natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter at have fastslået, at produktet hverken opfylder denitionen af lægemiddel efter funktion eller lægemiddel efter betegnelse som omhandlet i de
Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Domstolen pågældende fællesskabsbestemmelser 15, fastslog Domstolen, at den tyske foranstaltning udgør en hindring for samhandelen i Fællesskabet.
Ruling, secondly, on whether the roadworthiness test relating to the general condition of vehicles at the time of their registration in the Netherlands was compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC, the Court stated that a restrictive measure of that kind, when applied to vehicles more than three years old which had previously been registered in another Member State, was not proportionate to the legitimate objectives of road safety and the protection of the environment.
Desuden kan den omhandlede foranstaltning ikke begrundes i hensynet til beskyttelsen af den oentlige sundhed i medfør af artikel 30 EF, eftersom denne type bestemmelse skal være baseret på en grundig evaluering af den påståede sundhedsrisiko, og eftersom en foranstaltning, som er mindre indgribende i de frie varebevægelser, såsom en passende etikettering, som oplyser forbrugerne om de potentielle risici forbundet med indtagelse af dette produkt, ville have kunnet opfylde målet om beskyttelse af sundheden.
The Court observed in this regard that less restrictive measures existed, such as recognition of the proof issued in another Member State showing that a vehicle registered in its territory had passed a roadworthiness test, and cooperation between the Netherlands customs authorities and their counterparts in other Member States concerning any data that might be missing.
Endelig bør nævnes dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Nederlandene (dom af 20.9.2007, sag C-297/05), som præciserer Domstolens praksis vedrørende nationale regler om indførsel af køretøjer, der er indregistreret i en anden medlemsstat.
Caselaw in this eld was particularly abundant, making a well-ordered presentation dicult, in particular as the cases brought before the Court often concerned the exercise of several freedoms simultaneously.
Adspurgt, om en nederlandsk lovgivning, som underkaster sådanne køretøjer en kontrol med henblik på identicering og en teknisk kontrol forud for deres indregistrering i Nederlandene, er forenelig med fællesskabsretten, fandt Domstolen for det første, at kontrollen pålagt med henblik på identicering af køretøjer ikke udgør en hindring for de frie varebevægelser.
It has therefore been decided to divide the caselaw into four areas, three of which reect a sectoral approach, that is to say the free movement of workers, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the free movement of capital, while the fourth — namely the limitations imposed by those freedoms on the exercise by the Member States of their powers of taxation — involves a cross-sectoral approach.
Den er således ikke egnet til at have en afskrækkende virkning for indførslen af køretøjer til Nederlandene og gør ikke en sådan indførsel mindre interessant, når henses til den måde, hvorpå den gennemføres, og at den kun udgør en simpel administrativ formalitet, der ikke indebærer nogen supplerende kontrol, men er uadskilleligt forbundet med selve behandlingen af ansøgningen om indregistrering og afviklingen af den hertil knyttede procedure.
With regard to the free movement of natural persons, that is to say of workers, the Court ruled, inter alia, on the right of residence of nationals of third countries who are members of the family of a Community national, in particular a Community migrant worker, and the social advantages which those family members may claim.
Domstolen fastslog i denne forbindelse, at der ndes mindre indgribende foranstaltninger såsom anerkendelse af det bevis, der er udstedt i en anden medlemsstat, og som viser, at et køretøj, der er indregistreret på sidstnævntes område, er blevet godkendt ved en teknisk kontrol, kombineret med samarbejde mellem de nederlandske toldmyndigheder og de tilsvarende myndigheder i andre medlemsstater vedrørende eventuelle manglende oplysninger.
Thus, a national of a Member State who, while maintaining his employment in that State, has transferred his residence to another Member State and has since then carried on his occupation as a frontier worker can claim the status of migrant worker for the purposes of Regulation No 1612/68 (16).
Retspraksis på dette område har været særligt omfattende, hvilket vanskeliggør en velordnet fremlæggelse af denne praksis, så meget desto mere fordi de sager, som er blevet indbragt for Domstolen, ofte vedrører udøvelse af flere friheder på én gang.
In Jia, the dispute before the national court concerned the case of a Chinese national who was the mother-in-law of a German national and went to join her son in Sweden where her daughter-in-law was self-employed.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2001/83/EF af 6.11.2001 om oprettelse af en fællesskabskodeks for humanmedicinske lægemidler (EFT L 311, s. 67).
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475).
Udviklingen og arbejdet
Proceedings nancially dependent on her son and his wife.
På området for den frie bevægelighed for fysiske personer, dvs. arbejdstagere, udtalte Domstolen sig bl.a. om retten til ophold for familiemedlemmer, som er tredjelandsstatsborgere, til statsborgere i Fællesskabet, herunder navnlig EF-vandrende arbejdstagere og de sociale fordele, som disse familiemedlemmer kan påberåbe sig. Det bemærkes, at Domstolen også i Hartmann-sagen (dom af 18.7.2007, sag C-212/05) præciserede begrebet »vandrende arbejdstager«.
The national court, referring to the judgment in Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607, essentially asked whether the lawful-residence condition that was adopted in that judgment also applied to the circumstances of the case in point.
Således kan en statsborger i en medlemsstat, som har yttet sin bopæl til en anden medlemsstat, men som har opretholdt sit tjenesteforhold i førstnævnte medlemsstat og siden da udøvet sin erhvervsmæssige beskæftigelse som grænsearbejder, påberåbe sig status som »vandrende arbejdstager« som omhandlet i forordning nr. 1612/68 16.
The Court stated in reply to this question that, having regard to the judgment in Akrich, Community law does not require Member States to make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a third country, who are members of the family of a Community national who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the condition that those family members have previously been residing lawfully in another Member State.
Hvad angår retten til ophold for familiemedlemmer, som er tredjelandsstatsborgere, til en statsborger i Fællesskabet, som har udnyttet sin ret til fri bevægelighed, må især fremhæves Jia-sagen (dom af 9.1.2007, sag C-1/05) og Eind-sagen (dom af 11.12.2007, sag C-291/05).
However, such family members must be dependent on the Community national or his or her spouse in the sense that they need those persons’ material support in order to meet their essential needs in their State of origin or the State from which they have come at the time when they apply to join them.
I Jia-sagen vedrørte det søgsmål, som var indbragt for den forelæggende ret, en kvinde med kinesisk statsborgerskab, hvis svigerdatter var tysk statsborger, og som havde sluttet sig til sin søn i Sverige, hvor svigerdatteren udøvede selvstændig virksomhed.
In Eind, the Court held that the right to family reunication under Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 does not entail for members of the families of migrant workers any autonomous right to free movement, since that provision benets the migrant worker whose family includes a national of a third country.
Domstolen besvarede dette spørgsmål med, at henset til Akrich-dommen pålægger fællesskabsretten ikke medlemsstaterne at gøre tildelingen af en opholdstilladelse til en tredjelandsstatsborger, der er familiemedlem til en fællesskabsborger, som har gjort brug af sin ret til fri bevægelighed, betinget af, at dette familiemedlem forinden har haft lovligt ophold i en anden medlemsstat.
However, when that worker returns to the Member State of which he is a national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State, a third-country national who is a member of his family has a right under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 1612/68 as amended to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national, even where that worker does not carry on any eective and genuine economic activities.
Dette familiemedlem skal imidlertid forsørges af fællesskabsborgeren eller dennes ægtefælle, hvorved forstås, at vedkommende har behov for materiel støtte fra sidstnævnte til at opfylde sine grundlæggende fornødenheder i sit hjemland eller i det land, hvorfra vedkommende kom, på det tidspunkt, hvor den pågældende ansøger om at slutte sig til fællesskabsborgeren eller dennes ægtefælle.
The fact that a third-country national who is a member of a Community worker’s family did not, before residing in the Member State where the worker was employed, have a right under national law to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national has no bearing on the determination of the third-country national’s right to reside in the latter State.
Når denne arbejdstager imidlertid vender tilbage til den medlemsstat, hvori han er statsborger, efter at have udført
On the other hand, in its judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-213/05 Geven, the Court stated that the same article does not preclude the exclusion, by the national legislation of a Member State, of a national of another Member State who resides in that other State and is in minor employment (fewer than 15 hours’work a week) in the former State from receipt of a social advantage such as a child-raising allowance on the ground that he does not have his permanent or ordinary residence in the former State.
Domstolen lønnet beskæftigelse i en anden medlemsstat, vil en tredjelandstatsborger, der er familiemedlem til denne arbejdstager i medfør af artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), i forordning nr. 1612/68, som ændret, have ret til ophold i den stat, hvori arbejdstageren er statsborger, uden at denne sidstnævnte udfører reelt og faktisk arbejde dér.
Court of Justice the Court held in its judgment of 11 September 2007 in Case C-287/05 Hendrix that Article 39 EC and Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 do not preclude national legislation which applies Articles 4(2a) and 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 (17), as amended, and provides that a special non-contributory benet may be granted only to persons who are resident in the national territory.
Den omstændighed, at tredjelandsstatsborgeren, som er familiemedlem til en fællesskabsarbejdstager, før den pågældende tog ophold i den medlemsstat, hvor arbejdstageren havde lønnet beskæftigelse, ikke havde opholdsret i medfør af national ret i den medlemsstat, hvor arbejdstageren er statsborger, er irrelevant for bedømmelsen af denne statsborgers ret til at opholde sig i denne sidstnævnte stat.
However, implementation of that legislation must not entail an infringement of the rights derived by a person from the free movement of workers which goes beyond what is required to achieve the legitimate objective pursued by the national legislation.
Fællesskabsarbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, som bosætter sig i en anden medlemsstat, har adgang til de samme sociale fordele som indenlandske arbejdstagere.
More specically, in relation to social security the Court had to rule on the compatibility of certain provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 with freedom of movement for persons and with Article 42 EC in particular.
Således fastslog Domstolen i Hartmann-sagen, at artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1612/68 er til hinder for, at ægtefællen til en vandrende arbejdstager, som udøver en erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse i en medlemsstat, som er ikke-erhvervsaktiv og har bopæl i en anden medlemsstat, udelukkes fra at modtage en social fordel med de særlige kendetegn, der er karakteristiske for den tyske børnepasningsydelse, fordi denne ægtefælle hverken har bopæl eller sædvanligt ophold i førstnævnte medlemsstat.
Thus, in its judgment of 18 December 2007 in Joined Cases C-396/05, C-419/05 and C-450/05 Habelt, Möser and Watcher, concerning payment of an old-age pension to displaced persons of German nationality or origin, the Court declared incompatible with freedom of movement for persons the authorisation given to the Federal Republic of Germany to make the taking into account of contribution periods completed outside the Federal Republic subject to the condition that the recipient resides in Germany.
Et sådant bopælskrav må således anses for at udgøre indirekte forskelsbehandling, eftersom det efter selve sin natur er egnet til i højere grad at påvirke vandrende arbejdstagere eller deres ægtefæller, som oftere har bopæl i en anden medlemsstat, end indenlandske arbejdstagere, og derfor risikerer i højere grad at stille sidstnævnte ringere.
To allow the competent Member State to rely on grounds of integration into the social environment of that Member State in order to impose a residence clause would run directly counter to the fundamental objective of the Union, which is to encourage the movement of persons within the Union and their integration into the society of other States.
Ligeledes præciserede Domstolen i Hendrixsagen (dom af 11.9.2007, sag C-287/05), at artikel 39 EF og artikel 7 i forordning nr. 1612/68 ikke er til hinder for en national lovgivning, som anvender artikel 4, stk. 2a, og artikel 10a i forordning nr. 1408/71 17, som ændret, og som fastsætter, at en særlig ikke-bidragspligtig ydelse kun kan ydes til personer, der er bosiddende på det nationale område.
Accordingly, the refusal of the national authorities to take account, for the purposes of calculating old-age benets, of the contributions made abroad by a worker makes manifestly more dicult or even prevents the exercise by those concerned of their right to freedom of movement within the Union and therefore constitutes an obstacle to that freedom.
Gennemførslen af denne lovgivning må imidlertid ikke gøre et indgreb i de rettigheder, som en person har i henhold til arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, der går videre, end hvad der er nødvendigt, henset til gennemførelsen af det lovlige formål, som forfølges med den nationale lov.
With regard to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, the Court, first, claried the scope of the Treaty provisions in relation to situations involving an extraCommunity element and, second, dealt with various restrictions.
Mere specikt, på området for social sikkerhed, udtalte Domstolen sig om spørgsmålet, om visse bestemmelser i forordning nr. 1408/71 er forenelige med den frie bevægelighed for personer og navnlig artikel 42 EF.
In Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, concerning the legislation of a Member State relating to the deduction by a resident company, for tax purposes, of interest paid on loan finance granted by a parent company or a company controlled by a parent company, the Court held that relations between a company resident in one Member State and a company which is resident in another Member State or a non-member country and which does not itself control the first company, but which are both controlled, directly or indirectly, by a common parent company resident in a non-member country, are not covered by Article 43 EC.
Således fastslog Domstolen i Habelt, Möser og Watchersagen (dom af 18.12.2007, forenede sager C-396/05, C-419/05 og C-450/05) vedrørende betaling af en alderspension til fordrevne personer med tysk statsborgerskab eller af tysk oprindelse, at det er uforeneligt med den frie bevægelighed for personer, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland har fået tilladelse til at underlægge hensyntagen til bidragsperioder tilbagelagt uden for Forbundsrepublikkens område en betingelse om, at
Also, in its judgment of 24 May 2007 in Case C-157/05 Holböck the Court held the provisions of the chapter of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment to be inapplicable to a situation where a shareholder receives dividends from a company established in a non-member country. That chapter does not include any provision extending its application to situations which involve the establishment in a non-member country of a Member State national or of a company incorporated under the legislation of a Member State.
Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14.6.1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der ytter inden for Fællesskabet (EFT L 149, s. 2).
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
Udviklingen og arbejdet bidragsmodtageren har bopæl i Tyskland.
Proceedings
Såfremt det blev tilladt den kompetente medlemsstat at påberåbe sig integration i denne medlemsstats sociale liv som begrundelse for at opstille en bopælsklausul, ville dette være direkte i strid med det grundlæggende formål for Den Europæiske Union, der består i at fremme personers bevægelighed inden for denne og deres integration i andre medlemsstaters samfund.
As regards restrictions, the first judgment to be mentioned was delivered in Case C-338/04 Placanica [2007] ECR I-1891 relating to the organisation of games of chance. The dispute before the national court concerned domestic legislation on the organisation of games of chance and the collection of bets that had been adopted in order to combat clandestine gaming and betting.
Som følge heraf gør de nationale myndigheders afslag på at tage hensyn til bidrag indbetalt i udlandet af en arbejdstager det åbenbart mere vanskeligt eller umuligt for de berettigede at udøve deres ret til fri bevægelighed inden for Den Europæiske Union og udgør således en hindring for denne frihed.
Under the legislation, organisation of gaming and betting required, on pain of criminal penalties, prior grant of a licence and of a police authorisation. In addition, when awarding licences the competent national authorities excluded certain tenders, in particular from operators in the form of companies whose shares were quoted on the regulated markets.
Hvad angår etableringsfriheden og den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser præciserede Domstolen på den ene side anvendelsesområdet for traktatens bestemmelser i forbindelse med situationer, som vedrører et element uden for Fællesskabet, og konstaterede på den anden side diverse restriktioner.
The Court held, directly following caselaw laid down in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031, that national legislation which prohibits, on pain of criminal penalties, the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding oers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, but that that restriction can be justied if, in limiting the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes, a matter which the Court leaves to national courts to ascertain.
I dommen i sagen Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation vedrørende en medlemsstats lovgivning om et hjemmehørende selskabs skattefradrag for renter af nansieringslån ydet af et moderselskab eller et selskab, som er kontrolleret af et sådant moderselskab, fastslog Domstolen, at forholdet mellem et selskab, der er hjemmehørende i en medlemsstat, og et selskab, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat eller i et tredjeland, og som ikke selv kontrollerer det første selskab, men som begge to direkte eller indirekte kontrolleres af et fælles koncernforbundet selskab, som er hjemmehørende i et tredjeland, ikke henhører under artikel 43 EF.
The Court also held that national legislation which excludes from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets is likewise an obstacle to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and stated that such an exclusion goes beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective of preventing operators active in the betting and gaming sector from being involved in criminal or fraudulent activities.
Ligeledes fastslog Domstolen i Holböcksagen (dom af 24.5.2007, sag C-157/05), at bestemmelserne i EF-traktatens kapitel om etableringsfriheden ikke nder anvendelse i en situation, hvor en selskabsdeltager modtager udbytte fra et selskab etableret i et tredjeland.
Finally, those freedoms are also restricted by legislation which imposes a criminal penalty on persons for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.
Det nævnte kapitel indeholder således ikke nogen bestemmelser, som udvider kapitlets anvendelsesområde til situationer, som vedrører den situation, at en statsborger i en medlemsstat eller et selskab oprettet i henhold til en medlemsstats lovgivning etablerer sig i et tredjeland.
Although in principle criminal legislation is a matter for which the Member States are responsible, Community law sets certain limits to their power, and such legislation may not restrict the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law.
Hvad angår restriktioner må for det første nævnes Placanica-sagen (dom af 6.3.2007, sag C-338/04) om afholdelse af hasardspil.
The next cases, namely Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz, Commission v Germany and Case C-444/05 Stamatelaki (judgment of 19 April 2007), concern payments for school fees or hospital treatment to an establishment in another Member State.
Det søgsmål, som var indbragt for den forelæggende ret, vedrørte en national lovgivning angående afholdelse af sådanne spil og væddemålsvirksomhed vedtaget til bekæmpelse af ulovlig spil- og væddemålsvirksomhed.
Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz and Commission v Germany related to the tax relief granted to German taxpayers in respect of school fees paid for their children’s attendance at private schools in Germany meeting certain conditions.
I medfør af denne lovgivning og under trussel om straf krævede afholdelse af spil- og væddemålsvirksomhed en forudgående tildeling af en koncession eller en polititilladelse.
This relief did not apply to fees paid to schools in other Member States.
Desuden udelukkede de kompetente nationale myndigheder i forbindelse med tildeling af koncessioner navnlig erhvervsdrivende, der var stiftet i form af kapitalselskaber, og hvis aktier var noteret på de ocielle børser, fra udbudsrunderne. Domstolen fastslog imidlertid, på linje med dommen i sagen Gambelli m.. (dom af 6.11.2003, sag C-243/01, Sml.
Before ruling on the compatibility of this legislation with Article 49 EC, the Court stated, first, that the concept of services extends to schools essentially nanced by private funds. Since the aim of those establishments is to oer a service for remuneration, they can rely on the freedom to provide services.