natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen, som på dette punkt støttes af den franske regering, har anført, at i henhold til Domstolens praksis forudsætter anvendelsen af artikel 30 i forordning nr. 404/93, at navnlig to betingelser er opfyldt, nemlig dels betingelsen om, at den pågældende virksomheds vanskeligheder skyldes overgangen fra den gamle nationale ordning til den nye fællesskabsordning, dels betingelsen om, at disse vanskeligheder kan true den nævnte virksomheds eksistens.
The Commission raises three grounds of appeal. One of those grounds is based on infringement, by the Court of First Instance, of two of the conditions of application of Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 and concerns Cases T79/96 and T-260/97.
Kommissionen har til støtte for appellen fremført tre anbringender. Med et af disse anbringender — som vedrører sagerne T-79/96 og T-260/97 -gøres det gældende, at Retten har tilsidesat to af betingelserne for anvendelsen af artikel 30 i forordning nr. 404/93.
The Commission, supported by the French Government, contends that, in accordance with the Court's case-law, the application of Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 is subject to the satisfaction, in particular, of two conditions.
Med de to andre anbringender, der vedrører sag T-117/98, gøres det gældende, at Retten henholdsvis har tilsidesat betingelserne for at realitetsbehandle et annullationssøgsmal, der er anlagt til prøvelse af et afslag på at vedtage en almengyldig retsakt, og den anden af betingelserne for anvendelsen af artikel 16, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 404/93.
They are, first, that the difficulties encountered by the undertaking concerned are due to the transition from the former national arrangements to the new Community arrangements and, second, that those difficulties are such as to threaten the existence of that undertaking.
henhold til [...] artikel 19, stk. 2 [i forordning nr. 404/93]« (jf. T. Port-dommen, præmis 23 og 26).
Conditions of admissibility of an action for annulment of a refusal to adopt a measure of general application (Case T-117/98)
regering fandt Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 96 med urette, at den forordning, som Kommissionen angiveligt var forpligtet til at vedtage med hjemmel i artikel 16, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 404/93, berørte Camar og Tico individuelt, fordi disse virksomheder var de største importører af somaliske bananer og derfor blev ramt som følge af en faktisk situation, der adskilte dem fra enhver anden erhvervsdrivende, som handlede på det samme marked.
In the case which gave rise to the judgment in Case C-68/95 Τ Port [1996], the Court was asked to reply to a question referred to it for a preliminary ruling, namely whether Article 16(3) or Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 requires the Commission 'to lay down rules catering for cases of hardship arising from the fact that importers of third-country bananas or nontraditional ACP bananas meet difficulties threatening their existence when an exceptionally low quota is allocated to them on the basis of the reference years to be taken into consideration under Article 19(2) of Regulation [No 404/93]' (see Τ Port, cited above, paragraphs 23 and 26).
Domstolen besvarede dette spørgsmål således, at artikel 30, men ikke artikel 16, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 404/93 finder anvendelse i en sådan situation, men dermed har Domstolen på ingen måde udelukket, at den nævnte artikel 30 også kan finde anvendelse på andre typer af vanskeligheder, såfremt disse følger af overgangen fra de nationale ordninger, der fandtes før ikrafttrædelsen af den nævnte forordning, til den fælles markedsordning.
According to the Commission, the Council and the French Government, the Court of First Instance wrongly held, at paragraph 96 of the contested judgment, that the regulation which the Commission was supposedly required to adopt under Article 16(3) of Regulation No 404/93 concerned Camar and Tico individually because they were the main importers of Somalian bananas and were thus affected by reason of circumstances in which they were differentiated from all other operators trading on the same market.
Ifølge Domstolen er anbringendet om, at Retten har tilsidesat betingelserne for realitetsbehandling af en påstand om annullation af et afslag på at udstede en almengyldig retsakt, under disse omstændigheder begrundet.
According to the Court, the ground of appeal alleging infringement, by the Court of First Instance, of the conditions of admissibility of an application for annulment of a refusal to adopt a measure of general application is well founded.
Enhver anden fortolkning ville i øvrigt være i strid med ordlyden af artikel 30 i forordning nr. 404/93 såvel som med denne bestemmelses formål, således som dette fremgår af forordningens 22. betragtning, hvorefter anvendelsen af denne bestemmelse på ingen måde er begrænset til tilfælde, hvor vanskelighederne truer den pågældende virksomheds eksistens.
By replying to that question to the effect that Article 30 but not Article 16(3) of Regulation No 404/93 applies to such a situation, the Court by no means ruled out that Article 30 could also apply to other types of difficulties, since they are inherent in the transition from national arrangements existing before that regulation entered into force to the common organisation of the market.
Anbringendet om, at Retten har tilsidesat betingelserne for anvendelsen af artikel 30 i forordning nr. 404/93, må følgelig forkastes.
Consequently, the contested judgment must be set aside in so far as it upheld, in Case T-l 17/98, the action for annulment of the Commission's Decision of 23 April 1998 rejecting the application by Camar and Tico under Article 16(3) of Regulation No 404/93, without there being any need to consider the merits of the ground of appeal alleging infringement of one of the conditions governing the application of Article 16(3) of that regulation.
Følgelig skal den appellerede dom ophæves, for så vidt som den i sag T-117/98 gav medhold i påstanden om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning af 23. april 1998 om afslag på den anmodning, Camar og Tico havde indgivet i medfør af artikel 16, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 404/93, uden at det er fornødent at undersøge, hvorvidt anbringendet om tilsidesættelse af en af betingelserne for anvendelsen af den nævnte forordnings artikel 16, stk. 3, er begrundet.
Any other interpretation would, in addition, be contrary to the wording of Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 as well as its objective as it appears from the 22nd recital in the preamble to that regulation, which in no way requires the application of that article to be restricted to cases of difficulties threatening the existence of the undertaking concerned.
Der kan følgelig heller ikke gives medhold i påstanden om frifindelse for passivitets- og annullationssøgsmålet i sagerne T-79/96 og T260/97.
Therefore, the ground of appeal based on infringement, by the Court of First Instance, of the conditions governing the application of Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 must be dismissed.
I medfør af artikel 54, stk. 1, andet punktum, i EF-statutten for Domstolen kan denne, såfremt Rettens afgørelse ophæves, selv træffe endelig afgørelse, hvis sagen er moden til påkendelse.
In accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, if the Court quashes a decision of the Court of First Instance, it may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
Dette er tilfældet i den foreliggende sag.
So it is in this case.
Betingelserne for realitetsbehandling af en påstand om annullation af et afslag på at vedtage en almengyldig retsakt (sag T-117/98)
The claim that the contested judgment should be set aside, in so far as it orders the Commission to compensate Camar for the damage pleaded in this case, must be dismissed.
Eftersom Camar og Tico ikke har fremført nogen anden omstændighed end den, på grundlag af hvilken Retten fandt annullationspåstanden i sag T-117/98 egnet til realitetsbedømmelse, er det vedrørende dette punkt tilstrækkeligt at fastslå, at det følger af de foregående præmisser, at den nævnte påstand skal afvises.
Since Camar and Tico have not put forward any circumstance other than that accepted by the Court of First Instance to warrant the admissibility of the action for annulment in Case T-l 17/98, it is sufficient to hold in that regard, that it follows from the preceeding paragraphs that that action must be dismissed as inadmissible.
i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 404/93 af 13. februar 1993 om den fælles markedsordning for bananer.
Sets aside the judgment of 8 June 2000 of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 Camar and Tico ν Commission and Council in so far as it allowed, in Case T-117/98, the application for annulment of the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 23 April 1998 rejecting the application made by Camar Sri and Tico Sri on the basis of Article 16(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the markets in the banana sector,
Annullationspåstanden i sag T-117/98 afvises.
Dismisses the application for annulment in Case T-117/98 as inadmissible;
Camar Sri og Tico Sri betaler sagens omkostninger i sag T-117/98
Orders Camar Sri and Tico Sri to pay the costs in Case T-117/98;
Hver part bærer sine egne omkostninger i forbindelse med appelsagen.*
Orders the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal proceedings. '
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Domstolens plenum) den 16. april 2002.
Advocate General C. Stix-Hackl delivered her Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 16 April 2002.
Sag C-362/01 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Irland Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser
Case C-362/01 Commission of the European Communities ν Ireland Freedom to provide services
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 98/5/EF — begrundet udtalelse — manglende hensyntagen til de af medlemsstaten fremsendte bemærkninger til åbningsskrivelsen — betydning for, om sagen kan antages til realitetsbehandling* (Domstolens plenum) opnået, idet Irland ikke har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet, eller ikke har underrettet Kommissionen herom.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/5/EC - Reasoned opinion — Failure to take into account observations submitted by the Member State in response to the formal notice — Bearing on admissibility) (Full Court)
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 24. september 2001 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Irland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 98/5/EF af 16. februar 1998 om lettelse af adgangen til varig udøvelse af advokaterhvervet i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor beskikkelsen er
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 24 September 2001, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action pursuant to Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998
•1) Irland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 98/5/EF af lá februar 1998 om lettelse af adgangen til varig udøvelse af advokaterhvervet i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor beskikkelsen er opnået, idet Irland ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet
to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 17. september 2002.
Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
De har anlagt sag ved den forelæggende ret med henblik på at få tilladelse til at anlægge et søgsmål til prøvelse af lovligheden (»judicial review«) af Det Forenede
He proposed that the Court should declare the application inadmissible and order the Commission to pay the costs.
Det første spørgsmål tredjelande fremstilles cigaretter i Fællesskabet, som ikke opfylder kravene i direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1.
Case C-491/01 The Queen ν Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd
Det første spørgsmål, punkt a)
Approximation of laws
Det følger af det ovenfor anførte, at artikel 95 EF er den eneste rette hjemmel for direktivet, og at det er med urette, at direktivet også nævner artikel 133 EF som hjemmel.
By order of 6 December 2001 the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the validity and interpretation of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001.
Ifølge Domstolen har direktivet reelt til formål at forbedre vilkårene for det indre markeds funktion, og det kunne følgelig vedtages på grundlag af artikel 95 EF, uden at det udgjorde nogen hindring herfor, at beskyttelsen af folkesundheden var afgørende i forbindelse med de valg, der blev truffet med de harmoniseringsforanstaltninger, som direktivet fastlægger.
According to the Court the Directive genuinely has as its object the improvement of the conditions for the functioning of the internal market and that it was, therefore, possible for it to be adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC, and it is no bar that the protection of public health was a decisive factor in the choices involved in the harmonising measures which it defines.
En sådan fejl i angivelsen af hjemmelen for en fællesskabsretsakt udgør således kun en rent formel mangel, medmindre den har gjort proceduren for denne retsakts vedtagelse mangelfuld.
They have brought proceedings before the court making the reference seeking permission to apply for judicial review of 'the intention and/or obligation' of the United Kingdom Government to transpose the Directive into national law, raising seven pleas in law contesting the validity of that measure.
Konklusionen om, at artikel 95 EF er den rette hjemmel for vedtagelse af direktivet, kan ikke anfægtes med argumentet om, at forbuddet mod, at der — med henblik på eksport til tredjelande — fremstilles cigaretter i Fællesskabet, som ikke opfylder kravene i direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, ikke reelt bidrager til at forbedre vilkårene for det indre markeds funktion.
The conclusion that Article 95 EC constitutes an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of the Directive undermined by the argument that the prohibition on the manufacture within the Community, for export to nonmember countries, of cigarettes which do not comply with the requirements of Article 3(1) of the Directive does not actually contribute to improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal market.
Med sit første spørgsmål, punkt b), ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om anvendelsen af artikel 95 EF og 133 EF som dobbelt hjemmel har gjort proceduren for vedtagelse af direktivet mangelfuld, idet der er blevet anvendt to lovgivningsprocedurer, der er indbyrdes uforenelige, og om direktivet af den grund er ugyldigt.
The High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) granted that permission and decided to stay proceedings and to refer a number of questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Første spørgsmål, punkt c)
Question 1(a)
Det i direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, fastsatte fremstillingsforbud kan anses for en foranstaltning, der har til formål at undgå omgåelse af de i denne bestemmelse fastsatte forbud mod at lade cigaretter, der ikke opfylder kravene i den nævnte bestemmelse, overgå til fri omsætning og blive markedsført i medlemsstaterne.
Although the prohibition of manufacture at issue is not a provision aimed directly at improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal market, the fact remains that a measure adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC may incorporate such a provision so long as its purpose is to ensure that certain prohibitions concerning the internal market and imposed in pursuit of that object are not circumvented.
Med sit første spørgsmål, punkt c), ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om direktivet er ugyldigt, helt eller delvist, som følge af tilsidesættelsen af proportionalitetsprincippet.
By Question 1(a) the national court asks whether the Directive is invalid in whole or in part by reason of the fact that Articles 95 EC and/or 133 EC do not furnish an appropriate legal basis.
Med sit første spørgsmål, punkt c), ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om direktivet er
The ban on manufacture provided for by Article 3(1) of the Directive may be regarded as a
Direktivets artikel 7 har, når bestemmelsen læses i lyset af direktivets 27. betragtning, til formål at garantere, at forbrugeren oplyses sagligt om tobaksvarers skadevirkninger.
By Question 1(c) the national court asks whether the Directive is invalid in whole or in part by reason of infringement of the principle of proportionality.
lovlighed ikke skal bedømmes i forhold til internationale aftaler, der — som WTO-overenskomsten og TRIPs-aftalen, der er en del heraf — i princippet efter deres art og opbygning ikke udgør regler, hvis overholdelse i fællesskabsinstitutionernes retsakter er genstand for efterprøvelse ved Domstolen.
Read in the light of the 27th recital in the preamble, Article 7 of the Directive has the purpose therefore of ensuring that consumers are given objective information concerning the toxicity of tobacco products.
Et sådant oplysningskrav er egnet til at nå et højt beskyttelsesniveau på sundhedsområdet i forbindelse med harmonisering af bestemmelserne, der finder anvendelse på betegnelse af tobaksvarer.
It follows that it was possible for the Directive, including the provision prohibiting the manufacture in the Community for export to nonmember countries of cigarettes which do not comply with the requirements of Article 3(1) of the Directive, to be adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC.
Det må fastslås, at disse omstændigheder ikke foreligger i forbindelse med direktivet, hvorfor der ikke er grund til at undersøge direktivets gyldighed i relation til TRIPs-aftalens artikel 20.
The question whether recourse to Article 133 EC as a second legal basis for the Directive was necessary or possible in the circumstances must be answered as follows.
Første spørgsmål, punkt d)
Question 1(d)
Med sit første spørgsmål, punkt e), ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om direktivet er ugyldigt, helt eller delvist, som følge af en tilsidesættelse af den i artikel 253 EF fastsatte begrundelsespligt.
However, that incorrect reference to Article 133 EC as a second legal basis for the Directive does not of itself mean that the latter is invalid.
Ifølge Domstolen må det fastslås, at dets betragtninger klart viser, at de foranstaltninger, det indfører, ved at tilnærme de regler, der finder anvendelse på området, har til formål at fjerne hindringerne, der følger af de forskelle, der, på trods af de allerede vedtagne hamoniseringsforanstaltninger, fortsat består mellem medlemsstaternes love og administrative bestemmelser om fremstilling, præsentation og salg af tobaksvarer, og som hæmmer det indre markeds funktion.
Such an error in the legal basis relied on for a Community measure is no more than a purely formal defect, unless it gave rise to irregularity in the procedure applicable to the adoption of that act.
Det første spørgsmål, punkt f)
Question 1(b)
Med sit første spørgsmål, punkt f), ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om direktivet er ugyldigt, helt eller delvist, som følge af en tilsidesættelse af subsidiaritetsprincippet.
By Question 1(d) the national court asks whether the Directive is invalid in whole or in part by reason of infringement of Article 295 EC, the fundamental right to property and/or Article 20 of the Agreement on the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ('the TRIPs Agreement'), as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation ('the WTO Agreement'), approved on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994.
I den foreliggende sag kan det fastslås, at direktivet ikke på nogen måde berører de ejendomsretlige ordninger i medlemsstaterne som omhandlet i artikel 295 EF, og at denne bestemmelse er uden relevans for så vidt angår direktivets eventuelle indvirkning på tobaksfabrikanternes håndhævelse af deres varemærkerettigheder til disse varer.
By Question 1(b) the national court essentially asks whether recourse to the twofold legal basis of Articles 95 EC and 133 EC vitiates the procedure in adopting the Directive by reason of the application of two legislative procedures incompatible one with the other, and whether that renders the Directive invalid.
For så vidt angår direktivets gyldighed i relation til TRIPs-aftalens artikel 20 bemærkes, at det følger af fast retspraksis, at en fællesskabsretsakts
According to the Court recourse to the twofold legal basis of Articles 95 EC and 133 EC has not vitiated the procedure for adopting the Directive and that the latter is not invalid on that account.
Ifølge Domstolen har direktivet til formål at fjerne hindringerne, der følger af de forskelle, der fortsat består mellem medlemsstaternes love og administrative bestemmelser om fremstilling,
It must be stated that in the circumstances of the present case the Directive does not impinge in any way on the rules governing the system of property ownership in the Member States within the meaning of Article 295 EC which is
Fællesskabet med henblik på eksport til tredjelande.
By Question 1(f) the national court asks whether the Directive is invalid in whole or in part by reason of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.
præsentation og salg af tobaksvarer, mens der samtidig og i overensstemmelse med artikel 95, stk. 3, EF skal sikres et højt beskyttelsesniveau for sundhed.
According to the Court, the Directive's objective is to eliminate the barriers raised by the differences which still exist between the Member States' laws, regulations and administrative provisions on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, while ensuring a high level of health protection, in accordance with Article 95(3) EC.
Et sådant mål kan ikke i tilfredsstillende grad opfyldes ved en handling, der alene foretages af medlemsstaterne, men forudsætter en handling på fællesskabsplan, hvilket den uensartede udvikling af de nationale lovgivninger viser.
With regard to the validity of the Directive in the light of Article 20 of the TRIPs Agreement, the Court has consistently held that the lawfulness of a Community measure cannot be assessed in the light of instruments of international law which, like the WTO Agreement and the TRIPs Agreement which is part of it, are not .in principle, having regard to their nature and structure, among the rules in the light of which the Court is to review the lawfulness of measures adopted by the Community institutions.
Første spørgsmål, punkt g)
Question 1(g)