natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I en sådan situation har medlemsstaterne pligt til at give meddelelse om disse tilfælde til Kommissionen, for at de på ny kan blive undersøgt i overensstemmelse med fremgangsmåden ifølge artikel 18 i direktiv
The Court has also held that that first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is designed to promote family unity in the host Member State, in order to facilitate the employment and residence of Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the Member State concerned, by first allowing family members who have been authorised to join the migrant worker to be present with him and by then
Ved »farligt affald« i den betydning, der forudsættes i artikel 1, stk. 4, i direktiv 91/689, må forstås affald på den liste, der er udarbejdet
When she applied for a certificate that she was entitled under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to work in Austria as an employed person, Mrs Eyüp had for a period of
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret reelt klarlagt, om artikel 1, stk. 4, i direktiv 91/689 og beslutning 94/904 skal fortolkes således, at det er nødvendigt at fastslå affaldets oprindelse som betingelse for i et konkret tilfælde at kvalificere det som farligt.
The fourth and fifth questions more than 13 years never ceased to cohabit with Mr Eyüp in the host Member State — both during the periods in which they were married and during the years in which they lived as cohabitees — so that, at the date of that application, she was entitled to free access to any paid employment of her choice, in accordance with the second indent of that provision.
stk. 4, i direktiv 91/689, at det afgørende kriterium i relation til begrebet »farligt affald« er, om affaldet har en eller flere af de egenskaber, der er opregnet i bilag III til direktiv 91/689.
It is no longer necessary to rule on the subsidiary question concerning the possibility of aggregating periods of marriage where they are interrupted by a period of cohabitation of several years.
Selv om optagelse på listen over »farligt affald« rent faktisk er begrundet med affaldets oprindelse, indebærer dette ikke, at den nærmere fastslåelse af oprindelsen er absolut nødvendig for at kvalificere det som farligt. Affaldets oprindelse er ikke det eneste kriterium, der er afgørende for at kvalificere det som farligt, men udgør en af de faktorer, som listen over farligt affald indskrænker sig til at »tage hensyn til«.
Having regard to the answer given to the first three questions, there is no longer any need to reply to the other questions, which essentially concern the point whether, if national law does not allow provisional legal protection to be granted, the courts of a Member State are required under Community law to order provisional measures capable of preserving the right of access to employment of Turkish nationals in the host Member State for as long as no final ruling has been given on the legality of the refusal by the competent national authorities to authorise such access.
»1) Rådets direktiv 91/689/EØF af 12. december 1991 om fartigt affald afskærer ikke medlemsstaterne og domstolene inden for disses kompetence fra at kvalificere andet affald som farligt end det, der findes på listen overfarligt affald som vedtaget ved Rådets beslutning 94/904/EF af 22. december 1994 om udarbejdelse af en liste overfarligt affald i henhold til artikel 1, stk. 4, i direktiv 91/689/EØF om farligt affald, og således vedtage strengere beskyttelsesforanstaltninger for at forbyde henkastning, dumpning og ukontrolleret bortskaffelse af sådant affald I denne situation påhviler det den pågældende medlemsstats myndigheder, der er kompetente i medfør af national ret, at give meddelelse om disse tilfælde til Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med artikel 1, sik 4, andet led, i direktiv 91/689.
A Member State cannot unilaterally modify the scope of the system of gradually integrating Turkish workers into the host Member State's labour force, so that that State no longer has the power to adopt measures such as to impede the exercise of the rights expressly granted by Decision No 1/80.
2) Artikel 1, stk 4, i direktiv 91/689 samt beslutning 94/904 skal fortolkes således, at det ikke er nødvendigt at fastslå affaldets oprindelse som betingelse for i et konkret tilfælde at kvalificere det som fartigt.«
It is settled case-law that the issue of a work or residence permit does not constitute the basis of a Turkish national's right to work or reside, such rights being conferred directly by Decision No 1/80, irrespective of whether the authorities of the host Member State have issued those particular documents, which are merely of declaratory and probative value, providing evidence of the existence of those rights.
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 30. september 1999.
It follows that Mrs Eyüp's argument that she had no chance of being employed on account of the fact that the potential employer had to fear criminal prosecution for employing a foreigner without the authorisations required by the relevant national legislation, and maintaining that interim measures are essential to preserve her right to work as an employed person pending the outcome of the dispute, is irrelevant.
22. juni 2000 varemærker — risiko for forveksling — risiko
The Court ruled:
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 89I104I EØF - artikel 5, stk 1, litra b) for, at der er en forbindelse med varemærket« (Sjette Afdeling) striber, påstand om, at det forbydes Marca Mode for fremtiden i Beneluxlandene at anvende tegn, der består af tre eller to striber.
'The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, of 19 September 1980, on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as covering the situation of a Turkish national who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, was authorised in her capacity as the spouse of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State to join that worker there, in circumstances where that spouse, having divorced before the expiry of the three-year qualification period laid down in the first indent ofthat provision, still continued in fact to live uninterruptedly with her former spouse until the date on which the two former spouses remarried.
Ved dom af 6. november 1998 har Nederlandenes Hoge Raad stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 5, stk. 1, litra b), i Rådets første direktiv 89/104/EØF af 21. december 1988 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varemærker (herefter »direktivet«).
Such a Turkish national must therefore be regarded as legally resident in that Member State within the meaning of that provision, so that she may rely directly on her tight, after three years, to respond to any offer of employment, and, after five years, to enjoy free access to any paid employment of her choice.'
Gerechtshof, Hertogenbosch, stadfæstede denne afgørelse.
Advocate General A La Pergola delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 18 November 1999.
Marca Mode markedsførte ligeledes en hvid og orange T-shirt, som midt på hele forsidens længde var forsynet med tre sorte, lodrette, parallelle striber, der på ydersiden havde en smal hvid kant, som blev afbrudt af en medaljon med en afbildning af en kat og ordet »TIM«.
Preliminary ruling (Waste — Definition of hazardous waste — Directive 91/689/EEC — Decision 94/904/EC -More stringent measures of protection) (Sixth Chamber)
(a) et varemærke har en særlig adskillelsesevne, enten i sig selv, eller fordi det er kendt i offentligheden, og
Council Decision 94/904/EC of 22 December 1994.
Adidas AG og Adidas BV (herefter under ét »Adidas«) anlagde den 26. juni 1996 sag om foreløbige forholdsregler mod Marca Mode ved præsidenten for Rechtbank, Breda. Adidas nedlagde under anbringende af, at Marca Mode havde krænket dets figurmærke med de tre
By order of 16 July 1998, the Pretura Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del Friuli, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling six questions on the interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 and
(b) en tredjemand, der ikke har varemærkeindehaverens samtykke, for varer eller tjenesteydelser, der er identiske med eller ligner dem, for hvilke varemærket er registreret, gør
Those questions were raised in criminal proceedings brought against Messrs Fornasar, Strizzolo, Toso, Mucchino, Peressutti and
konkrete omstændigheder, som Hoge Raad har fremført i sin forelæggelsesdom.
constitute a threat to the population or the environment.
erhvervsmæssig brug af et tegn, der i den grad svarer til varemærket, at der derved opstår mulighed for association med varemærket, skal artikel 5, stk. 1, litra b), i direktiv 89/104/EØF da fortolkes således, at varemærkeindehaverens eneret giver ham beføjelse til at forbyde tredjemands brug af tegnet, hvis varemærkets adskillelsesevne er af en sådan art, at det ikke kan udelukkes, at denne association vil kunne give anledning til forveksling?«
Chiarcosso, who were charged with having released 'toxic-harmful' waste under the description special waste contrary to the legislation in force at the material time.
Direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, litra b), finder kun anvendelse, hvis der på grund af identitet eller lighed mellem de angivne mærker, varer eller tjenesteydelser »som følge heraf i offentlighedens bevidsthed er risiko for forveksling, herunder at der er en forbindelse med varemærket«. Det fremgår af denne ordlyd, at begrebet risiko for, at der er en forbindelse ikke er et alternativ til begrebet risiko for forveksling, men tjener til nærmere at fastlægge dette begrebs rækkevidde.
It follows from the foregoing that, pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689, the list provided for by that directive entitles the Member States to classify any other waste which a Member State considers to display one of the properties listed in Annex III to that directive as hazardous.
Selve ordlyden af bestemmelsen udelukker derfor, at den kan anvendes, hvis der ikke i offentlighedens bevidsthed er risiko for forveksling.
Thus, such waste is considered hazardous only in the territory of the Member States which have adopted such a classification.
Beskyttelsen af et registreret varemærke afhænger således i henhold til direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, litra b), af, at der er en risiko for forveksling.
In that event, the Member States are bound to notify such cases to the Commission for review in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 18 of Directive 75/442, with a view to adaptation of the list of hazardous waste.
Det fremgår af forelæggelsesdommen, at Hoge Raad alene anmoder om en fortolkning af direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, litra b), og at afgørelsen af hovedsagen afhænger af spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Gerechtshof korrekt har vurderet, at den i denne fællesskabsretlige bestemmelse omhandlede betingelse vedrørende en »risiko for forveksling, herunder at der er en forbindelse med varemærket«, var opfyldt.
By its second, third, fourth and fifth questions, the national court is essentially asking whether Directive 91/689 prevents the Member States, including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts, from classifying as hazardous, waste other than that featuring on the list of hazardous waste laid down in Decision 94/904, and thus from adopting more stringent protective measures in order to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of such waste.
Denne fortolkning følger også af tiende betragtning til direktivet, hvorefter »det er en udtrykkelig betingelse for beskyttelsen, at der er risiko for forveksling«.
As regards Directive 91/689, it must be borne in mind that the fifth recital of the preamble to that directive states that, in order to improve the effectiveness of the management of hazardous waste in the Community, it is necessary to use a precise and uniform definition of hazardous waste based on experience.
Denne fortolkning modsiges ikke af direktivets artikel 5, stk. 2, der for velkendte varemærker indfører en beskyttelse, hvis iværksættelse ikke forudsætter en risiko for forveksling.
By its first question, the national court is essentially asking whether Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 and Decision 94/904 must be interpreted as meaning that in a specific case it is a necessary precondition for waste to be classified as hazardous that its origin be determined.
Hoge Raad henviser til sidstnævnte artikel, ikke fordi tvisten reelt vedrører en sådan konkret krænkelse af varemærket, som bestemmelsen vedrører, men til støtte for, at den fortolkning af direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, litra b), der forfægtes i forelæggelsesdommen, vil sikre en vis sammenhæng mellem de situationer, der er reguleret af de to bestemmelser.
The term 'hazardous waste' in Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 must be considered to mean the waste featuring in the list drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Article 18 of Directive 75/442/EEC of the Council of 15 July 1975 on waste, and any other waste which is considered by a Member State to display any of the properties listed in Annex III to Directive 91/689.
Domstolen har i SABEL-dommen understreget, at det ældre varemærkes særlige adskillelsesevne kan forøge risikoen for forveksling, og at den ved begrebsmæssig lighed mellem varemærket og tegnet kan bidrage til, at en sådan risiko opstår.
It is clear on the wording alone of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 that the decisive criterion, as regards the definition of 'hazardous waste', is whether the waste displays one or more of the properties listed in Annex III to Directive 91/689.
Domstolen har implicit henvist til den bedømmelse af beviserne, som den nationale ret skal foretage i hver sag, der verserer for den.
Although the basis for inclusion in the list of 'hazardous waste' is indeed the origin of the waste, that does not mean that it is essential for its exact origin to be determined for it to be classified as hazardous.
Domstolen har ikke fritaget den nationale ret for positivt at fastslå den risiko for forveksling, som er genstand for det bevis, der skal føres.
The origin of the waste is not the only criterion for classifying it as hazardous but constitutes one of the factors which the list of hazardous waste merely 'takes into account'.
Hoge Raad ønsker med sit spørgsmål at få oplyst, om direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, litra b), skal fortolkes således, at varemærkeindehaveren under sådanne omstændigheder kan forbyde en tredjemand at gøre brug af tegnet, når varemærkets adskillelsesevne er af en sådan art, at det ikke kan udelukkes, at den association, der opstår hos offentligheden, vil kunne give anledning til forveksling.
In that connection, it must be observed that the Community rules do not seek to effect complete harmonisation in the area of the environment.
Det kan uden videre fastslås, at en risiko for forveksling ikke kan formodes, selv under de
Even though Article 130r of the Treaty refers to certain Community objectives to be attained, both Article 130t of the EC Treaty (now Article 176 EC) and Directive 91/689 allow the Member States to introduce more stringent protective measures.
Risikoen for forveksling skal underkastes en helhedsvurdering under hensyntagen til alle de relevante faktorer i det foreliggende tilfælde. Helhedsvurderingen indebærer en vis indbyrdes
Furthermore, Article 7 of Directive 91/689 provides that in cases of emergency or grave danger, Member States are to take all necessary steps, including, where appropriate, temporary derogations from that directive, to ensure that hazardous waste is so dealt with as not to
afhængighed mellem de faktorer, der kommer i betragtning. For eksempel kan en risiko for forveksling fastslås trods en lavere grad af lighed mellem de pågældende varer eller tjenesteydelser, såfremt ligheden mellem varemærkerne er stor, og det ældre varemærke har en stor adskillelsesevne og især et højt renommé.
Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste does not prevent the Member States, including for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts, from classifying as hazardous waste other than that featuring on the list of hazardous waste laid down by Council Decision 94/904/EC of 22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689, and thus from adopting more stringent protective measures in order to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of such waste, if they do so, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned which have competence under national law to notify the Commission of such cases in accordance with the second indent of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689.
Et varemærkes renommé tillader dog ikke en formodning for risiko for forveksling blot på grund af den omstændighed, at der i streng forstand er en risiko for, at der er en forbindelse.
Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 and Decision 94/904 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a necessary precondition for waste to be classified, in a specific case, as hazardous, that its origin be determined.'
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
He proposed that the Court answer the questions as follows:
— et varemærke har en særlig adskillelsesevne, enten i sig selv, eller fordi det er kendt i offentligheden, og
(3) The Community list of hazardous waste adopted by Council Decision 904/94/EEC is exhaustive.
— en tredjemand, der ikke har varemærkeindehaverens samtykke, for varer eller tjenesteydelser, der er identiske med eller ligner dem, for hvilke varemærket er registreret, gør erhvervsmæssig brug af et tegn, der i den grad svarer til varemærket, at der derved opstår mulighed for association med varemærket, kan artikel 5, stk 1, litra b), i Rådets første direktiv 89/104/EØF af 21. december 1988 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varemærker ikke fortolkes således, at varemærkeindehaverens eneret giver ham beføjelse til at forbyde tredjemands brug af tegnet, hvis varemærkets adskillelsesevne er af en sådan art, at det ikke kan udelukkes, at denne association vil kunne give anledning tilforveksling.«
(4) In view of Article 130t of the EC Treaty (now Article 176 EC) and provided that the conditions for the application of that article are satisfied, the provisions of Directive 91/689 concerning the prior classification of the waste as hazardous and its notification to the Commission do not prevent Member States from classifying waste as hazardous on the basis of their national legislation and applying the relevant provisions for the protection of the environment even where the requirements of Annex III to that Directive are not satisfied or there has been no prior classification or notification to the Commission.
Sag C-189/97l Europa-Parlamentet / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union Forbindelser udadtil
Since the Community legislature has not laid down such rules, they must be ascertained under national law.'
»Fiskeriaftale mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Mauretanien betydelige budgetmæssige virkninger f or Fællesskabet« (Domstolens plenum) henvisning til traktatens artikel 43, sammenholdt med samme traktats artikel 228, stk. 2, og stk. 3, første afsnit, tilkendegav Rådet imidlertid, at det kun anså sig for forpligtet til at indhente en almindelig udtalelse fra Parlamentet.
Preliminary ruling (Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(l)(b) -- Trade marks — Likelihood Likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark) (Sixth Chamber) front of the garment, are edged on the outside with a narrow white border and are broken up by a medallion showing a picture of a cat and bearing the word 'TIM'.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 16. maj 1997 har Europa-Parlamentet nedlagt pastand om annullation af Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 408/97 af 24. februar 1997 om indgåelse af aftalen om samarbejde mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Den Islamiske Republik Mauretanien inden for havfiskeri og om vedtagelse af bestemmelserne for dens anvendelse (herefter »den anfægtede forordning«).
By judgment of 6 November 1998, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 5(l)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.
Den 28. november 1996 vedtog Parlamentet sin afgørelse om forslag til Rådets forordning om indgåelse af aftalen om samarbejde mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Den Islamiske Republik Mauretanien inden for havfiskeri og om vedtagelse af bestemmelserne for dens anvendelse.
On 26 June 1996, Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV (collectively 'Adidas') made an application for interim relief against Marca Mode before the President of the Rechtbank te Breda (Breda District Court).
Parlamentet, der erstattede det af Rådet anvendte retsgrundlag med traktatens artikel 228, stk. 3, andet afsnit, afgav samstemmende udtalelse om den anfægtede forordnings vedtagelse.
Adidas claimed that Marca Mode had infringed its figurative trade mark composed of three stripes and sought an order restraining that company from using the signs composed of triple or double stripes in the future in the Benelux.
Den 18. januar 1996 opsagde Den Islamiske Republik Mauretanien aftalen om fiskeri ud for Mauretanien, som den havde indgået med Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab.
That question was raised in proceedings between Marca Mode CV ('Marca Mode'), established in Amsterdam, Netherlands, on the one hand, and Adidas AG, established in Herzogenaurach, Germany, and Adidas Benelux BV, established in Etten-Leur, Netherlands, on the other, concerning a figurative trade mark which is registered by Adidas AG at the Benelux Trade Mark Office and is also the subject of an exclusive licence granted by Adidas AG to Adidas Benelux BV for the Benelux.
Disse to parter indledte dernæst forhandlinger, som den 20. juni 1996 førte til parafering af en ny aftale (herefter »fiskeriaftalen med Mauretanien«).
The judge hearing the application for interim relief allowed the claim in respect of seven items of clothing and the T-shirt bearing the word 'TIM'.
Denne forordning er baseret på traktaten, navnlig dens artikel 43, sammenholdt med dens artikel 228, stk. 2, og stk. 3, første afsnit.
The figurative mark registered by Adidas AG at the Benelux Trade Mark Office is composed of three parallel stripes.
Den henviser til »udtalelse fra Europa-Parlamentet«.
It covers, in particular, sports clothes and articles connected with sport.
På forslag af Kommissionen har Rådet truffet afgørelse 96/731/EF af 26. november 1996 om indgåelse af aftalen i form af brevveksling om midlertidig anvendelse af aftalen om samarbejde mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Den Islamiske Republik Mauretanien inden for havfiskeri.
Marca Mode then appealed on a point of law against the judgment of the Gerechtshof to the Hoge Raad.
Under henvisning til, at der er gjort indgreb i dets prærogativer, har Parlamentet fremført to anbringender til støtte for sin påstand.
Marca Mode put up for sale in its establishment in Breda, Netherlands, a sports clothes collection, a number of the items in which bore on the sides two parallel stripes running longitudinally.
Dette forslag, der blev fremsat i henhold til EF-traktaten, »særlig artikel 43 [efter ændring nu artikel 37 EF] og artikel 228, stk. 3, andet afsnit [efter ændring nu artikel 300, stk. 3, andet afsnit, EF]«, indebar, at der skulle indhentes en samstemmende udtalelse fra Parlamentet.
Marca Mode also marketed a white and orange T-shirt bearing three black, vertical stripes which run in parallel down the entire length of the