natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sag C-197/99 Ρ Kongeriget Belgien / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber EKSF
The agreements thus concluded were initialled with the Republic of Bulgaria in December 1998 and with the Republic of Hungary in April 1999 respectively.
•Appel — EKSF-traktaten — statsstøtte —femte kodeks for støtte til jern- og stålindustrien — Kommissionens beslutning 97/271/EKSF om forbud mod visse støtteforanstaltninger til en stålvirksomhed — EKSF-traktatens artikel 33 — tilsidesættelse* (Sjette Afdeling)
In the light of Article 8 of each of the agreements, entitled 'Fiscal provisions', the Council authorised their signing by a decision of 28 March 2000 which added as a legal basis, in addition to Article 71 EC, Article 93 EC on the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation.
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 26. maj 1999 har Kongeriget Belgien iværksat appel til prøvelse af dommen afsagt den 25. marts 1999 af Retten i Første Instans i sagen Forges de Clabecq mod Kommissionen (sag T-37/97, herefter »den appellerede dom«), hvorved Retten ikke gav selskabet Forges de Clabecq SA (herefter »Clabecq«) medhold i det søgsmål, selskabet havde anlagt med henblik på annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 97/271/EKSF af 18. december 1996, EKSF — Forges de Clabecq (herefter »den omtvistede beslutning«), hvori Kommissionen erklærede visse støtteforanstaltninger til Clabecq uforenelige med fællesmarkedet
By contrast with Article 71 EC, which refers to the procedure in Article 251 EC and provides for consultation with the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Article 93 EC provides that the Council is to act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.
Det første anbringende om garantierne for lånene fra SNCI og Belfin, der støttes på en tilsidesættelse af begrundelsespligten
On 19 March 2001 the Council unanimously adopted the contested decisions on the legal basis of Articles 71 EC and 93 EC in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC.
Ifølge den belgiske regering præciserede Retten ikke lånene fra SNCI og Belfin eller de herfor stillede statsgarantier, således som disse var angivet af Kommissionen, og navnlig ikke lånene fra SNCI, skønt Clabecq netop havde anført, at den omtvistede beslutning ikke var begrundet på dette punkt
Since it was of the opinion that the Council was wrong to take Article 93 EC as the legal basis, the Commission brought the present action, claiming that the Court should annul the contested decisions in so far as they are based on that article and should maintain the effects of the agreements until the Council has adopted new concluding acts.
Med hensyn til præciseringen af lånene bemærker Domstolen, at selv om den omtvistede beslutning alene angiver, at garantierne for »lånene fra SNCI og Belfin« og deres udvidelse udgør ulovlig støtte, er det klart, at beslutningen, set i lyset af meddelelsen af 11. oktober 1996 og ud fra sammenhængen kun omfattede de statsgarantier, som vedrørte den anden rate på 680 mio. BEF af det første lån fra SNCI, og det fjerde SNCI-lån på 650 mio. BEF, samt to lån fra Belfin, der henholdsvis udgjorde 300 mio. og 200 mio. BEF.
The Court notes that even accepting that the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States achieved through Article 8 of the agreements is necessary in order to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market, as required under Article 93 EC if that article is to be taken as the legal basis for a Community measure, it must be stated that in any event the aspect of the agreements which concerns the harmonisation of fiscal laws is, in the light of their aim and their content, only secondary and indirect in nature compared with the transport policy objective which they pursue.
Efter at Kommissionen havde fastslået, at den pågældende statsstøtte var uforenelig med fællesmarkedet, pålagde den i den omtvistede beslutnings artikel 3 Kongeriget Belgien at ophæve nævnte støtte og kræve den tilbagebetalt, idet ophævelsen af den ulovlige støtte ved tilbagebetaling var den logiske konsekvens af en konstatering af dens uforenelighed med fællesmarkedet for så vidt som den tidligere situation herved blev genoprettet
It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Council should have used Article 71 EC alone, in conjunction with Article 300(3) EC, as the legal basis for the contested decisions.
Det må derfor fastslås, at Retten ved ikke at have foretaget en korrekt præcisering af lånene fra SNCI og Belfin, som var omfattet af den omtvistede beslutning, har gengivet dennes rækkevidde forkert Den appellerede dom må derfor ophæves på dette punkt.
Declares that the effects of the decisions are to be maintained until the necessary to implement the present judgment have been adopted;
Det andet anbringende om garantierne f or lånene fra SNCI og Belfin, der også støttespå en tilsidesættelse af begrundelsespligten
Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.'
Sagen ved Retten
11 September 2003
Henset til de oplysninger, som de belgiske myndigheder meddelte Kommissionen under den administrative procedure, havde Kommissionen med føje kunnet fastslå, at udvidelsen af statsgarantierne var blevet iværksat uden forudgående tilladelse.
(Appeal — ECSC Treaty — State aid — Fifth Steel Aid Code — Commission Decision 9712711ECSC prohibiting certain financial assistance to a steel undertaking —Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty — Infringement) (Sixth Chamber)
Tredje og fjerde anbringende om garantierne for lånene fra SNCI, der støttes på tilsidesættelse af retssikkerhedsprincippet og begrundebespligten
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 26 May 1999, the Kingdom of Belgium brought an appeal against the judgment of 25 March 1999 in Case T-37/97 Forges de Clabecq ν Commission [1999] (hereinafter 'the contested judgment'), in which the Court of First Instance rejected the application brought by the undertaking Forges de Clabecq SA (hereinafter 'Clabecq') for the annulment of Commission Decision 97/271/ECSC of 18 December 1996, ECSC steel - Forges de Clabecq (hereinafter 'the contested decision') declaring certain financial assistance granted to Clabecq to be incompatible with the common market.
Den belgiske regering har påpeget, at de statsgarantier, som Kommissionen kritiserede i den omtvistede beslutning, dels vedrører den anden rate på 680 mio. BEF af det første lån, som blev ydet Clabecq af SNCI i begyndelsen af 1980'erne, dels det sidste lån på 650 mio. BEF, som SNCI ydede Clabecq i 1985.
First plea, concerning the guarantees attaching to the SNCI and Belfin loans, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
Den belgiske regering bemærker, at disse to lån under visse betingelser var blevet godkendt henholdsvis ved godkendelsesbeslutningen af 1982 og 1985, og den belgiske regering foreholder Retten at have fastslået, at de belgiske myndigheder ikke kunne støtte sig på disse to beslutninger.
The Belgian Government claims that the Court of First Instance did not identify the SNCI and Belfin loans or the State guarantees attaching to them which were referred to by the Commission, and in particular the SNCI loans at issue, although Clabecq had specifically complained of the inadequacy of the reasons provided for the contested decision in that regard.
Det fastslås, at Retten ikke tilsidesatte sin pligt til at begrunde den appellerede dom med hensyn til den omtvistede beslutnings berettigelse derved, at den ikke gav de belgiske myndigheder mulighed for at støtte sig på godkendelsesbeslutningerne af 1982 og 1985, og heller ikke tilsidesatte retssikkerhedsprincippet
As regards the identification of the loans, the Court finds that while the contested decision merely stated that the guarantees for 'SNCI and Belfin loans' and their extension constitute illegal aid, it is clear that that decision, read in the light of the notice of 11 October 1996 and seen in its original context, only referred to the State guarantees which were attached to the second instalment of BEF 680 million of the
Femte, sjette og syvende anbringende om garantierne for lånet fra Belfin, der støttes på en forkert gengivelse af bevismidlerne forelagt for Retten, begrundelsesmangel vedrørende en garantifond og en redigfejl fejl
first SNCI loan, the fourth SNCI loan of BEF 650 million and the two Belfin loans, in the amount of BEF 300 million and 200 million respectively.
Den belgiske regering har gjort gældende, at den appellerede dom er behæftet med en begrundelsesmangel og en misforståelse af begrebet statsstøtte, idet Retten med hensyn til lånene fra Belfin fastslog, at statsgarantien vedrørte de lån, som selskabet havde ydet Clabecq.
After the State aid measures at issue in the present case had been found in the contested decision to be incompatible with the common market, Article 3 of the operative part of the decision required the Kingdom of Belgium to abolish those aid measures and to demand that the aid already paid be reimbursed, the elimination of illegal aid by means of its recovery being the logical consequence of such a finding of incompatibility, inasmuch as it allows the former situation to be re-established.
Det må ved en bedømmelse af den omtvistede beslutnings lovlighed på grundlag af de oplysninger, som Kommissionen rådede over på det tidspunkt, hvor den traf beslutningen, fastslås, at Retten ikke gengav de for den fremførte bevismidler forkert. I øvrigt foreligger der ingen retlig fejl i Rettens begrundelse herfor.
Nevertheless, by incorrectly identifying the SNCI and Belfin loans covered by the contested decision and the guarantees attaching to them, the contested judgment misleadingly suggests that the SNCI and Belfin loans in their entirety, and therefore the implementing measures as a whole, are covered by Article 3 of the operative part of the contested decision.
Det sjette anbringende vedrører en begrundelsesmangel ved den appellerede dom med hensyn til det argument, som Kongeriget Belgien fremførte ved Retten vedrørende forekomsten af en »låntagergarantiordning« inden for Belfin, som var til hinder for, at de pågældende garantier kunne anses for støtte. Retten fastslog herved alene i den appellerede doms præmis 70, at »det kan derfor ikke med føje bestrides, at garantierne var statslige«.
By incorrectly identifying the SNCI and Belfin loans covered by the contested decision, the Court of First Instance therefore distorted the scope of the decision.
Retten tilsidesatte under disse omstændigheder begrundelsespligten i henhold til artikel 30 og artikel 46, stk. 1, i EKSF-statutten for Domstolen, hvorfor den appellerede dom må ophæves på dette punkt.
In the present case, the state of the proceedings permits a judgment to be given on this point, and it is appropriate to consider the plea relied on at first instance by the Kingdom of Belgium, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as regards the identification of the SNCI and Belfin loans and the State guarantees attaching to them, in order to ascertain whether the form of order sought at first instance by Clabecq can be granted or whether the rejection of that plea means that the other pleas in the appeal will have to be considered.
Den belgiske regering, som ikke under den administrative procedure fremlagde væsentlige oplysninger vedrørende dette punkt, kan ikke efterfølgende foreholde Kommissionen at have tilsidesat EKSF-traktatens artikel 4, litra c), og artikel 1, stk. 2, i femte støttekodeks.
In the present case, as has already been observed above, the contested decision, read in the light of the notice of 11 October 1996 and seen in its original context, makes it possible to identify the aid elements as comprising the State guarantees attaching to certain SNCI and Belfin loans, namely the second instalment of BEF 680 million of the first SNCI loan, the fourth SNCI loan of BEF 650 million and the two Belfin loans in the amount of BEF 300 million and 200 million respectively.
Kongeriget Belgiens anbringende ved Retten om, at EKSF-traktatens artikel 4, litra c), og artikel 1, stk. 2, i femte støttekodeks er blevet tilsidesat, må således forkastes.
The second plea, concerning the guarantees for the SNCI and Belfin loans, also alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
•1) Dommen afsagt af De Europæiske Fællesskabers Ret i Første Instans den 25. marts 1999 i sagen Forges de Clabecq mod Kommissionen (sag T-37/97), ophæves for så vidt som
The Belgian Government claims that it challenged the lawfulness of the contested decision before the Court of First Instance in so far as the decision stated that the extension of the State guarantees attaching to the SNCI and Belfin loans constituted illegal aid.
— dommen forkert har gengivet rækkevidden af Kommissionens beslutning af 18. december 1996, EKSF-stål — Forges de Clabecq, hvorved visse finansielle foranstaltninger tü fordel for Forges de Clabecq SA blev erklæret uforenelige med fællesmarkedet
In the present case, it is common ground that the Court of First Instance did not rule on the plea that the extension of the State guarantees attaching to the SNCI and Belfin loans did not constitute illegal aid inasmuch as that extension was duly notified on 25 June 19% and was neither implemented nor granted at any time during the Commission's examination of Clabecq's situation, an argument which was expressly raised by the Kingdom of Belgium in paragraphs 30 to 32 and 45 of its statement in intervention at first instance.
— dommen er behæftetmed begrundelsesmangel i strid med artikel 30 og 46 stk 1, i EKSF-statutten for Domstolen.
The second plea relied on by the Kingdom of Belgium, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested judgment, is therefore well founded and, accordingly, that judgment must be set aside in so far as it confirms the contested decision as regards the State guarantees for SNCI and Belfin loans.
Kongeriget Belgien, Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber og Compagnie belge pour le financement de l'industrie SA bærer deres egne omkostninger ved Domstolen.*
In the light of the information which the Belgian authorities sent to the Commission during the administrative procedure, the Commission was entitled to assume that the State guarantees had been extended without its prior authorisation.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 6. december 2001.
Third and fourth pleas, relating to guarantees for the SNCI loans, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the obligation to state reasons
»1) Dommen afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 25. marts 1999, Forges de Clabecq mod Kommissionen (sag T-37/97) ophæves.
The Belgian Government points out that the State guarantees criticised by the Commission in the contested decision relate, first, to the second instalment of BEF 680 million of the first loan granted to Clabecq by SNCI at the beginning of the 1980s and, secondly, to the last loan of BEF 650 million, granted to it by SNCI in 1985.
Kommissionens beslutning 97/271/EKSF af 18. december 1996, EKSF-stål - Forges de Clabecq, annulleres, i det omfang den vedrører de statsgarantier, der er knyttet til de lån, som Société nationale de crédit å l'industrie (SNCI) har ydet Forges de Clabecq SA
The Belgian Government states that those two loans had been authorised, subject to specific conditions, by the authorisation decisions of 1982 and 1985, respectively, and it criticises the Court of First Instance for holding that the Belgian authorities could not rely on those two decisions.
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber betaler foruden sine egne omkostninger Kongeriget Belgiens og Compagnie belge pour le financement de l'industrie SA's (Belfin) omkostninger i forbindelse med appelsagen.
Fifth, sixth and seventh pleas, relating to the guarantees for the Belfin loans, alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence presented to the Court of First Instance, failure to state reasons as regards the existence of a guarantee fund and error in law
Kongeriget Belgien bærer sine omkostninger i forbindelse med sagen ved Retten i Første Instans.
In assessing the lawfulness of the contested decision on the basis of the information which the Commission was able to obtain at the time it adopted that decision, the Court of First Instance did not distort the clear sense of the evidence presented to it.
Forges de Clabecq SA, Région wallonne og Société wallonne pour la sidérurgie SA (SWS) bærer deres egne omkostninger.«
Moreover, no error in law can be discerned in its reasoning.
Sag C-13/01 Safalero Sri / Prefetto di Genova Grundlæggende fællesskabsretlige principper
In that regard, the Court of First Instance merely observed, in paragraph 70 of that judgment, that '[t]he fact that State guarantees constitute State aid may also no longer effectively be denied'.
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 1999/5/EF — radio- og teleterminaludstyr — effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse af de rettigheder, der tillægges i henhold til Fællesskabets retsorden — tilladeligheden af administrative sanktioner fastsat i den nationale lovgivning — anfægtelse af en beslaglæggelsesforanstaltning, der er truffet overfor tredjemand* (Sjette Afdeling)
That response by the Court of First Instance does not really rule on the important argument put forward by the Kingdom of Belgium and certainly does not satisfy the requirements of a statement of reasons.
Ved kendelser af 4. januar 2001 og 30. juli 2002 har Giudice di pace di Genova forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af proportionalitetsprincippet, effektivitetsprincippet og princippet om domstolsbeskyttelse af de rettigheder, der tillægges i henhold til Fællesskabets retsorden.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 30 and the first paragraph of Article 46 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, and the contested judgment must therefore be set aside in that regard.
Tvisten i hovedsagen og det præjudicielle spørgsmål
Proceedings before the Court of First Instance
Safalero er en italiensk virksomhed, der fremstiller modelfly med forbrændingsmotorer eller elektriske motorer, der kan fjernstyres ved hjælp af radiofjernstyringsapparater.
The Belgian Government, which failed to provide the information which was essential in that regard during the administrative procedure, cannot subsequently complain that the Commission infringed Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty and Article 1(2) of the Fifth Code.
Den 8. februar 2000 indfandt Liguriens postpoliti sig i virksomheden Vitales lokaler (herefter »Vitale«), der er en detailhandler, der driver virksomhed inden for modelsektoren i Genova (Italien).
The plea relied on at first instance by the Kingdom of Belgium, alleging infringement of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty and Article 1(2) of the Fifth Code, must therefore be rejected.
- den person, der antages at have begået overtrædelsen, ikke ad renens vej kan anfægte en foranstaltning, som forvaltningen har truffet, før forvaltningen serv, der herved ikke er bundet af frister, har truffet afgørelse om betalingspålæg eller konfiskation
Orders the fångdom of Belgium, the Commission of the European Communities and the Compagnie belge pour le financement de l'industrie SA to bear the costs they incurred before the Court of Justice.'
- det ikke tillades den person, der er umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af en af forvaltningen truffet foranstaltning, ad rettens vej at anfægte denne, såfremt den er blevet truffet over for andre personer
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 6 December 2001.
Domstolens bemærkninger
11 September 2003
Det første led i det præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrører det tilfælde, hvor forvaltningen ikke har truffet afgørelse om betalingspålæg eller konfiskation.
Preliminary ruling (Directive 1999/5/EC — Radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment — Effective judicial protection of rights conferred by the Community legal order — Permissibility of administrative penalties under national legislation — Application to set aside a seizure measure against a third party) (Sixth Chamber)
Det fremgår i denne forbindelse af sagen, således som den er forelagt Domstolen af den forelæggende ret, at dette tilfælde ikke foreligger i hovedsagen, da Prefetto di Genova ved afgørelsen af 26. april 2000 traf afgørelse om konfiskation af de beslaglagte apparater.
By orders of 4 January 2001 and 30 July 2002 the Giudice di pace di Genova (Magistrates Court, Genoa) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and judicial protection of rights conferred by the Community legal order.
Da det drejer sig om et hypotetisk spørgsmål, er det ikke fornødent at besvare det.
The main dispute and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
For så vidt angår det fjerde led i det præjudicielle spørgsmål har den forelæggende ret konstateret, at de omhandlede apparater udelukkende er blevet beslaglagt som følge af, at de ikke var forsynet med det efter italiensk lovgivning påkrævede nationale typegodkendelsesmærke.
On 8 February 2000, officers of the Ligurian Postal Police visited the premises of an undertaking called Vitale (hereinafter 'Vitale'), which is a retailer operating at Genoa (Italy) in the model-making sector. They seized seven radio-control units, which that undertaking had purchased from Safalero, on the ground that they did not bear the type-approval stamp required by Article 398 of the Postal Regulations.
Det følger af Radiosistemi-dommen (navnlig præmis 79 og 80), at en sanktionsordning, der fastsætter bøder eller andre tvangsforanstaltninger for at sikre gennemførelsen af nationale bestemmelser, der er anset for at være i strid med fællesskabsretten, allerede af den grund må anses for at være i strid med fællesskabsretten, uden at det er nødvendigt at bedømme dens overensstemmelse med forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling eller proportionalitetsprincippet.
Vitale brought an administrative appeal before the Prefetto di Genova, who, by order of 26 April 2000, rejected the appeal, fined Vitale ITL 33 000 and ordered the confiscation of the previously seized goods with a view to their destruction. Vitale has not brought any court proceedings against that prefectoral decision.
Det er således ikke fornødent at besvare spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt begrænsningen af de nationale domstoles beføjelser til blot at udøve en kontrol af lovligheden af den fastsatte sanktion, uden at det er muligt at foretage en afvigende og selvstændig vurdering af denne sanktion, er foreneligt med fællesskabsretten eller ej.
By reports dated 17 February 2000, the Postal Police charged Safalero, as the company which had sold the seized apparatus, with having infringed Articles 398 and 399 of the Postal Regulations, and imposed on it an administrative penalty of ITL 100 000 for each infringement charged, that is a total of ITL 300 000.
Når en importør som Safalero under omstændigheder som dem i hovedsagen har mulighed for inden for rammerne af en sag anlagt mod forvaltningen at påberåbe sig ulovligheden på grund af en tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsretten af den bøde, der er pålagt selskabet, som følge af, at de solgte apparater ikke var forsynet med det efter postlovens artikel 398 påkrævede typegodkendelsesmærke, tider han over et retsmiddel, som sikrer ham en effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse af de rettigheder, der tillægges ham i henhold til Fællesskabets retsorden.
On 18 April 2000, Safalero brought an administrative appeal against those decisions before the Prefetto di Genova, as well as an application for the return of the seized radio-control units, which Vitale had bought from it.