limited to a period of 10 years, for companies making investments in excess of PTE 10 000 million. The maximum aid available is 10% of the net investments made or, in exceptional cases, 20%.
Kommissionen (sag C-47/91), fastslog, at når en generel støtteordning er blevet godkendt af Kommissionen, skal individuelle gennemførelsesforanstaltninger ikke anmeldes til den, undtagen hvis der er blevet fremsat forbehold herom i godkendelsesbeslutningen.
The Commission took the view in the contested decision that the third type of aid in question, the grant of PTE 1 912 335 000 (that is, 15% of the eligible investments) by way of cofinancing of investments eligible for Community aid in the amount of PTE 6 372 065 000 (that is, 49.97% of the eligible investments) under Regulation No 866/90, did not fall within the scope of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty.
Den udtalte, at det ville være i strid med principperne om retssikkerhed og om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning, hvis Kommissionen undersøgte hver individuel støtte.
It postponed consideration of the question whether the sugar refinery project met the conditions for Community financing under that regulation.
Retten udtalte ligeledes, at en individuel støtte, der ydes i henhold til en generel støtteordning, i princippet ikke kan anses for en uforudseelig anvendelse af denne ordning.
By letter of 19 March 1996 the Commission informed the three complainants of its decision of 11 January 1996 not to raise any objection under Article 92 of the Treaty with regard to the aid granted to DAI.
Retten fastslog desuden, at i det foreliggende tilfælde overskred skattefritagelserne ikke 10% af de foretagne investeringer, og at de var forenelige med de bestemmelser i fællesskabsretten, der gælder for den pågældende sektor.
The scheme introduced by Decree-Law No 95/90 was approved pursuant to Article 92 of the Treaty by Commission decision of 3 July 1991 (SG (91) D/13312), notified to the Portuguese Government on 15 July 1991, subject to the condition that the individual aid was in conformity with 'the rules and guidelines laid down by Community law in relation to certain industrial, agricultural and fisheries sectors'.
Ifølge Retten var de således i overensstemmelse med de betingelser, der er fastsat i beslutningen af 3. juli 1991, og var derfor ikke blevet anmeldt til Kommissionen, således at denne ikke havde ret til at undersøge, om de var forenelige med traktatens artikel 92.
The approval decision also required the Portuguese Government to notify 'all projects enjoying reliefs of between 10 and 20% (ESL) and all those in sensitive sectors'.
Det første anbringendes andet led om, at proceduren for vedtagelsen af beslutningen af 3. juli 1991 angiveligt manglede gennemsigtighed, blev forkastet af Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 61-63.
By application received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 29 May 1996, the applicants brought an action under Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), for annulment of the contested decision and the letter of 19 March 1996.
Retten fastslog, at en manglende offentliggørelse af anmeldelsen og undersøgelsen af en støtte i henhold til traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3, ikke kunne sidestilles med manglende gennemsigtighed.
The Portuguese Republic and DAI intervened in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission. That action was dismissed by the judgment under appeal.
Retten forkastede også i den appellerede doms præmis 66-68 det første anbringendes tredje led om, at den interne procedure for vedtagelse af beslutningen af 3. juli 1991 angiveligt var mangelfuld, da sagsøgerne efter Rettens opfattelse ikke havde fremført nogen omstændigheder af betydning, der gav grundlag for at nære begrundet tvivl om denne procedures lovlighed.
As regards the substance of the contested decision, the Court of First Instance considered in turn the pleas raised by the applicants against the three categories of aid granted to DAI, that is to say, tax reliefs, aid for vocational training and investment aid under Regulation No 866/90.
Det tredje anbringende om skattefritagelserne, som hævdedes at være uforenelige med den fælles landbrugspolitik, blev forkastet af Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 84-94.
In the contested decision the Commission first noted that the public investment aid granted in the form of tax reliefs in favour of DAI was granted in accordance with the aid scheme set up by Decree-Law 95/90.
Den udtalte dernæst, at disse skattefritagelser, som har til formål at fremme udviklingen af visse økonomiske regioner i henhold til traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c), var forenelige med formålene såvel i forordning nr. 1785/81 som med Fællesskabets strukturforanstaltninger på landbrugsområdet.
It went on to observe that that part of the aid did not exceed 10% of the investment and that the Community rules applicable to the agricultural sector, to which its decision of 3 July 1991 made reference, did not, in those circumstances, require the prior notification referred to in Article 93(3) of the Treaty.
Retten udledte heraf, at sagsøgernes argumenter om en forværring af overproduktionen af sukker i Fællesskabet og en forøgelse af de byrder, der påhviler EUGFL, Udviklingssektionen, ikke kunne rejse tvivl om lovligheden af støtten til oprettelse af et roesukkerraffinaderi i Portugal.
Finally, having explained that its examination, under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty, of the part relating to investments involved verification of compliance with the Community provisions on State aid in the agricultural sector, the Commission stated that the tax reliefs in question were not excluded by Decision 94/173.
Endelig fastslog den, at sagens akter ikke indeholdt noget tungtvejende indicium for, at der kunne rejses tvivl om rentabiliteten af det raffinaderi, der modtog den anfægtede støtte.
The first plea raised by the applicants as regards the tax reliefs was that the decision of 3 July 1991 was illegal.
Hvad angår sagsøgernes eneste anbringende om støtten til faglig uddannelse, nemlig at traktatens
A second grant of aid of PTE 380 000 000 for vocational training for staff at the new refinery was regarded as compatible with the common market.
Retten forkastede i den appellerede doms præmis 72-75 sagsøgernes andet anbringende om, at Kommissionen skulle have vurderet skattefritagelserne på grundlag af traktatens artikel 92 og 93.
In paragraphs 55 to 57 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance rejected the first part of the first plea, alleging failure to examine the sectoral consequences of the general
via EUGFL, Udviklingssektionen, skulle sådan støtte vurderes inden for rammerne af den fælles aktion, der udføres i henhold til sidstnævnte forordning, og kunne ikke være genstand for en undersøgelse i henhold til traktatens artikel 92 og 93.
scheme of tax reliefs. It held that the applicants had not demonstrated that compliance with the rules applicable to the sugar sector was not ensured by the conditions laid down in the decision of 3 July 1991.
Retten udtalte først, at hver af de tre typer støtte, der blev givet til DAI, skulle undersøges individuelt på grundlag af de bestemmelser, der gjaldt for dem.
The Court of First Instance also observed that, in the present case, the tax reliefs did not exceed \0c/t of the investment made and were compatible with the Community law applicable in the sector concerned.
Den udtalte dernæst, at ifølge Domstolens praksis (dom af 15.6.1993, sag C225/91, Matra mod Kommissionen, præmis 24 og 25) skal Fællesskabets retsinstanser inden for rammerne af legalitetskontrollen af en beslutning i henhold til traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c), begrænse sig til at efterprøve, om Kommissionen har overskredet grænserne for sit skøn som følge af et åbenbart fejlskøn eller magtfordrejning.
According to the Court of First Instance, they therefore complied with the conditions laid down by the decision of 3 July 1991 and did not thus need to be notified to the Commission, so that it would not have been entitled to examine them in the light of Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
Med hensyn til den del af den anfægtede beslutning, der vedrører støtten til investering i henhold til forordning nr. 866/90, har appellanterne påberåbt sig to anbringender til støtte for deres påstand om annullation.
The second part of the first plea, alleging a lack of transparency in the procedure for approval of the decision of 3 July 1991, was rejected by the Court of First Instance at paragraphs 61 to 63 of the judgment under appeal.
For det første har de anført, at statsstøtte, som opfylder betingelserne i denne forordning for Fællesskabets medfinansiering, fortsat var omfattet af traktatens artikel 92 og 93.
The Court of First Instance held that the lack of any publicity concerning notification and examination of a grant of aid under Article 93(3) of the Treaty cannot be assimilated to a lack of transparency.
For det andet har de gjort gældende, at forordning nr. 866/90 udelukkede medfinansiering af den pågældende støtte til investering.
The Court of First Instance also rejected, at paragraphs 66 to 68 of the judgment under appeal, the third part of the first plea, concerning the alleged impropriety of the internal procedure for the adoption of the decision of 3 July 1991, since the applicants had not, in its view, produced any significant evidence capable of raising serious doubts as to the legality of that procedure.
Retten bemærkede dernæst, at selv om det antages, at artikel 44 i forordning nr. 1785/81 kan fortolkes således, at den bestemmer, at traktatens artikel 92, 93 og 94 finder anvendelse på enhver støtteforanstaltning vedrørende produktion og afsætning af sukker, skulle den anvendes under hensyntagen til målene med den fælles landbrugspolitik, hvis forrang for anvendelsen af traktatens bestemmelser om konkurrence er fastslået ved traktaten selv i dens artikel 42.
The third plea relating to the tax reliefs, alleging that they were incompatible with the common agricultural policy, was rejected by the Court of First Instance at paragraphs 84 to 94 of the judgment under appeal.
Ifølge Retten ville en anvendelse af traktatens artikel 92 og 93 på støtte, der kan medfinansieres af Fællesskabet inden for rammerne af forordning nr. 866/90, imidlertid risikere at gøre det umuligt at forfølge nogle af den fælles landbrugspolitiks formål ved hjælp af en specifik strukturel aktion, der udføres i overensstemmelse med de kriterier, der er fastsat i beslutning 94/173.
The Court of First Instance first recalled that the Commission had to examine the propriety of the tax reliefs granted to DAI having regard only to the conditions it imposed in the decision of 3 July 1991 and, in particular, to the rules applicable to the sugar sector.
Retten fandt, at forordning nr. 866/90 selv sikrede sammenhængen mellem støtte til investering, der medfinansieres af Fællesskabet og den pågældende medlemsstat i henhold til denne forordning, og den fælles landbrugspolitik.
It went on to point out that those tax reliéis, which were intended to facilitate the development of certain economic regions in accordance with Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, were compatible with the aims pursued by both Regulation No 1785/81 and by the Community's structural measures in the agricultural sector.
Den konkluderede heraf, at anvendelse af traktatens artikel 92 og 93 på investeringsstøtte, der kan medfinansieres af Fællesskabet i henhold til forordning nr. 866/90, er uforenelig med den forrang, som traktaten giver den fælles landbrugspolitik i forhold til anvendelsen af konkurrencereglerne.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the applicants' arguments concerning aggravation of the overproduction of sugar in the Community and an increase in the charges borne by the Guidance Section of the EAGGF. were not such as to call into question the aid for the setting up of a beet sugar refinery in Portugal.
Endelig forkastede Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 124 appellanternes andet anbringende, hvorefter støtten til investering er udelukket ved forordning nr. 866/90, fordi den er uforenelig med den fælles landbrugspolitik og ikke kan have hjemmel i beslutning 94/173, der selv er uforenelig med denne politik.
At paragraphs 72 to 75 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance rejected the second plea raised by the applicants, alleging that the Commission should have assessed the tax reliefs in the light of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty.
Retten fandt under henvisning til dommens præmis 89 og 90, at den støtte, der er givet med henblik på at gøre det muligt at udnytte den kvote, der er tildelt Portugals kontinentale område, ikke var uforenelig med den fælles landbrugspolitiks formål.
It recalled that the Court of Justice had held, in Case C-47/91 Italy ν Commission [1994], that once a general aid scheme has been approved by the Commission, the individual implementing measures do not need to be notified to it unless reservations to that effect were expressed in the approval decision.