natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Der er faktisk ingen automatisk forbindelse mellem DSB’s afgørelse af 25. september 1997 og indførelsen af den omhandlede tillægstold, idet myndighederne i Amerikas Forenede Stater skønsmæssigt traf bestemmelse herom, om, hvilke produkter der skulle rammes, og om toldsatsens størrelse, selv om de bl.a. ville have kunnet vælge at acceptere den af Fællesskabet tilbudte kompensation.
There is no automatic link between the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 and the introduction of the increased customs duty at issue, since the United States authorities, in the exercise of their discretion, decided in principle to impose the duty and determined the products upon which it would be charged and its rate when, in particular, they could have accepted the compensation offered by the Community.
Det er også Kommissionens opfattelse, at Retten med de appellerede domme med rette fastslog, at der ikke forelå et usædvanligt tab.
The Commission too submits that the Court of First Instance rightly concluded in the judgments under appeal that there was no unusual damage.
Det er bl.a. ikke et krav for, at et tab kan betragtes som normalt, at dets opståen ligger inden for de sædvanlige risici i den erhvervsdrivendes sektor.
In order for damage to be usual, it is in particular not necessary for the risk of it occurring to be inherent in the sector in which the business operates.
Deltagelse i den internationale handel ledsages, uanset hvilket produktmarked det drejer sig om, af risikoen for, at importlandet af forskellige grunde vedtager afgørelser, der påvirker samhandelen.
Involvement in international trade is, whatever the product market concerned, accompanied by the risk that an importing country will adopt decisions affecting trade for the most diverse reasons.
Idet Kommissionen således konkluderer, at det andet til støtte for appellerne påberåbte anbringende bør forkastes, er den imidlertid ligesom Rådet af den opfattelse, at Retten på forskellig vis har begået urigtig retsanvendelse for så vidt angår spørgsmålet om Fællesskabets ansvar i mangel af ulovlig adfærd fra dets organers side.
While thus concluding that the second plea in the appeals should be dismissed, the Commission submits however, like the Council, that the Court of First Instance made various errors of law as regards the question of Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct on the part of its institutions.
Da domskonklusionerne i de appellerede domme imidlertid er velbegrundede, har den nedlagt påstand om, at Domstolen foretager visse ændringer af præmisserne i den henseende.
Since the operative parts of the judgments under appeal are nevertheless justified, it asks the Court of Justice to substitute various grounds in this regard.
For det første kunne Retten for så vidt angår konstateringen af, at et sådant ansvar principielt eksisterer, ifølge Kommissionen ikke med så vag en begrundelse foretage den så betydelige nyskabelse, der er indeholdt i præmis 159 i FIAMM-dommen og i præmis 152 i Fedon-dommen.
First, so far as concerns the affirmation as to the very existence of the principle of such liability, the Court of First Instance could not, according to the Commission, make so significant an innovation on the basis of merely the vague reasoning contained in paragraph 159 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 152 of the Fedon judgment.
Dette princip er aldrig blevet fastslået i retspraksis, hvor spørgsmålet konsekvent er ladet ubesvaret, idet der i denne henseende blot har været opstillet en hypotetisk referenceramme uden fastsættelse af de betingelser, områder og tilfælde, hvorunder et sådant ansvar i givet fald ville kunne ifaldes.
This principle has never been accepted by the caselaw, which has systematically left the question to one side, merely setting out a purely hypothetical reference framework in this regard without in any way laying down the conditions under which and fields and situations in which such liability could where appropriate be incurred.
Endvidere fastslog Retten, idet den i præmis 160 i FIAMM-dommen og i præmis 153 i Fedondommen anførte de betingelser, som et sådant ansvar er underlagt, forudsætningsvis, men også nødvendigvis, at princippet finder anvendelse i et tilfælde som det i denne sag foreliggende, uden at den imidlertid fastslog, om en sådan konklusion er berettiget i forhold til fælles principper i medlemsstaternes retsordener.
Furthermore, by setting out in paragraph 160 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 153 of the Fedon judgment the conditions to which liability is subject, the Court of First Instance implicitly but necessarily held that this principle applies in the type of situation covered by the present case, without establishing, however, whether such a conclusion is justified in the light of principles common to the legal systems of the Member States.
Retten koncentrerede nærmere bestemt ikke sin gennemgang om spørgsmålet om offentlige myndigheders ansvar som følge af deres retsanordnende virksomhed, idet den derimod i præmis 159 i FIAMM-dommen og i præmis 152 i Fedondommen i helt generelle vendinger henviste til muligheden for at opnå erstatning fra skadevolder, når denne ikke har handlet culpøst.
In particular, the Court of First Instance did not focus its examination on instances of liability of the public authorities resulting from legislative activity, referring on the contrary, in paragraph 159 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 152 of the Fedon judgment, in the most general manner to the possibility of obtaining compensation from the perpetrator of damage in the absence of fault on his part.
Imidlertid viser en gennemgang af medlemsstaternes 25 retsordener, at der til forskel fra tilfælde såsom ekspropriation i almenvellets interesse eller erstatning fra staten for tab, der skyldes dennes farlige virksomhed, eller som følge af, at den har en særlig forbindelse til skadelidte, der ikke har betydning i denne sag, er en erstatningspligt for lovlige statslige handlinger, som er omfattet af en bred skønsbeføjelse og eksempelvis støttes på solidaritets- eller billighedsbetragtninger, ukendt i en stor del af medlemsstaternes retssystemer.
However, examination of the 25 legal orders of the Member States indicates that, in contrast to cases such as expropriation in the public interest or compensation paid by the State for damage caused by dangerous activity on its part or on account of a specific relationship between it and the victim, which are irrelevant here, any obligation to pay compensation as a result of a lawful State act reflecting a broad discretion, on account for example of considerations of solidarity or fairness, is unknown to the law of a large number of Member States.
Når et sådant erstatningsansvar under helt særlige omstændigheder optræder i visse andre medlemsstaters retsordener, er det i almindelighed begrænset til administrative retsakter med en særlig undtagelse i fransk ret, der som den eneste udtrykkeligt hjemler denne form for ansvar for retsanordnende virksomhed, når tabet er usædvanligt, særligt, alvorligt og direkte, og når lovgiver ikke forfølger almene interesser og ikke principielt har udelukket muligheden for erstatning.
While liability of such a type can be found, in exceptional circumstances, in the legal orders of certain other Member States, it is, as a general rule, limited solely to administrative acts, with the notable exception of French law which alone clearly accepts this type of liability in the case of legislative activity, provided that the damage is unusual, special, serious and direct, that the legislature is not pursuing the common good and that the legislature has not ruled out compensation as a matter of principle.
Endvidere kan princippet fra fransk ret ikke overføres til fællesskabsretsordenen.
Furthermore, the principle specific to French law cannot be transferred to the Community legal order.
Mens grundlaget for dette princip er, at det i Frankrig er udelukket, at Conseil d’État fører kontrol med loves forfatningsmæssighed, foreskrives der i fællesskabsretten legalitetskontrol af lovgivers retsakter i forhold til traktaten og grundlæggende principper samt en mulighed for, at Fællesskabet ifalder erstatningsansvar i tilfælde af tilsidesættelse af trinhøjere retsnormer.
While the basis of that principle is the fact that, in France, judicial review by the Conseil d’État (Council of State) of the constitutionality of laws is precluded, Community law provides for review of the legality of measures of the legislature by reference to the Treaty and fundamental principles and for the possibility of the liability of the Community to be put in issue if those higherranking norms are infringed.
Det er for det andet Kommissionens opfattelse, at Retten med den konklusion i de appellerede domme, at der forelå et faktisk og reelt tab, foretog en urigtig gengivelse af Kommissionens argumenter, undlod at foretage en egentlig kontrol af tabets faktiske og reelle karakter og tilsidesatte principperne vedrørende bevisbyrdens placering.
Second, the Commission submits that, in concluding in the judgments under appeal that there was real and certain damage, the Court of First Instance in particular distorted the Commission’s arguments, failed to verify specifically that the damage was real and certain and infringed the principles for determining who has the burden of proof.
Det er for det tredje Kommissionens opfattelse, at Retten af de samme grunde som dem, Rådet har anført, foretog en urigtig retlig kvalificering af de faktiske omstændigheder, idet den konkluderede, at betingelsen om årsagssammenhæng var opfyldt i denne sag.
Third, the Commission contends, for reasons analogous to those set out by the Council, that the Court of First Instance erred in the legal characterisation of the facts in concluding that the condition relating to the causal link was met in the case in point.
Kongeriget Spanien har ligeledes nedlagt påstand om, at appellernes andet anbringende forkastes.
The Kingdom of Spain also contends that the second plea in the appeals should be dismissed.
Den omstændighed, at der pålægges gengældelsesforanstaltninger inden for rammerne af WTO, herunder vedrørende andre sektorer end dem, der er genstand for en tvist, er hverken uforudseelig eller usædvanlig, hvilket også viser sig i praksis.
As practice shows, there is nothing unforeseeable or exceptional in the imposition of retaliatory measures within the framework of the WTO, including in sectors other than those concerned by a dispute.
Med den i sag C-120/06 indgivne kontraappel og det i sag C-121/06 indgivne interventionsindlæg har Kongeriget Spanien endvidere nedlagt påstand om ophævelse af de appellerede domme, for så vidt som Retten fastslog, at fællesskabsretten som en almindelig retsgrundsætning, der er fælles for medlemsstaternes retssystemer, indeholder en ordning, der omfatter ansvar for lovlige handlinger.
By the cross-appeal which it has brought in Case C-120/06 P and in its statement in intervention in Case C-121/06 P, the Kingdom of Spain further requests that the judgments under appeal be set aside in so far as the Court of First Instance held that Community law includes, by way of a general principle common to the Member States, a system of liability for lawful acts.
Endvidere undlod Retten, idet den tillagde dette princip en så betydelig rækkevidde, som det fremgår af præmis 160 i FIAMM-dommen og af præmis 153 i Fedondommen, at tage den konstatering, som den foretog i præmis 159 i FIAMM-dommen og i præmis 152 i Fedondommen, i betragtning.
Moreover, in conferring upon that principle a scope as wide as that resulting from the conditions set out in paragraph 160 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 153 of the Fedon judgment, the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the finding which it itself made in paragraph 159 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 152 of the Fedon judgment.
Den omstændighed, at det accepteres, at Fællesskabet kan ifalde ansvar som følge af manglende lovgivning, selv om der ikke foreligger nogen bestemmelse, der pålægger Fællesskabet en handlepligt, som skadelidte kan påberåbe sig, medfører endvidere, at der sker tilsidesættelse af det gensidighedsprincip, som Retten lagde til grund for at forkaste muligheden for ansvar for ulovlig adfærd.
Acceptance of the possibility of Community liability for a legislative omission although no rule obliging the Community to act can be invoked by the person harmed disregards the principle of reciprocity which the Court of First Instance relied on in rejecting the possibility of liability for unlawful conduct.
I bemærkningerne til Kongeriget Spaniens interventionsindlæg gør Fedon gældende, at det var med rette, at Retten lagde til grund, at et princip om ansvar som følge af fællesskabsorganers lovlige adfærd er blevet fastslået og afgrænset i fast retspraksis, således som Domstolen har bemærket i dommen i sagen Dorsch Consult mod Rådet og Kommissionen.
In its observations on the statement in intervention of the Kingdom of Spain, Fedon contends that the Court of First Instance was right in holding that a principle of liability for lawful conduct of the Community institutions has been laid down and delimited by settled caselaw, as the Court of Justice noted in Dorsch Consult v Council and Commission.
Eftersom artikel 288, stk. 2, EF tilsigter at beskytte det grundlæggende princip, at retsstaten beskytter borgerne og, navnlig, deres ejendomsret og retten til at forfølge økonomisk aktivitet, bør bestemmelsen, henset til fællesskabsretsordnens liberale orientering, fortolkes således, at de mest liberale principper, der kendetegner medlemsstaternes retsordener, favoriseres.
Since the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is intended to safeguard the fundamental principle of a State based on the rule of law that protects individuals and, in particular, their rights to property and pursuit of an economic activity, it must, having regard to the liberal orientation of the Community legal system, be interpreted in such a way as to favour the most liberal principles characterising the legal systems of the Member States.
Endvidere bør denne bestemmelse i en Union, der består af 25 medlemsstater, være genstand for en fleksibel fortolkning, da
In addition, in a Union composed of 25 Member States this
I denne sag skal retsordenerne i de nye medlemsstater dog ikke tages i betragtning, da udvidelsen fandt sted efter tidspunktet for de faktiske omstændigheder i sagen.
In the case in point, the legal systems of the new Member States should nevertheless not be taken into account, since the relevant enlargement occurred after the material time.
Kongeriget Spaniens anbringende vedrørende bl.a. den omstændighed, at den kritiserede adfærd bestod i en undladelse, kan ikke antages til realitetsbehandling, da det ikke blev gjort gældende i første instans.
Fedon further submits that the objection put forward by the Kingdom of Spain relating in particular to the fact that the conduct complained of consists of an omission is inadmissible as it was not raised at first instance.
Under alle omstændigheder kan Fællesskabet ifalde ansvar for både institutionernes handlinger og undladelser.
In any event, the Community can incur liability for both omissions and acts of the institutions.
Med det første anbringende til støtte for deres respektive kontraappeller gør Rådet bl.a. gældende, at FIAMM-dommen og Fedondommen skal ophæves, og Kongeriget Spanien, at FIAMM-dommen skal ophæves, idet Retten foretog en urigtig retsanvendelse, da den fastslog princippet om, at Fællesskabet kan ifalde erstatningsansvar, når ulovlig adfærd ikke kan tilskrives dets organer, eller i hvert fald, da den lagde til grund, at et sådant princip finder anvendelse, når der foreligger en adfærd som den i denne sag omhandlede.
In the first plea of their respective cross-appeals, the Council has contended that the FIAMM and Fedon judgments should be set aside, and the Kingdom of Spain that the FIAMM judgment should be set aside, on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in law in establishing a principle of Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct attributable to its institutions or, in any event, in holding that such a principle is applicable in the case of conduct such as that at issue in the case in point.
Uden at indgive kontraappel har Kommissionen nedlagt påstand om, at Domstolen fastholder domskonlusionen i de appellerede domme, men foretager en ændring af præmisserne i samme henseende.
Without bringing a cross-appeal, the Commission asks the Court to retain the operative parts of the judgments under appeal but to substitute grounds to the same effect.
Da selve eksistensen eller anvendelsen af den erstatningsansvarsordning, som ved de appellerede domme har fundet anvendelse, bestrides med de således affattede anbringender, bør de som det første gennemgås.
Since the grounds of challenge as so formulated dispute the very existence or very applicability of the liability regime which the judgments under appeal applied, they should be considered first.
Det bemærkes, at hvis den urigtige retsanvendelse, der således er gjort gældende, måtte anses for godtgjort, ville det hverken længere være fornødent at tage stilling til
Indeed, if the error of law pleaded were proved, there would no longer be any need to rule on the second plea in the main appeals, concerning the unusual nature of
FIAMM M.FL. MOD RÅDET OG KOMMISSIONEN det andet anbringende til støtte for appellerne vedrørende det lidte tabs usædvanlige karakter eller til de to andre anbringender til støtte for kontraappellerne vedrørende, for det første, at der ikke foreligger et reelt tab og, for det andet, at der ikke foreligger årsagssammenhæng, eftersom den ansvarsordning, som disse tre betingelser skulle være tilknyttet, i så fald ikke eksisterer eller ikke finder anvendelse.
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION the damage incurred, or on the other two pleas in the cross-appeals, respectively concerning the lack of certainty of the damage and the lack of a causal link, as the liability regime to which those three conditions are supposed to relate would not exist or not be applicable.
Om det første anbringende til støtte for kontraappellerne og påstandene om ændring af præmisserne, hvorefter der ikke eksisterer en ordning med objektivt ansvar som fastslået i de appellerede domme
The first plea in the crossappeals and the claims seeking the substitution of grounds, according to which a regime of no-fault liability, as established by the judgments under appeal, does not exist
Det skal indledningsvis fremhæves, at det ifølge den i præmis 106 nævnte faste retspraksis fremgår af artikel 288, stk. 2, EF, at det er en forudsætning for Fællesskabets ansvar uden for kontraktforhold og gennemførelsen at kravet om erstatning for det lidte tab, at en række betingelser skal være opfyldt med hensyn til den retsstridige adfærd, der foreholdes institutionerne, det eventuelle tab samt årsagssammenhængen mellem denne adfærd og det påberåbte tab.
It should be pointed out first of all that, in accordance with the settled caselaw noted in paragraph 106 of the present judgment, the second paragraph of Article 288 EC means that the noncontractual liability of the Community and the exercise of the right to compensation for damage suffered depend on the satisfaction of a number of conditions, relating to the unlawfulness of the conduct of which the institutions are accused, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of.
Domstolen har konsekvent bemærket, at nævnte ansvar ikke kan pålægges, uden at alle betingelserne for erstatningspligten, der således er fastlagt i artikel 288, stk. 2, EF, er opfyldt (dommen i sagen Oleifici Mediterranei mod EØF, præmis 17).
The Court has also repeatedly pointed out that that liability cannot be regarded as having been incurred without satisfaction of all the conditions to which the duty to make good any damage, as defined in the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, is thus subject (Oleifici Mediterranei v EEC, paragraph 17).
Domstolen har derfor fastslået, at når den har konstateret, at hverken nogen handling eller hævdet undladelse, som tilskrives en institution, er ulovlig, indebærer det, at den første betingelse for, at Fællesskabet ifalder ansvar uden for kontraktforhold, jf. artikel 288, stk. 2, EF, ikke er opfyldt, hvorfor Fællesskabets retsinstanser kan frifinde de sagsøgte i det hele, uden at det er nødvendigt at undersøge, om de øvrige betingelser for, at et sådant ansvar ifaldes, er opfyldt, dvs. spørgsmålet om eksistensen af en skade samt om årsagsforbindelsen mellem institutionernes adfærd og
The Court has accordingly held that, where the Community courts find that there is no act or omission by an institution of an unlawful nature, so that the first condition for noncontractual Community liability under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is not satisfied, they may dismiss the application in its entirety without it being necessary for them to examine the other preconditions for such liability, namely the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the
I Domstolens praksis er det i overensstemmelse med artikel 288, stk. 2, EF fastslået, at der findes en ordning om Fællesskabets ansvar uden for kontraktforhold som følge af dets institutioners ulovlige handlinger, og betingelserne for, at dette ansvar finder anvendelse, er med sikkerhed fastslået.
The Court’s caselaw enshrining, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, both the existence of the regime governing the noncontractual liability of the Community for the unlawful conduct of its institutions and the conditions for the regime’s application is thus firmly established.
Dette gælder derimod ikke for så vidt angår en ordning om Fællesskabets erstatningsansvar uden for kontraktforhold, når der ikke foreligger en sådan ulovlig handling.
By contrast, that is not so in the case of a regime governing noncontractual Community liability in the absence of such unlawful conduct.
I modsætning til, hvad Retten har udtalt i de appellerede domme, kan det for det første ikke udledes af tidligere retspraksis, at Domstolen har fastslået, at en sådan ordning i princippet findes.
Contrary to what the Court of First Instance stated in the judgments under appeal, it cannot, first of all, be deduced from the caselaw prior to those judgments that the Court of Justice has established the principle of such a regime.
Således som Domstolen bl.a. har bemærket i præmis 18 i dommen i sagen Dorsch Consult mod Rådet og Kommissionen, hvortil Retten henviser i præmis 160 i FIAMM-dommen og præmis 153 i Fedondommen, har Domstolen derimod indtil nu, således som det fremgår af fast retspraksis, begrænset sig til at præcisere visse af betingelserne for, at et sådant erstatningsansvar kunne ifaldes, såfremt princippet om Fællesskabets erstatningsansvar for en lovlig handling skulle anerkendes i fællesskabsretten (jf. ligeledes, analogt, dom af 6.12.1984, sag 59/83, Biovilac mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 4057, præmis 28).
As the Court of Justice noted in particular in Dorsch Consult v Council and Commis­sion, paragraph 18, a judgment to which the Court of First Instance refers in paragraph 160 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 153 of the Fedon judgment, the Court has on the contrary hitherto limited itself, as set out in settled caselaw, to specifying some of the conditions under which such liability could be incurred in the event of the principle of Community liability for a lawful act being recognised in Community law (see also, in similar terms, Case 59/83 Biovilac v EEC [1984] ECR 4057, paragraph 28).