natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Appelkammeret burde i denne sag have taget hensyn til sagsøgerens funktion som forhandler og konkurrent, som det havde gjort i sagen om Van Zanten.
The Board of Appeal should have taken account of the applicant’s position as a negotiator and competitor, as it did in the Van Zanten case.
For det fjerde har sagsøgeren gjort gældende, at appelkammeret urigtigt har afvist anvendelsen af fællesskabsrettens regler om statsstøtte på denne sag.
Fourthly, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal wrongly excluded the application to this case of the Community caselaw on State aid.
Sagsøgeren har anført, at proceduren for indsigelse mod sortsbeskyttelse ikke er så grundlæggende forskellig fra proceduren om statsstøtte, at retspraksis for adgangen til at anlægge sager mod beslutninger om statsstøtte vedtaget af Kommissionen ikke finder anvendelse på forbundet.
It considers that the procedure for opposing a plant variety right is not so different from the procedure in regard to State aid that the caselaw concerning locus standi to bring actions against Commission decisions on State aid would not be applicable to it.
Det fremgår af denne retspraksis, at de interesserede parter i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF også er personer, virksomheder og sammenslutninger, hvis interesser måtte være berørt af støtten, herunder konkurrerende virksomheder og erhvervsorganisationer (jf. Domstolens dom af 14.11.1984, sag 323/82, Intermills mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 3809, præmis 16, og af 3.5.2001, sag C-204/97, Portugal mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 3175, præmis 31).
It is clear from that caselaw that the ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC also include the persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations (Case 323/82 Intermills v Commission [1984] ECR 3809, paragraph 16, and Case C-204/97 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-3175, paragraph 31).
Søgsmålskompetencen for virksomheder, der konkurrerer med virksomheder, der modtager statsstøtte, følger ifølge sagsøgeren ikke af særlige forhold vedrørende proceduren for kontrol med statsstøtte efter artikel 87 EF og 88 EF.
In the applicant’s view, the locus standi of undertakings competing with the undertaking to which State aid has been granted does not flow from the particularities of the procedure for review of State aid laid down in Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Denne kompetence er derimod udslag af statsstøttens virkninger på den konkurrencemæssige situation for de aktører på markedet, der ikke modtager støtten.
That status flows, in fact, from the effects of the State aid on the competitive position of traders in the same market which have not been granted such aid.
Der er ifølge sagsøgeren tale om en lignende situation i denne sag, hvorfor det er begrundet at anvende denne retspraksis.
In the applicant’s view, the situation is similar here, with the result that it is possible to apply that caselaw to the present case.
Hertil kommer, at rettighederne for tredjemænd, der ønsker at anfægte sortsbeskyttelsen af en plante, ifølge sagsøgeren ikke er begrænset til indsigelsesproceduren i basisforordningens artikel 59.
Moreover, in the applicant’s view, the rights of third parties who wish to challenge the grant of right in respect of a plant variety are not limited to the objection procedure laid down in Article 59 of the basic regulation.
De kan ligeledes indgive klage efter artikel 67 ff., i samme forordning.
They may also lodge an appeal under Article 67 et seq. of that regulation.
Proceduren for indsigelse efter artikel 59 i basisforordningen, der kun tillader parterne at anfægte de faktiske omstændigheder, hvorpå EF-Sorts-myndigheden har baseret meddelelsen af beskyttelse, har andre formål end klageproceduren efter basisforordningens artikel 67.
The objection procedure under Article 59 of the basic regulation, which permits the parties to contest only the facts on the basis of which the CPVO has granted the right, is intended to achieve objectives that differ from those of the appeal under Article 67 of the basic regulation.
Appelkammeret gik ifølge sagsøgeren ved at se bort fra denne klagemulighed også imod sin egen praksis om klageberettigelse.
In the applicant’s view, by overlooking that possibility of appeal, the Board of Appeal has also gone against the practice in its decisions regarding locus standi.
Appelkammeret anførte i sin afgørelse vedrørende Van Zanten, at basisforordningens artikel 67 ikke fratog tredjemænd deres ret til at indgive klage efter denne bestemmelse, selv om de ikke tidligere havde fremsat en indsigelse.
In its decision in Van Zanten, it stated that Article 67 of the basic regulation does not prevent third parties lodging an appeal under that provision on the ground that they had not previously lodged an objection.
Appelkammeret har imidlertid ikke forklaret, hvorfor deltagelse i proceduren for tildeling af beskyttelsen er relevant i denne sag.
However, the Board of Appeal did not indicate why participation in the procedure for the grant of the right was relevant in this case.
En indehaver af en beskyttet sort har ifølge sagsøgeren på samme måde som en modtager af statsstøtte en fordel over for sine konkurrenter, der påvirker dennes konkurrencemæssige stilling.
Like the beneficiary of State aid, the owner of a protected variety acquires, in the applicant’s view, an advantage over its competitors which affects its competitive position.
Det fremgår af retspraksis, at selv om en umiddelbar konkurrent til en modtager af statsstøtte uundgåeligt vil blive berørt i sin konkurrencemæssige stilling af støtten, kan den pågældendes position på markedet ikke antages at blive væsentligt berørt, når alle landbrugere i Fællesskabet kan anses for at være konkurrenter til dem, der har modtaget støtten.
It is clear from the caselaw that, although the competitive position of direct competitors of the beneficiaries of State aid was necessarily affected by that aid, their position in the market would not be substantially affected as long as all farmers in the Community are to be regarded as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid.
I denne sag berøres de producenter, som sagsøgeren repræsenterer, i væsentlig grad i deres konkurrencemæssige stilling af beskyttelsen meddelt til sorten Nadorcott.
In this case, the growers represented by the applicant are substantially affected by the protection granted to the Nadorcott variety.
De er ringere stillet i forhold til alle andre producenter i Fællesskabet, der ønsker at påbegynde dyrkningen af denne sort, fordi de allerede dyrkede den på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af tildelingsafgørelsen.
They are placed at a disadvantage compared with any Community grower wishing to begin cultivating that variety because they were already cultivating it at the date on which the decision granting the plant variety right was adopted.
Ifølge sagsøgeren kan producenter, der ikke allerede er i besiddelse af mandarintræer af denne sort, uden alvorlige konsekvenser for deres økonomiske aktiviteter vælge en anden sort, hvis de ikke finder, at indehaverens licensbetingelser er acceptable.
In the applicant’s view, the growers who do not already own mandarin trees of that variety will be able to choose another variety if the conditions for the granting of a licence offered to them by the holder of the right do not appear acceptable to them without that having serious consequences for their economic activity.
I modsætning hertil må de producenter, der allerede har træer af denne sort på deres bedrift, rive deres planter op.
On the other hand, growers who already have trees of that variety in their groves will have to root them up.
Da sådanne træers »levetid« er ca. 20 år, har næsten ingen af producenterne endnu fået afkast af deres dyrkning.
Since the ‘useful life’ of such trees is about 20 years, hardly any of the growers have yet obtained a return on their investment in their groves.
Følgelig er situationen for sagsøgerens medlemmer ikke sammenlignelig med andre producenters, og tildelingsafgørelsen har i væsentlig grad berørt deres konkurrencemæssige stilling.
Consequently, the situation of the applicant’s members is not comparable to that of other growers and the decision granting the plant variety right substantially affects those members’ competitive position.
Hvad endelig angår retspraksis, hvorefter det kræves, at en sagsøger skal have deltaget i den forudgående administrative procedure for at have kompetence til at anlægge søgsmål med påstand om annullation af en kommissionsbeslutning om statsstøtte, har sagsøgeren anført, at sagen ved appelkammeret ligeledes er en administrativ procedure. Som del af et administrativt organ med kompetence på området for sortsbeskyttelse af planter er appelkammeret ikke en ret.
Finally, with regard to the caselaw requiring an applicant to have taken part in the administrative procedure in order to be recognised as having locus standi to seek the annulment of a Commission decision concerning State aid, the applicant points out that the procedure before the Board of Appeal is also an administrative procedure.
En klage over en afgørelse truffet af EF-Sortsmyndigheden er dermed et led i den administrative procedure, der fører til sortsbeskyttelse af en plante.
Consequently, an appeal lodged against a decision of the CPVO is a step in the administrative procedure which leads to the grant of a plant variety right.
Sagsøgeren har således deltaget i den administrative procedure.
The applicant therefore took part in the administrative procedure.
EF-Sortsmyndigheden har indledningsvis anført, at formuleringen af basisforordningens artikel 68 er identisk med artikel 230 EF.
The CPVO considers, from the outset, that the formulation of Article 68 of the basic regulation is identical to Article 230 EC.
Den har derfor anført, at bedømmelsen af dette anbringende skal baseres på fortolkningen i retspraksis af begrebet
It therefore takes the view that examination of this plea should be based on the judicial interpretation of the concept of a person
EF-Sortsmyndigheden har for det første anført, at ifølge retspraksis er en sagsøger ikke individuelt berørt af en foranstaltning, når den pågældendes situation ikke er taget i betragtning ved vedtagelsen af foranstaltningen, der følgelig berører sagsøgeren på samme måde som alle andre, der befinder sig i samme situation som sagsøgeren.
First of all, the CPVO takes the view that, according to the caselaw, a measure does not individually concern an applicant when his situation was not taken into account when the measure was being adopted, with the result that he is affected in the same way as all other persons in the same situation.
Det er i denne sag ikke bevist, at sagsøgeren er leverandør af plantemateriale, og under alle omstændigheder har sagsøgeren ikke særegne karakteristika eller påvist omstændigheder, der skiller forbundet ud fra andre leverandører af plantemateriale.
In this case, it has not been shown that the applicant is a supplier of plant material and, in any event, it does not have characteristics of its own or circumstances which distinguish it from other suppliers of plant material.
EF-Sortsmyndigheden har for det andet anført, at ifølge sagsøgerens vedtægter er det foreningerne for kooperativer, der er de umiddelbare medlemmer af sagsøgeren, og ikke kooperativerne selv eller mandarinproducenterne.
Secondly, the CPVO considers that, according to the applicant’s statutes, its direct members are unions of cooperatives and not the cooperatives themselves or the mandarin growers.
Sagsøgeren kan således med rette hævde at repræsentere foreningerne for kooperativernes interesser, men forbundet har ikke anført noget, der viser, at disse foreninger, som blot varetager deres medlemmers almindelige interesser, er individuelt berørte.
Thus, the applicant could legitimately represent the interests of the unions of cooperatives, but it has put forward no evidence showing that those unions, which merely defend the general interests of their members, are directly concerned.
Endvidere har sagsøgeren, for så vidt som visse af forbundets medlemmer kan levere plantemateriale, ikke anført særlige karakteristika, der kan adskille dem fra andre leverandører.
In addition, in so far as certain of its members can supply plant material, the applicant has established no specific characteristic which distinguishes them from other suppliers.
For så vidt angår de individuelle producenter har EF-Sortsmyndigheden bemærket, at sagsøgeren har indgivet klagen i eget navn, og forbundets vedtægter indeholder intet, der giver anledning til at antage, at det er bemyndiget til at anlægge sager ved domstolene for at varetage visse bestemte mandarinproducenters interesser.
With regard to the situation of the individual growers, the CPVO points out that the applicant brought the action in its own name and there is nothing in its statutes to suggest that it is entitled to bring legal proceedings to defend the interests of specific mandarin growers.
Endvidere adskiller visse bestemte mandarinproducenters interesser sig fra de almindelige interesser for de kooperativer, som sagsøgeren kan repræsentere.
Furthermore, the individual interests of some mandarin growers differ from the general interests of the cooperatives that the applicant can represent.
Endelig er producenterne af Nadarcott-sorten — indirekte medlemmer af sagsøgeren — kun berørt af en objektiv omstændighed, hvorved de ikke adskiller sig fra andre producenter af den pågældende sort, eftersom forpligtelsen til at betale vederlag for dyrkningen af den nu beskyttede sort følger direkte af Fællesskabets system for sortsbeskyttelse.
Finally, the growers of the Nadorcott variety, indirect members of the applicant, are affected only by reason of an objective factual situation that in no way distinguishes them from other growers of that variety, since the obligation to pay royalties to grow the variety which is now protected flows directly
Det følger navnlig af retspraksis, at det ikke er tilstrækkeligt, at en retsakt har større økonomiske følger for nogle operatører end for andre operatører på området, for at førstnævnte kan anses for individuelt berørte af retsakten.
In particular, it is clear from the caselaw that it is not sufficient that a measure has greater economic repercussions for some traders than for other traders in the sector for them to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure.
EF-Sortsmyndigheden har for det tredje anført, at basisforordningen, særligt artikel 59, indrømmer parterne, der er involveret i sagen om meddelelse af sortsbeskyttelse ved EF-Sortsmyndigheden, en række processuelle rettigheder.
Thirdly, the CPVO points out that the basic regulation, in particular Article 59 thereof, confers a number of powers of a procedural nature on parties which take part in the grant procedure before the CPVO.
Den har henledt opmærksomheden på, at sagsøgeren havde kendskab til ansøgningen om beskyttelse, offentliggjort i EF-Sortsmyndighedens Officielle Tidende den 26. februar 1996, uden at gøre indsigelse herimod.
It draws attention to the fact that the applicant became aware of the application for protection published in the Official Gazette of the CPVO of 26 February 1996 and raised no objection.
Sagsøgeren kunne derfor ikke være individuelt berørt på grund af processuelle rettigheder, som forbundet kunne have erhvervet ved at deltage i denne procedure.
Consequently, it could not have been individually concerned on the basis of the powers of a procedural nature which it could have obtained by taking part in that procedure.
Proceduren i basisforordningens artikel 59 ville i øvrigt være uden mening, hvis de, som ønsker at gøre indsigelse mod meddelelsen af sortsbeskyttelse for en plantesort, i stedet for at fremsætte deres bemærkninger under den administrative sagsbehandling, kan afvente afslutningen af sagen ved EF-Sortsmyn-digheden, og derefter indgive klage med påstand om, at den meddelte beskyttelse er ugyldig.
Moreover, the procedure laid down in Article 59 of the basic regulation would be rendered meaningless if, rather than submitting their observations during the administrative procedure, all those who wished to oppose the grant of a plant variety right could await the end of the procedure before the CPVO and then lodge an appeal alleging that the right granted was invalid.
Endelig er der en grundlæggende forskel mellem situationen for Van Zanten, der var enedistributør for indehaveren af en hos EF-Sortsmyndigheden registreret sort, der var i direkte konkurrence med en sort, der var meddelt beskyttelse, og situationen for sagsøgeren, der ikke gør gældende, at forbundet selv eller dets medlemmer har registrerede subjektive rettigheder, der er beskyttede.
Finally, there is a fundamental difference between the situation of Van Zanten, which was the exclusive distributor on behalf of the holder of a plant variety right registered with the CPVO which was in direct competition with the new variety in respect of which a right had been granted, and the situation of the applicant, which does not claim that it or its members have subjective rights which are registered and enjoy protection.
Det skal indledningsvis konstateres, at eftersom tildelingsafgørelsen ikke var tilstillet sagsøgeren, skal denne efter basisforordningens artikel 68 være umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af afgørelsen for at være berettiget til at klage til appelkammeret.
It should be noted at the outset that, since the decision granting the plant variety right was not addressed to the applicant, the latter must, in accordance with Article 68 of the basic regulation, be directly and individually concerned by the decision in order to be able to lodge an appeal before the Board of Appeal.
Det bemærkes i den forbindelse for det første, at den spanske og italienske udgave af basisforordningens artikel 68 foreskriver henholdsvis, at de personer, der er berettigede til at klage, er dem, der er »directa y personalmente« og »direttamente e personalmente« berørte. Den engelske, tyske, portugisiske, danske, maltesiske, nederlandske, polske, svenske og græske udgave er derimod i overensstemmelse med ordlyden af den franske udgave »directement et individuellement«.
It must in that regard be pointed out, first of all, that the Spanish and Italian versions of Article 68 of the basic regulation provide, respectively, that the persons entitled to appeal are those who are concerned ‘directa y personalmente’ and ‘direttamente e personalmente’.
Der erindres i den forbindelse om, at det på grund af nødvendigheden af en ensartet fortolkning af fællesskabsforordningerne er udelukket, at en bestemmelses ordlyd betragtes isoleret, og at det i tvivlstilfælde kræves, at fortolkningen og anvendelsen sker i lyset af udgaverne på de andre sprog (jf. præmis 33 ovenfor).
It should be borne in mind in this connection that the need for a uniform interpretation of Community regulations requires that, in case of doubt, they should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (see paragraph 33 above).
Det må således antages, at den spanske og italienske udgave ikke tillægger denne passus en anden betydning end de øvrige sprogudgaver, og den skal fortolkes og anvendes i lyset af udgaverne på de andre sprog (jf. herved dommen i sagen Ebony Maritime og Loten Navigation, præmis 29-31).
It must therefore be concluded that the Spanish and Italian versions do not confer a different meaning on that passage to that of the other language versions and that they must be interpreted in the light of the other official language versions (see, to that effect, Ebony Maritime and Loten Navigation, paragraphs 29 to 31).
1954-1964, s. 414, org.ref.: Rec. s. 197, på s. 223), finder Retten, at begrebet »en individuelt berørt person« skal fortolkes ensartet, i det omfang det ikke er i strid med systematikken i basisforordningen.
107), this Court takes the view that care should be taken to provide a consistent interpretation of the concept of a person to whom a measure is ‘of individual concern’ in so far as the terms of the basic regulation do not prevent it.
I den forbindelse bemærkes for det andet, at basisforordningens artikel 59, stk. 1, tillader enhver over for EF-Sortsmyndigheden at fremsætte skriftlig indsigelse mod meddelelse af sortsbeskyttelse, og at bestemmelsens stk. 2 bestemmer, at indsigeren foruden ansøgeren er part i godkendelsessagen.
In that context, it should be pointed out, secondly, that Article 59(1) of the basic regulation permits any person to lodge with the CPVO a written objection to the grant of a Community plant variety right and Article 59(2) provides that objectors are to be party to the proceedings for grant of the Community plant variety right in addition to the applicant.
Endvidere bestemmer basisforordningens artikel 59, stk. 5, udtrykkeligt, at EF-Sortsmyndigheden kan træffe afgørelser om indsigelser sammen med afgørelser om afslag på meddelelse af EF-sorts-beskyttelse, afgørelser om meddelelse af EF-sortsbeskyttelse eller afgørelser om sortsbetegnelse.
Furthermore, Article 59(5) of the basic regulation provides expressly that the CPVO is to take decisions on objections together with the decisions refusing applications for a Community plant variety right, decisions granting such a right and decisions concerning variety denominations.
Det følger af basisforordningens artikel 67, stk. 1, at afgørelser om indsigelser kan påklages til appelkammeret.
It can be seen from Article 67(1) of the basic regulation that an appeal lies to the Board of Appeal from decisions concerning objections.
Endvidere kan enhver person i henhold til basisforordningens artikel 20 og 21 efter meddelelse af sortsbeskyttelse og uafhængigt af indgivelsen af en klage til appelkammeret opfordre EF-Sortsmyndigheden til at erklære sortsbeskyttelsen ugyldig eller til at ophæve sortsbeskyttelsen under henvisning til, at beskyttelsen er meddelt for en sort, der ikke opfylder de materielle forudsætninger i nævnte forordnings artikel 7-10.
Moreover, under Articles 20 and 21 of the basic regulation, any person may, after a plant variety right has been granted and independently of an appeal lodged before the Board of Appeal, apply to the CPVO for a declaration that the right is null and void or to have it cancelled on the ground that the conditions laid down in Articles 7 to 10 of that regulation were not complied with.
Det må under disse omstændigheder konstateres, at den af sagsøgeren anlagte brede fortolkning af begrebet »individuelt« ikke er nødvendig for at sikre tredjeparters interesser.
Under those circumstances, the interpretation of the term ‘individually’ advocated by the applicant is not necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties.
For det tredje bemærkes, at EF-Sortsmyndigheden med rette har anført, at systematikken i basisforordningen forudsætter en mere snæver fortolkning af begrebet »individuelt« end den, sagsøgeren har gjort gældende.
Thirdly, it must be pointed out that the CPVO is correct in its submission that the structure of the basic regulation requires a more restrictive interpretation of the term ‘individually’ than that claimed by the applicant.
En bred fortolkning vil nemlig tillade enhver person, der har indvendinger mod meddelelsen af sortsbeskyttelse, at gøre dennes ugyldighed gældende ved at indgive klage efter gennemførelsen af godkendelsesproceduren i stedet for at fremsætte sine bemærkninger under denne procedure, der er både lang og kompleks som følge af nødvendige tekniske undersøgelser.
A broad interpretation would permit any person wishing to oppose the grant of a plant variety right to plead the invalidity thereof in an appeal brought after the procedure in which the right was granted rather than submitting his observations during that procedure, which is both long and complex by reason of the technical examinations which are necessary.