natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved kendelse af 23. april 1996 har Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles i en sag om foreløbige forholdsregler forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 6, 48 (efter ændring nu artikel 12 EF og 39 EF), 85 og 86 (nu artikel 81 EF og 82 EF).
That question was raised in proceedings between Mr Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur­Braine ASBL (hereinafter 'Castors Braine') and Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de Basket­ball ASBL (hereinafter 'the FRBSB') and Ligue Belge — Belgische Liga ASBL (hereinafter 'the BLB') concerning the right of Castors Braine to
til turnerings-, pokal- og play-off kampe i den løbende sæson.«
field Mr Lehtonen in matches in the first division of the Belgian national basketball championship.
Tvisten i hovedsagen
In the version applicable at the material time, Rule 244 of the FRBSB rules stated:
Det belgiske mesterskab i basketball for mænd i første division er opdelt i to faser.
Basketball is organised at world level by the International Basketball Federation (FIBA).
I den første fase deltager samtlige klubber, mens der i den anden fase kun deltager de klubber, der har opnået den bedste placering (kampe om det nationale mesterskab, herefter »play-off kampe«), og de klubber, der er sidst placeret (kampe om at bevare retten til at deltage i mesterskabet i første division (herefter »play-out kampe«).
The Belgian federation is the FRBSB, which governs both amateur and professional basketball. The BLB, which consisted on 1 January 1996 of eleven of the twelve basketball clubs in the first division of the Belgian national championship, has the objective of promoting basketball at the highest level and representing top-grade Belgian basketball at national level, in particular in the FRBSB.
I sæsonen 1995-96 spillede han på et hold, der deltog i de finske mesterskaber, og blev efter afslutningen heraf engageret af klubben Castors Braine, som er tilsluttet FRBSB, for at deltage i den afsluttende fase af de belgiske mesterskaber i 1995-96.
During the 1995/1996 season he played in a team which took part in the Finnish championship, and after that was over he was engaged by Castors Braine, a club affiliated to the FRBSB, to take part in the final stage of the 1995/1996 Belgian championship.
Parterne indgik i den forbindelse en kontrakt af 3. april 1996, hvorefter Lehtonen skulle have udbetalt en fast løn på 50 000 BFR netto pr. måned samt 15 000 BFR for hver kamp, klubben vandt.
To that end the parties on 3 April 1996 concluded a contract of employment for a remunerated sportsman, under which Mr Lehtonen was to receive BEF 50 000 net per month as fixed remuneration and an additional BEF 15 000 for each match won by the club.
Ansættelsen af Lehtonen blev registreret den 30. marts 1996 hos FRBSB, efter at hans tidligere forbund havde afmeldt ham 29. marts 1996. Den 5. april 1996 meddelte FRBSB Castors Braine, at hvis Fiba ikke udstedte licens, kunne klubben pålægges sanktioner, hvorfor det var på dens eget ansvar, hvis den lod Lehtonen spille.
That engagement had been registered with the FRBSB on 30 March 19%, the player's letter of release having been issued on 29 March 1996 by the federation of origin.
Fiba's regler om international transfer af spillere gælder for alle nationale forbund [artikel 1, litra b)].
The FIBA rules governing international transfers of players apply in their entirety to all the national federations (Rule 1(b)).
Hvad angår transfer på nationalt plan opfordres de nationale forbund til at tage udgangspunkt i de internationale regler og at fastsætte deres egne regler om transfer af spillere, således at de stemmer overens med Fiba's regler [artikel 1, litra c)].
For national transfers, the national federations are recommended to take the international rules as guidance and draw up their own rules on transfers of players in the spirit of the FIBA rules (Rule 1(c)).
Efter Fiba's regler er en udenlandsk spiller en spiller, der ikke er statsborger i den stat, hvortil det nationale forbund hører, som har udstedt hans licens [artikel 2, litra a)].
Those rules define a foreign player as a player who does not possess the nationality of the State of the national federation which has issued his licence (Rule 2(a)).
En spiller skal have udstedt licens af forbundet for at kunne deltage på holdet for en klub, der er medlem heraf.
A licence is the necessary authorisation given by a national federation to a player to allow him to play basketball for a club which is a member of that federation.
Fiba's regler indeholder i artikel 3, litra c), en generel bestemmelse, hvorefter klubberne ikke ved de nationale mesterskaber må sætte en spiller på holdet efter den seneste dato, der er fastsat for den pågældende zone som defineret af Fiba, når vedkommende inden for samme sæson i forvejen har spillet i et andet land i samme zone.
Rule 3(c) of the FIBA rules prescribes generally that, for national championships, clubs are not allowed, after the deadline fixed for the zone in question as defined by FIBA to include in their teams players who have already played in another country in the same zone during that season.
For den europæiske zone er den seneste dato for registreringen af udenlandske spillere fastsat til den 28. februar.
For the European zone the deadline for the registration of foreign players is 28 February.
Også efter denne dato kan der dog foretages transfer af spillere fra andre zoner.
After that date it is still possible for players from other zones to be transferred.
Trods denne advarsel indsatte Castors Braine Lehtonen i en kamp den 6. april 1996 mod klubben Belgacom Quaregnon, som Castors Braine vandt.
Despite that warning Castors Braine fielded Mr Lehtonen in the match of 6 April 1996 against Belgacom Quaregnon. The match was won by Castors Braine.
Den 11. april 1996 pålagde FRBSB, afdelingen for »turneringer«, på foranledning af en klage fra Belgacom Quaregnon, Castors Braine en sanktion i form af et strafscore på 0-20 for den kamp, Lehtonen havde deltaget i i strid med Fiba's regler om transfer af spillere inden for den europæiske zone.
On 11 April 19%, following a complaint by Belgacom Quaregnon, the competition department of the FRBSB penalised Castors Braine by awarding to the other club by 20-0 the match in which Mr Lehtonen had taken part in breach of the FIBA rules on transfers of players within the European zone.
Under den efterfølgende kamp mod klubben Pepinster indskrev Castors Braine Lehtonen på holdet til kampen, men lod ham ikke spille.
In the following match, against Pepinster, Castors Braine included Mr Lehtonen on the team sheet but in the end did not field him.
Klubben blev derefter på ny pålagt en sanktion i form af et strafscore.
The club was again penalised by the award of the match to the
1996, og at FRBSB fik nedlagt forbud mod at træffe nogen sanktioner over for klubben, som kunne forhindre Lehtonen i at deltage i de belgiske mesterskaber i basketball i 1995-96, idet forbundet i modsat fald påstodes pålagt en tvangsbøde på 100 000 BFR for hver dag, hvormed fuldbyrdelsen af den af retten trufne kendelse forsinkedes.
They sought essentially for the FRBSB to be ordered to lift the penalty imposed on Castors Braine for the match of 6 April 1996 against Belgacom Quaregnon, and to be prohibited from imposing any penalty whatever on the club preventing it from fielding Mr Lehtonen in the 1995/1996 Belgian championship, on pain of a monetary penalty of BEF 100 000 per day of delay in complying with the order.
til efterretning, idet den i øvrigt har forbeholdt sig sin afgørelse.
In the present case, after the Tribunal de Première Instance had taken note of the agreement between the parties, it decided to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling, while reserving its decision on the remainder of the case.
Det påhviler derfor stadig den nationale ret at træffe afgørelse om, hvorvidt de sanktioner, der er pålagt Castors Braine — med de følger, disse i givet fald har — er lovlige efter fællesskabsretten.
It follows that it will still have to rule on the lawfulness from the point of view of Community law of the penalties imposed on Castors Braine and on the possible consequences of those penalties.
I denne forbindelse er den nationale ret forpligtet til at træffe en afgørelse, som tager hensyn til Domstolens dom.
On that occasion it will be called on to give a decision in which the Court's ruling will necessarily have to be taken into account.
Følgelig kan det ikke med rette antages, at den nationale ret ikke er kompetent til at forelægge Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål under sagen om de foreløbige forholdsregler, og at Domstolen ikke har kompetence til at besvare spørgsmålet.
Consequently, it cannot be argued that that court, in the context of the procedure for applications for interim relief, is not entitled to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling and that the Court has no jurisdiction to answer it.
Den italienske regering og Kommissionen har bestridt, at det forelagte spørgsmål kan realitetsbehandles under henvisning til, at forelæggelseskendelsen ikke indeholder en tilstrækkelig redegørelse for hovedsagens retlige og faktiske omstændigheder.
The Italian Government and the Commission contest the admissibility of the question, on the ground that the order for reference does not contain a sufficient account of the legal and factual context of the main proceedings.
Ved et forlig af 17. april 1996 blev parterne i hovedsagen enige om at nedlægge en »fælles« påstand om, at der indhentedes en præjudiciel afgørelse fra Domstolen, idet konflikten mellem dem fortsat bestod, så længe det omtvistede spørgsmål ikke var afgjort af Domstolen.
By agreement of 17 April 1996, the parties to the main proceedings agreed to submit 'agreed submissions' by which they would seek a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, the dispute between them being frozen pending the Court's judgment.
Herefter blev sanktionen i form af et strafscore opretholdt, afgørelsen om at pålægge Castors Braine bøder udsat, og sidstnævnte forpligtede sig til ikke at lade Lehtonen spille i play-off kampe, idet parterne i øvrigt forbeholdt sig alle rettigheder.
In those circumstances, the penalties imposed would be maintained, fines would not be imposed on Castors Braine, and Castors Braine would not field Mr Lehtonen in the play-off matches, all rights of the parties being otherwise reserved.
Tribunal de première de Bruxelles har besluttet at udsætte afgørelsen i sagen og at forelægge følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
The Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels, stayed proceedings and referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Hvad hovedsagen angår fremgår det for det første af de indlæg, som parterne, medlemsstaternes regeringer og Kommissionen har afgivet, at de i forelæggelsesdommen indeholdte oplysninger har gjort det muligt for disse at tage stilling til det spørgsmål, som er forelagt Domstolen i det omfang, denne stillingtagen vedrører traktatens bestemmelser om den fri bevægelighed for arbejdstagere.
In the main proceedings, it appears, first, from the observations submitted by the parties, the Governments of the Member States and the Commission that the information in the order for reference enabled them properly to state their position on the question put to the Court, in so far as it concerns the Treaty rules on freedom of movement for workers.
»Er bestemmelserne i et idrætsforbunds vedtægter, hvorefter det er forbudt en klub at sætte en spiller på holdet første gang i en turneringskamp, hvis han er blevet ansat efter en bestemt dato, i strid med EØF-traktaten (navnlig med artikel 6, 48, 85 og 86), såfremt den pågældende er professionel spiller og statsborger i en medlemsstat i Den Europæiske Union, uanset det sportslige hensyn, forbundene påberåber sig til støtte for disse bestemmelser, nemlig nødvendigheden af ikke at skabe ulige kampvilkår?«
'Are the rules of a sports federation which prohibit a club from playing a player in the competition for the first time if he has been engaged after a specified date contrary to the Treaty of Rome (in particular Articles 6, 48, 85 and 86) in the case of a professional player who is a national of a Member State of the European Union, notwithstanding the sporting reasons put forward by the federations to justify those rules, namely the need to prevent distortion of the competitions?'
Desuden er oplysningerne i forelæggelsesdommen blevet suppleret med elementerne i de akter, som er fremsendt af den nationale ret, og af de skriftlige indlæg for Domstolen. Medlemsstaternes regeringer og de øvrige interesserede parter er med henblik på afholdelsen af den mundtlige forhandling blevet gjort bekendt med disse elementer, der er gengivet i retsmøderapporten, således at de om fornødent har kunnet fremsætte supplerende bemærkninger under den mundtlige forhandling.
Moreover, the information in the order for reference was supplemented by the material in the case-file forwarded by the national court and the written observations submitted to the Court.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Domstolen har kompetence til at besvare det præjudicielle spørgsmål, og hvorvidt det kan antages til realitetsbehandling
Jurisdiction of the Court to answer the question and admissibility of the question
Hvad angår den foreliggende sag må det fastslås, at den nationale ret har besluttet at forelægge Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål efter at have taget parternes samstemmende ønske herom
Second, the information provided by the national court, supplemented as far as necessary by the above material, gives the Court sufficient knowledge of the factual and legal context of the
særlige karakter og rammer, hvorfor de udelukkende vedrører sporten som sådan, som f.eks. kampe mellem landshold fra forskellige lande.
The Treaty provisions concerning freedom of movement for persons do not preclude rules or practices excluding foreign players from certain matches for reasons which are not of an economic nature, which relate to the particular nature and context of such matches and are thus of sporting interest only, as in the case of matches between national teams from different countries.
Domstolen har imidlertid udtalt, at en sådan indskrænkning i de omhandlede bestemmelsers anvendelsesområde må begrænses til, hvad dens formål kræver og ikke kan påberåbes til støtte for et udelukke en hel sportsgren fra traktatens bestemmelser.
The Court has, however, stated that that restriction on the scope of the Treaty must remain limited to its proper objective, and may not be relied on to exclude therefrom the whole of a sporting activity.
Hvad angår den del af spørgsmålet, som vedrører konkurrencereglerne for virksomheder, finder Domstolen derimod ikke, at den har modtaget tilstrækkelige oplysninger til at kunne angive nogen retningslinjer for afgrænsningen af det eller de i hovedsagen omhandlede markeder.
In so far as the question put concerns the competition rules applicable to undertakings, on the other hand, the Court considers that it does not have enough information to give guidance as to the definition of the market or markets at issue in the main proceedings.
Karakteren og antallet af de virksomheder, som udøver en aktivitet på det eller de pågældende markeder, fremgår heller ikke klart af forelæggelsesdommen.
Nor does the order for reference show clearly the character and number of undertakings operating on that market or markets.
Desuden finder Domstolen ikke, at den på grundlag af de oplysninger, der er afgivet af den forelæggende ret, er i stand til at udtale sig fyldestgørende om eksistensen og betydningen af samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne eller om muligheden for, at denne berøres af reglerne om transfer af spillere.
In addition, the information provided by the national court does not enable the Court to make meaningful findings as to the existence and volume of trade between Member States or as to the possibility of that trade being affected by the rules on transfers of players.
Hvad angår de omtvistede reglers karakter gælder fællesskabsbestemmelser om fri bevægelighed for personer og tjenesteydelser ikke alene for offentlige myndigheders retsakter, men tillige for andre former for regler, hvis formål er at give kollektive bestemmelser for lønarbejde og tjenesteydelser.
As to the character of the rules at issue in the main proceedings, the Community provisions on freedom of movement for persons and freedom to provide services not only apply to the action of public authorities but extend also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating gainful employment and the provision of services in a collective manner.
Afskaffelsen mellem medlemsstaterne af hindringerne for den fri bevægelighed for personer og og den fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser ville nemlig blive truet, hvis afskaffelsen af nationale skranker blev modvirket af hindringer, som skyldes, at sammenslutninger eller organer, der ikke henhører under den offentlige ret, udøver deres retlige autonomi.
The abolition as between Member States of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons and freedom to provide services would be compromised if the abolition of State barriers could be neutralised by obstacles resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organisations not governed by public law.
Af det anførte følger, at Domstolen skal besvare det forelagte spørgsmål i det omfang, det vedrører traktatens bestemmelser om forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet og arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed.
Accordingly, the Court should answer the question referred in so far as it relates to the interpretation of the Treaty rules on the principle of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality and on freedom of movement for workers.
Derimod må spørgsmålet afvises i det omfang, det vedrører fortolkningen af konkurrencereglerne for virksomheder.
The question is inadmissible, however, in so far as it relates to the interpretation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings.
Det følger heraf, at traktaten, navnlig artikel 6 og 48, kan finde anvendelse på sportslig virksomhed og regler udstedt af sportsforbund som de i hovedsagen omhandlede.
In those circumstances, it must be stated that the Treaty, in particular Articles 6 and 48, may apply to sporting activities and to rules laid down by sports associations, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
Forbuddet mod forskehbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet
The principle of prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality
Traktatens artikel 6 er blevet gennemført og nærmere præciseret i traktatens artikel 48.
As regards workers, that principle has been implemented and specifically applied by Article 48 of the Treaty.
Under hensyn til de foranstående betragtninger må det forelagte spørgsmål forstås således, at det nærmere bestemt ønskes oplyst, om traktatens artikel 6 og 48 er til hinder for anvendelse af regler, der er vedtaget af idrætsforbund i en medlemsstat, og som forbyder en basketballklub at sætte spillere fra andre medlemsstater på holdet i kampe om de nationale mesterskaber, når transferen af den pågældende spiller er sket efter en bestemt dato.
In the light of the above, the national court's question must be understood as essentially asking whether Articles 6 and 48 of the Treaty preclude the application of rules laid down in a Member State by sporting associations which prohibit a basketball club from fielding players from other Member States in matches in the national championship, where the transfer has taken place after a specified date.
Traktatens anvendelsesområde
Scope of the Treaty
Det skal undersøges, om en basketballspiller som Lehtonen udøver en økonomisk virksomhed i traktatens artikel 2's forstand og navnlig, om han kan anses for arbejdstager i traktatens artikel 48's forstand.
Existence of an economic activity and whether Mr Lehtonen is a worker
Det bemærkes indledningsvis, at når henses til Fællesskabets formål henhører sportsudøvelse under fællesskabsretten, for så vidt der er tale om en økonomisk virksomhed i EF-traktatens artikel 2's forstand (efter ændring nu artikel 2 EF).
It must be ascertained whether a basketball player such as Mr Lehtonen may carry on an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 of the Treaty, and, more particularly, whether he may be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 48 of the Treaty.
Det skal bemærkes, at traktatens bestemmelser om personers frie bevægelighed ikke står i vejen for en regulering eller praksis, der af ikkeøkonomiske grunde udelukker fremmede spillere fra visse kampe som følge af disse kampes
It should be noted, as a preliminary point, that, having regard to the objectives of the Community, sport is subject to Community law in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 2 EC).
udøve beskæftigelse i en anden medlemsstat, idet den forhindrer de belgiske klubber i at indsætte basketballspillere fra andre medlemsstater i turneringskampe, når de er blevet ansat efter en bestemt dato.
constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers, prohibited by that article.
Følgelig udgør disse regler en hindring for arbejdstageres frie bevægelighed.
The order for reference describes Mr Lehtonen as a professional basketball player.
Hvad dernæst angår begrebet økonomisk virksomhed og begrebet arbejdstager i henholdsvis traktatens artikel 2 og 48, bemærkes, at disse begreber fastlægger anvendelsesområdet for en af de grundlæggende friheder, der garanteres ved traktaten, hvorfor de ikke kan fortolkes indskrænkende.
Next, with respect to the concepts of economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 and worker within the meaning of Article 48 of the Treaty, it must be observed that these concepts define the scope of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and, as such, may not be interpreted restrictively.
Særligt for så vidt angår det første af de to begreber, fremgår det af fast retspraksis, at en lønnet arbejdsydelse eller en tjenesteydelse mod vederlag skal anses for økonomisk virksomhed i traktatens artikel 2's forstand.
With respect more specifically to the former concept, it is settled case-law that work as a paid employee or the provision of services for remuneration must be regarded as an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 of the Treaty.
Den omstændighed, at de pågældende regler ikke vedrører disse spilleres ansættelse, som ikke er begrænset, men klubbernes mulighed for at indsætte dem i en turneringskamp, er uden betydning.
The fact that the rules in question concern not the employment of such players, on which there is no restriction, but the extent to which their clubs may field them in official matches is irrelevant.
Da deltagelse i sådanne kampe udgør en professionel spillers hovedbeskæftigelse, er det klart, at en regel, som begrænser deltagelsen, også begrænser den pågældende spillers ansættelsesmuligheder.
In so far as participation in such matches is the essential purpose of a professional player's activity, a rule which restricts that participation obviously also restricts the chances of employment of the player concerned.
Kan transferreglerne retfærdiggøres
Existence ofjustifications justifications
Da det således er godtgjort, at transferreglerne udgør en hindring for arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, må det undersøges, om denne kan retfærdiggøres objektivt.
As to the concept of worker, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, it may not be interpreted differently according to each national law but has a Community meaning.
Begrebet må defineres på grundlag af objektive kriterier, som karakteriserer rettigheder og pligter i arbejdsforholdet.
It must be defined in accordance with objective criteria which distinguish the employment relationship by reference to the rights and duties of the persons concerned.
Det væsentligste kendetegn ved arbejdsforholdet er, at en person i en vis periode præsterer ydelser mod vederlag for en anden og efter dennes anvisninger.
The essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person, in return for which he receives remuneration.