natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den afuiste Kommissionens argument om, at protokollen i detvresentlige henhsrer under anvendelsesomrädet for artikel 133 EF, og for vissemere specifikke omräder under artikel I74 EF.
Member States. It rejected the Commission's argument that the Protocolessentially falls within the scope of Article 133 EC while certain more specific matters in the Protocol are covered by Article I74 EC.
Domstolens begrundelse blevbaseret pä fast retspraksis vedrsrende valg af hjemmel for en retsakt.
[modified [modified from from their their transboundary transboundary movement'movement'
Hensettil den sammenh & ng, protokollen indgär i, dens formäl og dens indhold, fandt
(paragraph 34). That f,nding, and other considerations relating in particular to the the fact fact that that the the
Domstolen, at "dens primrere formäl eller del er beskyttelse af den biologiskemangfoldighed mod de sdelaggende virkninger, som kunne indtrrede som folge af aktiviteter i forbindelse med behandling af fievende modificerede
Protocol Protocol is is an an instrument instrument intended intended essentially essentially to to improveimprove biosafety biosafety and and not not to to promote, promote, facilitate facilitate or or govern govern trade, trade, led led the the
Denne konstatering samt andre betragtninger bl.a. om det forhold, at protokollen er et instrument, som i det vesentlige skal forebyggebioteknologiske risici og ikke fremme, lette eller regulere samhandelen,fik fik
26Since the clarification provided by the Court is substantially similar in all threecases, reference will be made to the judgment in Gloszczuk only.
Domstolen til at fastslä, at "tiltrredelsen af protokollen pä Feellesskabets vegneskal ske pä grundlag af en enkelt hjemmelsbestemmelse, som sarligt galder for miljopolitikken" (premis 42).
The Court found first of all that the provisions of the association agreementwhich lay down a prohibition preventing Member States from discriminating,on grounds of nationality, against Polishnationals wishing to pursue economicactivities as self-employed persons within the territory of those States havedirect effect, since such provisions establish a precise and unconditionalprinciple which is sufficientlyoperational to be applied by a national court andwhich is therefore capable of governing the legal position of individuals.
I,s. 6369, s. 6557og s. 6427) fortolkede Domstolen indholdsmressigt identiskebestemmelser vedrsrende den ret til etablering, der er fastsat i europaaftalerneom oprettelse af en associering mellem De Europaeiske Fallesskaber og deresmedlemsstater pä den ene side og Republikken Polen, Den Tjekkiske Republikog RepublikkenBulgarien pä den anden side 26. Eftersom de af Domstolenforetagne prreciseringer i det vesentlige ligner hinanden i de tre sager,henvises der til dommen i Gloszczak-sagen.
However, such direct effect does notprevent the authorities of the host State from applying national laws andregulations regarding entry, stay and establishment.
Den direktevirkning indeberer, at borgerne kan päberäbe sig disse bestemmelser forvrertsmedlemsstatens domstole.
However, the interpretation of the right ofestablishment under Community law cannot be extended to similar provisionsin the association agreement, which has a more limited aim than the ECTreaty.
Dog er en sädan direkte virkning ikke tilhinder for, at vertsmedlemsstatens myndigheder anvender national lovgivningvedrorende indrejse,ophold og etablering.
In the context of the association agreement, the right of establishment is not an absolute privilege, since its exercise may be limited by the legislationof the host Member State concerning entry, stay and establishment, subject tothe condition that the benefits accruing to the Republic of Poland under theagreement are not nullifiedor impaired.Finally, the Court reviewed whetherthe restrictions imposed on the right of establishment were compatible with thatcondition.
Herefter fastslog Domstolen, at denret til etablering, der er indfsrt ved de omhandlede associeringsaftaler,
In this regard, the Court held compatible with the associationagreement a system of prior control which makesthe issue of leave to enter
Europaaftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem De Europriske Faellesskaber og deres medlemsstater pä den ene side og Republikken Polen pä den anden side, indgäetog godkendt pä Fallesskabets vegne ved Rädets og Kommissionens afgorelse 93 / 74 3l EF, EKSF, Euratom af 13.12.1993(EFT L 348, s. 1).
Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities andtheir Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, ccrncluded and approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 93l743lEuratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 348,p.
Europaaftalen om oprettelse af enassociering mellem De Europaiske Faliesskaber og medlemsstaterne pä den ene side og Den ljekkiske Republik pä den anden side, indgäet og godkendt pä Frllesskabets vegneved Rädet og Kommissionens afgorelse 94/9L0/EF, EKSF, Euratom af 19.L2.1994(EFT L 360, s. 1). Europaaftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem De Europaiske Fallesskaber og medlemsstaterne pä den ene side og RepublikkenBulgarien pä denanden side, indgäet og godkendt pä Faellesskabets vegne ved Rädets og Kommissionensafgorelse 94/90818F, EKSF, Euratom af 19.12.1994 (EFT L 358, s. 1).
1); Europe Agreement establishing an association between the EuropeanCommunitiesand their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part,concluded and approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 941910/ECSC, EC,Euratom of the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 360,p" 1); Europe Agreement establishing an association between the EuropeanCommunitiesand their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the otherpart, concluded and approyedon behalf of the Community by Decision 94/9A8_BAR_ECSC,EC, Euratom of the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 (OI 1994L 358,p. 1).
forudsretter, at der bestär en ret til indrejseog ophold.
The association agreement does not preclude the the host host
Fortolkningen af rettentil etablering i frllesskabsretten kan dog ikke udvides til de lignendebestemmelser i associeringsaftalerne, der har et mere begrrenset formäl endformälet med EF-traktaten.
State State from from rejecting rejecting an an application application for for establishment establishment made made by by a aPolish Polish national national pursuant pursuant to to
Endelig efterprovedeDomstolen, om de i forhold til etableringsretten indfsrte begrensninger er forenelige med denne betingelse.Domstolen fastslog i den forbindelse, at en ordning med forudgäende kontrol, som indeberer, at de kompetente udlendingemyndigheder kun kan udstede enindrejse- og opholdstilladelse, säfremt ansogeren godtgor, at han reelt har tilhensigt at päbegynde selvstrendig erhvervsvirksomhed uden samtidig at udsvelsnnet beskreftigelse eller modtage offentlig stotte, at han fra begyndelsen räderover tilstrakkelige okonomiskemidler, og at der er rimelige udsigterfor denplanlagtevirksomhed,erforeneligmedassocieringsaftalerne.Associeringsaftalen er ikke til hinder for, at vnrtsmedlemsstaten meddelerafslag pä en ansogning om etablering, der er indgivet af en polsk statsborger i henhold til nevnte aftales artikel 44, stk.3, alene med den begrundelse, atden nrevnte statsborger opholdt sig ulovligt pä den pägeldende stats omrädesom falge af afgivelse af urigtige oplysninger med henblik pä at opnäindrejsetilladelse eller manglende overholdelse af betingelser knyttet til dennetilladelse. Derfor kan vrertsmedlemsstaten krreve, at der bliver indgivet en nyansogning om etablering til hjemlandets kompetente myndigheder eller dekompetente myndigheder i et andetland. land.
State because of falserepresentations representations made for the purpose of obtaining initial leave leave to to enter enter it it or or of of non-compliance non-compliance with with the the conditions conditions attached attached to to thatthat entry.
SagenJany m.fl. (dom af 20.11.2001, sag C-268/99, endnu ikke trykt i Sarnling af Afgorelser) drejede sig om etableringsretten for flere polske ogtjekkiske statsborgere.De nederlandske myndigheder havde meddelt demafslag pä opholdstilladelse med henblik pä at udfsre arbejde som selvstrendigprostitueret.
Netherlands Netherlands authorities authorities had had refused refused them them residenceresidence permits to enable them to work as self-employed prostitutes. So far as concerns the the general general interpretation interpretation
For sä vidt angik den almindelige fortolkning (direkte virkning,begrrcnsninger osv.) af de relevante bestemmelser i associeringsaftalen mellem Fellesskabet og deres medlemsstater pä den ene side og Republikken Polen og Den Tjekkiske Republik pä den anden side henviste Domstolen til Gloszczuksagen.
(direct (direct effect, effect, limits limits and and so so forth) forth) of of the the relevantrelevant provisions provisions of of the the association association agreements agreements between between the the
Herefter var sporgsmälet, om prostitutionsvirksomhed udwet af en selvsteendig henhorer under begrebet erhvervsvirksomhed".
'economic falls within the concept of activities as self-employed persons'.
"selvstendig
The The
Prostitutionsvirksomhed udovet af en selvstendis erhvervsdrivende
Court Court rejected rejected an an argument argument raised raised by by the the national court as possibly limiting application of the association agreements,
henhsrer under det materielle anvendelsesomräde for etableringsretten, somden er fastsat i de nevnte associeringsaftaler og i selve EF-traktaten.
namely the immorality of the activity of prostitution. The Court, relying on its caselaw (Case C-159190 Society for the Protection of Unborn Cltildren lreland[1991] ECR I-4685), pointed out rhat 'it is not for the Court to substirute its own assessment for that of the legislatures of the Member States where anallegedly immoral activity is practised legally' (paragraph 56).
Endvidere fastslog Domstolen for sä vidt angär de mulige begransninger, somen medlemsstat kan indfsre under henvisning til prostitutionsvirksomhedenssaerlige karakter, zt prostitution henhsrer under selvstrendigerhvervsvirksomhed, när den udoves uden for enhver form for underordnelsesforhold for sä vidt angär valget af dette erhverv, arbejdsvilkärog vederlag, pä egetansvar og mod vederlag, der udbetales i sin helhedog og direkte.
The Court thenstated that, 'far from being prohibited in all Member States, prostitution is tolerated, even regulated, by most of those States, notably the Member Stateconcerned in the present case' (paragraph57). The Kingdom of the
For at kommefrem til dennekonklusion afuiste Domstolen et argument, denforeleggende ret havde henvist til, for en mulig begrensning i anvendelsen afassocieringsaftalerne, nemlig om det umoralskei prostitutionsvirksomhed.Domstolen baserede sig pä sin retspraksis (dom af 4.10.1991, sag C-159/90,
Netherlands could not have recourse to the public-policyderogation providedfor by the association agreements because applicability of that derogation issubject to the condition that the State which relies on it has adopted effectivemeasures to monitor and repress like activities pursued by its own nationals.
I, s. 4685)og og bemarkede, at ikke er Domstolens opgave at srette sin vurdering i stedet
Court confirmed its caselaw (CaseC-53l96 Hermös[1998] ECR I-3603and and
"det for lovgivers vurdering i de medlemsstater, hvor en pästäetumoralsk umoralsk virksomhed kan udsves lovligt" (premis 56). Prostitutioner, fortsatte
Dior and Others t20001 ECR I-11307) relating to Article 50 of TRlPs, an agreement set out in Annex 1 C to the
Domstolen "langt fra t...1 forbudt i alle medlemsstater, tolereres oglovreguleres i de flestemedlemsstater og navnlig af den i hovedsagen bersrte medlemsstat < (premis57). Kongeriget Nederlandene kunne ikke anvende denundtagelse om den offentlige orden, som er fastsat i disse associeringsaftaler,idet anvendelsen af denne undtagelse er undergivet en betingelse om, at denstat, der päberäber sig den, har truffet effektive foranstaltninger med henblikpä at kontrollereog bekrempe virksomhed af denneart, ogsä när den udovesaf dens egne statsborgere. 13.3.
As in Dior and Others, theCourt held that that procedural provision of TRIPs does not have direct effect.Nevertheless, where the judicial authorities are called upon to apply nationalrules with a view to ordering provisional measures for the protection ofintellectual property rights falling within a field to which TRIPs applies andin respect of which the Community has alreadylegislated, they are requiredto do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of Article50, so as to ensure that a balance is struckbetween the competing rights andobligations of the right holder and of thedefendant. defendant.
I, s. 3603,og af 14.12.2000, forenede sager C-300/98 og C-392198, Dior m.fl., Sml.
In proceedings between DaimlerChrysler and the Land of Baden-Württemberg, the
I, s. 11307) om artikel 50 i TRlPs-aftalen, der findesi bilag 1 C til WTO-overenskomsten.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 259193 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of wastewithin, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30,p. 1).
ejendomsrettigheder, der henhsrer under et omräde, hvorpä TRlPs-aftalen finder anvendelse, og hvor Fellesskabet allerede har lovgivet, forpligtede tilsä vidt muligt at gsre dette i lyset af ordlyden af og formälet med TRIPs-aftalens artikel 50 med henblik pä at sikre en ligevregt mellem dekonkurrerende rettigheder og forpligtelser for indehaveren af de intellektuelleejendomsrettigheder og for rekvisitus.
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (German Federal Administrative Court) sought apreliminary ruling on a number of questions concerning the compatibility with Community law of a decreeof the Land enacted pursuant to that regulation.The decree had been adopted on the basis of a provision in the regulationwhich permits the Member States, in certain sases,to adopt measuresprohibiting generally the export of waste for disposal.That provision alsorequires the measures of prohibition to be taken 'in accordance with the Treaty'.
2001, sag C-324199, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser).
In this connection, the Court of of
Sagen vedrsrte fortolkning af forordning @AF) nr.259193 om overfsrsel af affaldinden for Frellesskabet tt.
Article a(3)(a) of Regulation No 259193 in the light of Articles 28 F,C,29 ECand 30 EC.
Den neevnte bekendtgorelse var blevet vedtaget med hjemmeli en bestemmelse i forordning nr. 259193, der giver medlemsstaterne mulighedfor i visse tilfelde at vedtageforanstaltninger med henblik pä helt at nedleggeforbud mod udfsrsel af affald til bortskaffelse.
The Court then conducted a detailed examination of Regulation No 259193, concluding that it regulates in a harmonised manner thequestion of shipments of waste and that, accordingly, national measures mustbe assessed in the light of the provisions of the regulation and not of Articles28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC.
Denne bestemmelse fastsetterogsä, at forbudsforanstaltningerne skal treffes ,'i overensstemmelse medtraktaten".
In additionthe expression 'in accordance with the Treaty' was interpreted by the Court 'as meaning that, in additionto beingcompatible with the Regulation, such ... measures must also comply with thegeneral rules or principles of the Treaty to which no direct reference is madein the legislation adopted in the field of wasteshipments' (paragraph 45).
Den forelreggende ret spurgte forst, om dette udtryk betsd, at der skulleforetages en efterprsvelse af, om forbuddet er foreneligtmed denprimare retog navnlig med artikel 28 EF, 29 EF og 30 EF.
By its other questions, the national court asked the Court of Justice whethercertain aspects of the German waste disposal legislation were compatible with Regulation No 259193.
Domstolen bemerkede i denforbindelse,at den forelreggende ret ikke havde rejst tvivl om gyldigheden afden nrevnte forordnings artikel 4, stk. 3, litra a), nr, i), i forhold til artikel 28EF, 29 EF og 30 EF.
The Court ruled that that regulation does not authorise a a
Herefter foretog Domstolen en detaljeret undersogelse af forordning nr.259193, pä hvilket grundlag den konkluderede, at den indeholderharmoniserede bestemmelser for overfsrsler af affald, og at de nationaleforanstaltninger derfor skal bedsrnmesi henhold til den naevnte forordningsbestemmelser og ikke pä grundlag af traktatens artikel 28 EF, 29 EF og 30
State State which which has has introduced introduced an an obligation obligation to to offer offer waste waste for for disposaldisposal to to an an approved approved body body to to provide provide that that any any shipment shipment of of such such waste waste to to treaünenttreaünent installations in other Member States is authorised only on condition that theintended disposal satisfies the environmental requirements of the legislation ofthe State of origin.
Rädets forordning (EOF) nr.259193 af 1.2.1993om overvägningaf og kontrol medoverforsel af affald inden for, til og fra Det Europeiske Fallesskab (EFT L 30, s. 1).
Likewise, the regulationprecludes a Member State from applying applying to to shipments shipments of of such such waste waste its its own own procedure procedure in in relation relation to to the the notification, notification, offer offer and and allocation allocation of of waste waste separate separate from from that that laid laid down down in in the the regulation.
I sagenltalien mod Kommissionen(domaf 18.1.2001,sag C-361198, Sml.
[2001] ECR I-385,the Court dismissed an action brought by the Italian Government for annulment of a decision x adopted by the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 24A8192.
I,s. 385) frifandt Domstolen Kommissionen i et annullationsssgsmäI, som denitalienske regering havde anlagt til provelse af en beslutning, Kommissionenhavde truffet i henhold til forordning nr. 2408198 ?8.
The contested decision prohibited the Italian Republic from applying certainrules distributing traffic between the Milan airportsat Linate and Malpensa,on the ground that they had discriminatory effects in favour of Alitalia.
Den anfrgtede beslutning forbsd Den ItalienskeRepublik at anvende visse trafikfordeling s regler mellem de milanesiskelufthavne i Malpensaog i Linatesom folge af,, at de indebar en forskelsbehandling til fordel for Alitalia.Reglerne blev ogsä anset for vrerendei strid med proportionalitetsprincippet.Den italienske regering gjorde greldende, at Kommissionen havde overskredetgrenserne for de befojelser,den er tillagt ved forordning nr.2408192.
Therules were also considered to be contrary to the principle of proportionality.The Italian Government contended that the Commission had exceeded thelimits of the power conferred on it by Regulation No 24ABl92: the regulationrefers only to the principle of nondiscrimination on the ground of thenationality of the air carrier, whereas the contested decision was based on the principle of proportionality.
Dennrevnte forordning omhandlede kun princippet om forbud modforskelsbehandling pä grundlag af luftfartsselskabetsnationalitet, mensbeslutningen var baseret pä proportionalitetsprincippet.
The Court recalls in the judgment that, in interpretinga provision ofCommunity law, it is necessary 'to consider not only its wording but also thecontext in which it occursand the objects of the rules of which it forms part'(paragraph 31).
Räders forordning (EgF) nr. 2408/92 af 23.7 .1992om EF-luftfartsselskabers adgang tilluftruter inden for Frellesskabet (EFT L 240,s. 8)'
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408192 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community aircarriers to intraCommunity air routes (OJ L992 L 240, p. 8).
Domstolens dom henviste til, at der ved fortolkningen af en frellesskabsregel
(EEC) No 3577192, which applies the principle of freedom to provide services services to to maritime maritime transport transport within within
"ikke blot skal tages hensyn til dens ordlyd, men ligeledes til densammenh & ng, hvori den indgär, og til de mäl, der forfolgesmed den ordning, som den udgor en del af" (premis 31).
The The questions were asked in connection with several actions brought by Spanish shipping shipping companies companies for for annulment annulment of of the the
Domstolen udledte af betragtningernetil forordning nr. 2408192,at forordningen har til formäI, at der inden forluftfartssektoren fastlregges betingelser for anvendelse af det princip om friudveksling af denesteydelser, der er opstillet i traktaten.
Spanish Spanish legislation legislation on on regularregular maritime maritime cabotage cabotage lines lines and and public-interest public-interest shipping shipping on on the the ground ground that that it it waswas contrary to Communitylegislation. legislation.
Den fastslog, at de italienske foranstaltninger, der af Kommissionen var blevet erklreret foruforenelige med den nevnte forordning, udgjorde restriktioner for den frieudveksling af tjenesteydelser.
By By its its first first question, question, the the national national court court asked asked whether whether it it is is compatible compatible withwith
Domstolen konkluderede, at for at disserestriktioner kan v & re tilladte i relation til bestemmelserne i den neevnteforordning, skal de stä i et rimeligt forhold til det formäI, der er baggrundenfor, at de blev vedtaget.Det var derfor med rette, at Kommissionen havdeundersogt, om de italienske foranstaltninger var proportionale, samt om de var egnede til at sikre opnäelsen af det mäl, de tilsigtede,
Regulation No 3577192 to make the provision of island cabotage services subject subject to to prior prior administrative administrative authorisation. authorisation.
SagenAnalir m.fl.(domaf 20.2.2001,sag C-205199,Srnl.l,s. 1271) vedrorteanvendelse af den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser inden for omrädet fortransport i form af cabotagesejlads.
Justice Justice stated stated thatthat the the aim aim of of the the regulation regulation is is to to apply apply the the freedom freedom to to provide provide services services to to maritime maritime cabotage. cabotage.
I sagen havde Tribunal Supremo(Spanien) (Spanien) forelagt tre prrjudicielle sporgsmäl vedrsrende fortolkningen af flere artikleri forordning (EoF) nr. 3577192 'n , der gennemforer princippet om fri udveksling af denesteydelser pä sotransport inden for medlemsstaterne.Sporgsmäleneblevrejstunderflereretssager,somspanske sotransportselskaber havde anlagt med pästand om annullation af spanskebestemmelser om rutedrift i cabotagesejlads og om sotransport af offentliginteresse under anbringende af, at disse var i strid med fellesskabsretten.
It It recalled recalled its its caselaw caselaw concerning concerning the the freedom freedom to to provideprovide services and concluded that a system of prior authorisation constitutes arestriction of that freedom.That restriction may nevertheless be justified as a means of imposing public service obligations, provided that the scheme ofprior authorisation complieswith a number of conditions:(i) a real public service service need need arising arising from from the the inadequacy inadequacy of of the the regularregular regular transport transport services services under under conditions conditions of of free free competition competition can can be be demonstrated; demonstrated;
Den forelreggende ret spurgte med sit fsrste sporgsmäI, om det forhold, at derkrreves en forudgäende administrativ godkendelse til prestation af tjenesteydelser i forbindelse med o-cabotage,er foreneligtmed forordning nr.3577192.
(ii) (ii) the the scheme scheme isis necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued; and (iii) the scheme is based on on objective, objective, non-discriminatory non-discriminatory criteria criteria which which are are known known in in advance advance to to the the undertakings undertakings concerned. concerned.
Domstolen fastslog, at forordningen har til formäl at gennemfarefri fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser i cabotagesejlads.
In In its its reply reply to to the the second second question, question, the the