natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kongeriget Nederlandene har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler det i medfør af EF-traktaten, idet det i strid med artikel 2 og 4 i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 December 1997, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that by failing to subject to value added tax tolls collected for the use of roads as consideration for the service supplied to users, contrary to Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977, the Kingdom of the Netherlands had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 4. december 1997 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at
According to the case-law of the Court, in proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty for failure to fulfil obligations it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled. It is the
1977 har undladt at opkræve merværdiafgift (herefter »moms«) af vejafgifter for benyttelse af vejanlæg som modydelse for en over for brugerne præsteret tjenesteydelse.
no VAT was charged on the tolls collected for the use of those infrastructures.
afgiftspligtig person i forbindelse med udnyttelse af et gode med henblik på opnåelse af indtægter af en vis varig karakter, jf. sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 1 og 2.
Commission's responsibility to place before the Court the information needed to enable the Court to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled, and in so doing the Commission may not rely on any presumption.
Den omstændighed, at denne virksomhed — som det er tilfældet i Nederlandene — udøves af offentligretlige organer, kan ifølge Kommissionen ikke medføre, at disse transaktioner falder uden for sjette direktivs anvendelsesområde.
It must be ascertained whether the operators in question are entitled to the exemption provided for by Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
Den har gjort gældende, at det påhviler Kommissionen at godtgøre, at det påståede traktatbrud foreligger, idet den skal fremlægge de oplysninger, der er nødvendige for, at Domstolen kan efterprøve, om der foreligger et traktatbrud.
The first paragraph of that article provides that bodies governed by public law are not considered to be taxable persons in respect of activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities.
Det forhold, at vejanlæg stilles til rådighed mod betaling af en vejafgift, udgør levering af en tjenesteydelse mod vederlag, jf. sjette direktivs artikel 2, nr. 1.
As the Court has held on numerous occasions, it is clear from that provision, when examined in the light of the aims of the directive, that two conditions must be fulfilled in order for the exemption to apply: the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority.
Det fremgår af Domstolens praksis, at det under en traktatbrudssag i medfør traktatens artikel 169 påhviler Kommissionen at godtgøre, at det påståede traktatbrud foreligger.
However, it is also clear from the case-law of the Court that it is for the Member States, under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) to facilitate the achievement of the Commission's tasks, which consist in particular, pursuant to Article 155 of the EC Treaty (now Article 211 EC), in ensuring that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied.
Det er Kommissionen, som skal fremføre de omstændigheder, som er nødvendige for, at Domstolen kan efterprøve, om der foreligger et traktatbrud, og Kommissionen kan ikke påberåbe sig nogen formodning herfor.
Accordingly, a Member State cannot plead the lack of specific information as to national law and practice put forward by the Commission, and, therefore, the inadmissibility of the action, where, as here, the Commission is largely relying on the information provided by the Member State concerned.
Det bemærkes i denne forbindelse, at den nederlandske regering i sin skrivelse af 5. juli 1988 som svar på åbningsskrivelsen af 20. april 1988 erkendte, at opkrævningen af motorvejsafgifter i Nederlandene var forbeholdt det offentlige og offentligretlige organer, at det offentlige drev to broer og en tunnel, og at den vejafgift, der blev opkrævet for benyttelse af disse vejanlæg, ikke blev pålagt moms.
It must be held that the Commission has failed to put before the Court the evidence required to substantiate the alleged failure to fulfil obligations as regards the condition relating to pursuance of an activity as a public authority.
Det skal undersøges, om de pågældende erhvervsdrivende er omfattet af den afgiftsfritagelse, der er omhandlet i sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5.
However, as also noted in paragraph 34 of this judgment, the non-taxable status provided for in Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive requires that the activities be carried out not only as a public authority but also by a body governed by public law.
Det fremgår dog ligeledes af Domstolens praksis, at medlemsstaterne i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 5 (nu artikel 10 EF) er forpligtet til at lette Kommissionen i gennemførelsen af dens opgave, som i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 155 (nu artikel 211 EF) navnlig består i at drage omsorg for gennemførelsen af de i traktaten indeholdte bestemmelser og af de bestemmelser, som med hjemmel i denne træffes af institutionerne.
The Commission submits that providing access to roads on payment of a toll by the user is an economic activity within the meaning of Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth Directive.
I henhold til denne bestemmelses første afsnit anses offentligretlige organer ikke som afgiftspligtige personer for så vidt angår virksomhed eller transaktioner, som de udøver eller foretager i deres egenskab af offentlig myndighed.
That activity must be considered to be a supply of services carried out by a taxable person in the course of the exploitation of property for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis, within the meaning of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive.
En medlemsstat kan herefter ikke påberåbte sig, at de retlige omstændigheder og de former for national praksis, som Kommissionen har anført, ikke har konkret karakter, og dermed ikke påstå sagen afvist, når Kommissionen — som det er tilfældet i denne sag — i vidt omfang er afhængig af de oplysninger, som den pågældende medlemsstat har meddelt.
The fact that this activity is carried out, as it is in the Netherlands, by bodies governed by public law cannot, in its view, remove the transactions in question from the scope of the Sixth Directive.
Som Domstolen gentagne gange har fastslået, fremgår det af en gennemgang af denne bestemmelse i lyset af direktivets formål, at to kumulative betingelser skal være opfyldt, for at reglen om afgiftsfritagelse finder anvendelse, nemlig et offentligretligt organs udøvelse af virksomhed og udøvelse af virksomhed, der varetages i egenskab af offentlig myndighed.
In the present case it is common ground that, in the Netherlands, the activity of providing access to roads on payment of a toll is, as indicated inter alia by the letters from the Netherlands Government of 5 July 1988 and 27 February 1997, carried out by bodies governed by public law.
Ifølge Kommissionen udgør den omstændighed, at der stilles vejanlæg til rådighed mod brugerens betaling af en vejafgift, økonomisk virksomhed i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i sjette direktivs artikel 2 og 4.
Providing access to roads on payment of a toll constitutes a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
Det må konstateres, at Kommissionen ikke har fremlagt oplysninger for Domstolen, der gør det muligt for denne at fastslå, om det påståede traktatbrud med hensyn til betingelsen om udøvelse af virksomhed i egenskab af offentlig myndighed foreligger.
In its letter of 5 July 1988 replying to the letter of formal notice of 20 April 1988 the Netherlands Government admitted that, in the Netherlands, the collection of motorway tolls fell within the remit of public authority and of bodies governed by public law, that two bridges and a tunnel were operated by public authority and that
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear the costs.'
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet CDomstolens plenum) den 27. januar 2000.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 27 January 2000.
Forenede sager C-180/98 - C-184/98 Pavel Pavlov mil. / Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten Konkurrence
Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavel Pavlov and Others ν Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten Competition
Præjudiciel »Obligatorisk tilslutning til en erhvervspensionsfond —forenelighed med konkurrencereglerne — spørgsmålet, om en erhvervspensionsfond må betegnes som en virksomhed* (Domstolens plenum)
Preliminary ruling (Compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme — Compatibility with competition rules — Classification of an occupational pension fund as an widertaking) (Full Court)
Ved fem kendelser af 8. maj 1998 har Kantongerecht, Nijmegen, forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkning af EF-traktatens artikel 85, 86 og 90 (nu artikel 81 EF, 82 EF og 86 EF).
Mr Pavlov and the other applicants in the main proceedings are five medical specialists practising in a hospital in Nijmegen. It is common ground that they were obliged to be members of the Fund until the end of 1995.
»Pavlov m.fl.«) og Stichting Pensioensfonds Medische Specialisten (Speciallægernes Pensionsfond, herefter »Fonden«), idet Pavlov m.fl. havde nægtet at betale bidrag til Fonden bla. med den begrundelse, at den obligatoriske tilslutning til denne med heraf følgende bidragspligt er i strid med traktatens artikel 85, 86 og 90.
The three questions have been raised in five actions brought by five medical specialists, Messrs Pavlov, Van der Schaaf, Kooyman, Weber and Slappendel against Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten (Pension Fund for Medical Specialists, hereinafter the Fund') concerning the refusal of Mr Pavlov and the other applicants to pay contributions to the Fund on the ground, in particular, that compulsory membership of the Fund, by virtue of which the contributions were claimed from them, is contrary to Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the Treaty.
Disse spørgsmål er blevet rejst i fem sager mellem speciallægerne Pavlov, Van der Schaaf, Kooyman, Weber og Slappendel (herefter
Mr Pavlov and the other applicants take the view that, as from 1 January 1996, they ought to have been exempted from compulsory membership of the Fund by virtue of Article 1(2) of the Fund's rules.
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagerne, Pavlov m.fl., er fem speciallæger, der er beskæftigede på en hospital i Nijmegen.
that ground, Mr Pavlov and the other applicants ceased paying contributions to the Fund.
For at kunne besvare det andet spørgsmål skal det først undersøges, om en beslutning truffet af en repræsentativ organisation for et liberalt erhverv om inden for denne erhvervsgren at oprette en pensionsfond, som skal administrere en tillægspensionsordning, og om at anmode de offentlige myndigheder om at gøre tilslutning til fonden obligatorisk for alle udøvere af dette erhverv, er i strid med traktatens artikel 85.
that profession, a pension fund responsible for managing a supplementary pension scheme and to request the public authorities to make membership of that fund compulsory for all members of the profession is contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty.
Fonden bestred, at Pavlov m.fl. var beskæftigede i et ansættelsesforhold, og udstedte derfor et betalingspålæg til dem for udenstående bidrag.
The Fund does not accept that Mr Pavlov and the other applicants practise their profession under a contract of employment and has issued enforcement orders against them for the recovery of arrears of premiums.
Herefter bemærkes, at Domstolen har fastslået, at en beslutning truffet af en bestemt branches arbejdsgiver-ogarbejdstagerorganisationer,inden for rammerne af en kollektiv overenskomst, om inden for branchen at oprette én pensionsfond, som skal administrere en tillægspensionsordning, og om at anmode de offentlige myndigheder om at gøre tilslutning til fonden obligatorisk for alle arbejdstagere inden for branchen ikke falder ind under traktatens artikel 85.
It should be observed that the Court held that a decision taken by an organisation representing employers and workers in a given sector, in the context of a collective agreement, to set up in that sector a single pension fund responsible for managing a supplementary pension scheme and to request the public authorities to make membership of that fund compulsory for all workers in that sector does not fall within the scope of Article 85 of the Treaty.
Herefter anlagde Pavlov m.fl. sag ved Kantongerecht, Nijmegen, til prøvelse af disse betalingspålæg.
Mr Pavlov and the other applicants have challenged those enforcement orders before the Cantonal Court, Nijmegen.
Ved kendelse af 13. februar 1998 fastslog retten med henvisning til den kontraktmæssige forbindelse med hospitalet, at Pavlov m.fl. ikke kunne påberåbe sig fritagelsen i artikel 1, stk. 2, i Fondens regulativ.
By interlocutory judgments of 13 February 1998, that court held that, having regard to the nature of their contractual relationship with the hospital, Mr Pavlov and the other applicants could not rely on the exemption provided for in Article 1(2) of the Fund's rules.
Det bemærkes, at Domstolen i henholdsvis Albany-, Brentjens'- og Drijvende Bokkendommen har fastslået, at aftaler, der indgås i forbindelse med kollektive forhandlinger mellem arbejdsmarkedets parter for at forbedre ansættelses- og arbejdsvilkårene, som følge af deres karakter og formål må anses for ikke at falde ind under traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
It should be borne in mind that in the judgments in Albany, Brentjens' and Drijvende Bokken, the Court held that agreements concluded in the context of collective bargaining between employers and employees and aimed at improving employment conditions are not, by reason of their nature and purpose, to be regarded as falling within the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Den forelæggende ret har henvist til, at Hoge Raad (Nederlandene) allerede ved dom af 22. oktober 1993 forelagde Domstolen spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den obligatoriske tilslutning til en erhvervspensionsfond er forenelig med traktaten, men at denne ikke tog stilling til dette spørgsmål i dommen af 14. december 1995.
The national court notes that, by judgments of 22 October 1993, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) has already referred to the Court a question concerning the compatibility with Community law of compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme, but that the Court did not answer that question in its judgment of 14 December 1995 Van Schijndel and Van Veen.
Under disse omstændigheder har Kantongerecht, Nijmegen, besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen nogle præjudicielle spørgsmål.
Such exclusion from the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty cannot be applied to an agreement which, whilst being intended, like the agreement at issue in the main proceedings, to guarantee a certain level of pension to all the members of a profession and thus to improve one aspect of their working conditions, namely their remuneration, is not concluded in the context of collective bargaining between employers and employees.
Med det andet spørgsmål, som behandles først, ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om traktatens artikel 5 (nu artikel 10 EF)
By its second question, which it is appropriate to consider first, the national court is asking essentially whether Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and Article 85 of that Treaty prohibit a Member State's public authorities from making membership of an occupational pension fund compulsory at the request of a profession's representative body.
Det bemærkes i denne henseende, at der i traktaten ikke er fastsat nogen bestemmelse, der, som f.eks. EF-traktatens artikel 118 og 118 Β (EF-traktatens artikel 117-120 er erstattet af artikel 136-143 EF) samt artikel 1 og 4 i aftale om social- og arbejdsmarkedspolitikken, tilskynder udøverne af liberale erhverv at indgå kollektive overenskomster med henblik på at
On this point, it should be emphasised that the Treaty contains no provisions, like Articles 118 and 118b of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) or Articles 1 and 4 of the Agreement on social policy, encouraging the members of the liberal professions to conclude collective agreements with a view to improving their terms of employment and working conditions and providing that, at the request of members of the professions, such agreements be made compulsory by the public authorities, for all the members of the profession in question.
dem, og bærer selv de økonomiske risici ved udøvelsen af deres virksomhed.
economic activity and are thus undertakings within the meaning of Articles 85, 96 and 90 of the Treaty.
forbedre ansættelses- og arbejdsvilkårene, og som forudsætter, at de offentlige myndigheder på de erhvervsudøvendes anmodning gør sådanne aftaler obligatorisk for alle inden for dette erhverv.
The complexity and technical nature of the services they provide and the fact that the practice of their profession is regulated cannot alter that conclusion.
Under sådanne omstændigheder skal traktatens artikel 85, stk 1, fortolkes således, at en beslutning truffet af udøverne af et liberalt erhverv om at oprette en pensionsfond, som skal administrere en tillægspensionsordning, og om at anmode de offentlige myndigheder om at gøre tilslutning til fonden obligatorisk for alle udøvere af dette erhverv, ikke er unddraget anvendelsesområdet for denne bestemmelse på grund af beslutningens karakter og formål.
That being so, Article 85(1) of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that a decision taken by the members of a liberal profession to set up a pension fund responsible for managing a supplementary pension scheme and to request the public authorities to make membership of that fund compulsory for all the members of that profession does not, by reason of its nature or purpose, fall outside the scope of that provision.
Kommissionen har imidlertid gjort gældende, at speciallægerne ikke optræder som en virksomhed i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt inden for Fællesskabets konkurrenceret, når lægerne indbetaler bidrag til deres egen tillægspensionsordning.
Nevertheless, the Commission contends that, when they are contributing to their own supplementary pension scheme, the medical specialists are not acting as undertakings within the meaning of Community competition law.
Det skal derfor undersøges, om betingelserne for at anvende traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, er opfyldte, og først og fremmest om den pågældende organisation, Landelijke Specialisten Vereniging der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst (Landsforeningen af Specialister i Det Kongelige Nederlandske Selskab til fremme af Lægekunsten, herefter »LSV«), er en virksomhedssammenslutning.
Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain whether the conditions for application of Article 85(1) of the Treaty are fulfilled and, first of all, whether or not the representative body in question in the main action, the Landelijke Specialisten Vereniging der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst (National Association of Specialists of the Royal Netherlands Society for the Promotion of Medicine, hereinafter 'the LSV), is an association of undertakings.
Det bemærkes i denne henseende, at der for en selvstændig speciallæge er en tæt sammenhæng mellem det at bidrage til en erhvervstilknyttet tillægspensionsordning og udøvelsen af erhvervsmæssig virksomhed.
It should be observed in response to that contention that the fact that a self-employed medical specialist pays contributions to a supplementary occupational pension scheme is closely linked to the practice of his profession.
En speciallæges tilslutning til en sådan ordning har sin oprindelse i udøvelsen af erhvervet.
The medical specialist's membership of such a scheme stems from the practice of his profession.
Den pågældende erhvervstilknyttede tillægspensionsordning, der finder anvendelse på samtlige erhvervets udøvere, gør det muligt for dem at fordele en del af deres erhvervsindtægter for at sikre sig og under visse betingelser deres efterladte ægtefælle og børn et vist indtægtsniveau, når de ophører med at udøve erhvervsmæssig aktivitet.
The supplementary occupational pension scheme at issue in the main proceedings, which covers all members of the profession, allows its members to set aside part of their professional income in order to guarantee themselves, and on certain conditions, a surviving spouse or child, a certain level of income after they have ceased practising.
Under disse omstændigheder skal det for det første undersøges, om disse speciallæger udgør en virksomhed som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 85, 86 og 90.
Thus it is necessary to consider whether those independent medical specialists are undertakings within the meaning of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the Treaty.
Ifølge fast praksis omfatter begrebet virksomhed inden for konkurrenceretten enhver enhed, som udøver økonomisk virksomhed, uanset denne enheds retlige status og dens finansieringsmåde.
The Court has consistently held that, in the context of competition law, the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity or the way in which it is financed.
I denne henseende følger det ligeledes af fast praksis, at enhver virksomhed, der består i at udbyde varer og tjenesteydelser på markedet, er erhvervsmæssig virksomhed.
It has also been consistently held that any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is an economic activity.
I hovedsagerne leverer speciallægerne i LSV tjenesteydelser på et marked, markedet for specielle lægetjenester, som selvstændige erhvervsdrivende.
In the present cases, the medical specialists who are members of the LSV provide, in their capacity as self-employed economic operators, services on a market, namely the market in specialist medical services.
Disse læger modtager betaling af deres patienter for de tjenester, som de yder
In those circumstances, medical specialists cannot be regarded as acting as final consumers when they make contributions to their own supplementary pension scheme.
Under disse omstændigheder kan speciallægerne ikke anses for at handle som endelige forbrugere, når de indbetaler bidrag til deres egen tillægspensionsordning.
the products or services covered by the decisions of those undertakings, the structure of the market concerned and the actual conditions in which it functions.
Ifølge fast praksis kræver anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, på et konkret tilfælde, at kriterierne i denne bestemmelse defineres under hensyntagen til den økonomiske sammenhæng, de erhvervsdrivende virker i, de varer og tjenesteydelser, som omhandles af disse erhvervsdrivendes beslutninger, samt til, hvorledes det pågældende marked er opbygget og reelt fungerer.
It must therefore be concluded that when they decided, through the LSV, to contribute collectively to a single occupational pension fund, medical specialists were acting as undertakings within the meaning of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the Treaty.
Det må derfor fastslås, at lægerne optrådte som en virksomhed som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 85, 86 og 90, da de i LSV's regi besluttede i fællesskab at indbetale bidrag til en enkelt erhvervspensionsfond.
The next question to be examined is, therefore, whether the LSV is to be regarded as an association of undertakings for the purposes of the provisions just mentioned.