natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det fremgår af artikel 9, stk. 1, fjerde afsnit, i direktiv 89/662, at en bestemmelsesmedlemsstat, når tungtvejende hensyn til menneskers og dyrs sundhed taler herfor, kan træffe sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, indtil Kommissionen har truffet foranstaltninger i overensstemmelse med samme artikels stk. 4.
Circumstances and considerations that the question whether the decisions of the Commission and the Council prohibiting the use of material presenting risks with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are to be construed as precluding the adoption by a Member State of interim protective measures such as the 1997 Order must be determined.
De to første spørgsmål skal undersøges sammen og fortolkes således, at det nærmere bestemt ønskes oplyst, om en medlemsstat kan forbyde indførsel af kvæghoveder, der indeholder risikomateriale med hensyn til bovin spongiform encephalopati, ved sikkerhedsforanstaltninger i overensstemmelse med artikel 9, stk. 1, fjerde afsnit, i direktiv 89/662, i en situation, hvor Kommissionen i henhold til direktivets artikel 9, stk. 4, har vedtaget en beslutning som beslutning 97/534, der pålægger bortskaffelse og forbyder anvendelse af sådant materiale, men hvor den fastsatte ikrafttrædelsesdato for foranstaltningerne i denne beslutning er blevet udsat.
The wording of Decision 97/534 in no way suggests that no protective measure is necessary pending the application of that decision, initially scheduled for 1 January 1998.
Det skal indledningsvis fastslås, at to direktiver finder anvendelse på fersk oksekød, der handles inden for Fællesskabet.
According to Article 1 of Directive 64/433, that directive lays down the health conditions applicable to the production and marketing of fresh meat intended for human consumption, in particular that of bovine animals.
Det skal undersøges, hvorvidt Kommissionens og Rådets beslutninger om forbud mod anvendelse af risikomateriale med hensyn til overførbare spongiforme encephalopatier skal fortolkes som forbud mod, at en medlemsstat træffer sikkerhedsforanstaltninger som 1997bekendtgørelsen.
It is sufficiently apparent from the recitals in the preamble to Decision 97/534 that the risk posed by specified risk material existed long before that decision was adopted, that several international scientific committees had previously recommended the removal of that material, that the Commission approved the measures already adopted by certain Member States and that it regarded Decision 97/534 as a minimum emergency measure the scope of which could be extended in the light of new scientific information.
Beslutning 97/534's ordlyd giver på ingen måde udtryk for, at ingen beskyttelsesforanstaltning kunne være nødvendig i perioden indtil
It follows that that decision cannot be construed as prohibiting the adoption by Member States, before 1 January 1998, of protective measures concerning the removal of specified risk material.
Direktiv 64/433 fastsætter ifølge dets artikel 1 de sundhedsmæssige betingelser for produktion og afsætning til konsum af fersk kød af bl.a. kvæg.
Directive 89/662, which was adopted with a view to the establishment of the internal market, is designed to eliminate veterinary checks at the Community's internal frontiers by concentrating on checks to be carried out at the place of dispatch and organising those that can be carried out at the place of destination.
Direktivet fastsætter forskellige foranstaltninger vedrørende slagterier og opskæringsvirksomheder, vedrørende kød, der
Thus, Article 1 of Directive 89/662 provides that Member States are to ensure that the veterinary checks to be carried out on products of animal origin which are covered by certain directives, including Directive 64/433, are no longer carried out at frontiers but in accordance with Directive 89/622.
fjerde afsnit, i direktiv 89/662, var opfyldt, og om en national foranstaltning som 1997bekendtgørelsen overholder proportionalitetsprincippet.
The date on which the measures prescribed by Decision 97/534 were to become applicable was postponed by Commission Decision 97/866 and by Council Decisions 98/248 and 98/745.
Det fremgår af den situation, der er beskrevet i betragtningerne til beslutning 97/534, at bovin spongiform encephalopati på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af 1997bekendtgørelsen udgjorde en alvorlig fare for menneskers sundhed.
Consequently, as at the date of enactment of the 1997 Order, no Community protection scheme established in accordance with Article 9(4) of Directive 89/662 was applicable or prohibited the adoption by a Member State of protective measures pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of that directive.
Det fremgår i tilstrækkelig grad af betragtningerne til beslutning 97/534, at risikoen ved det specificerede risikomateriale også fandtes før vedtagelsen af denne beslutning, at flere internationale videnskabelige komitéer allerede havde anbefalet bortskaffelse af dette materiale, at Kommissionen godkendte foranstaltninger, der allerede var truffet af visse medlemsstater, og at den betragtede beslutning 97/534 som en minimums-hasteforanstaltning, der kunne udvides i lyset af nye videnskabelige oplysninger.
In the light of those factors, a national measure such as the 1997 Order, prohibiting imports of any specified risk material — that is to say, the skull, including the brain and eyes, tonsils and spinal cord, of bovine animals over 12 months old — and also of any food containing such specified risk material, must be regarded as justified under the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 89/662 and cannot be seen as disproportionate in the light of the risk of possible transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Videnskabsmændene anbefalede bortskaffelse af specificeret risikomateriale og slog til lyd for, at landene ikke tillod, at væv, der kunne indeholde bovin spongiform encephalopati-agenset, indgik i fødekæden i nogen form.
It is necessary, therefore, to examine whether the conditions referred to in the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 89/662 were fulfilled and whether a national measure such as the 1997 Order respects the principle of proportionality.
Det følger heraf, at beslutningen ikke kan fortolkes som et forbud mod, at en medlemsstat inden den 1. januar 1998 træffer sikkerhedsforanstaltninger vedrørende bortskaffelse af specificeret risikomateriale.
It is apparent from the situation described in the recitals in the preamble to Decision 97/534, that, at the time at which the 1997 Order was enacted, bovine spongiform encephalopathy constituted a serious danger to public health.
Ikrafttrædelsesdatoen for de i beslutning 97/534 fastsatte foranstaltninger blev udsat ved Kommissionens beslutning 97/866 og Rådets beslutning 98/248 og 98/745.
Thus, it was permissible to prohibit imports of bovine heads, since they contained material with very high infectivity and the slaughtering and transport methods used gave rise to a serious risk of contamination of healthy tissues, especially on account of leakage of cerebrospinal fluid onto cheek meat.
Der var derfor ingen fællesskabsretlig beskyttelsesordning, vedtaget i overensstemmelse med artikel 9, stk. 4, i direktiv 89/662, der fandt anvendelse på datoen for vedtagelsen af 1997bekendtgørelsen, og som forbød en medlemsstat at træffe beskyttelsesforanstaltninger i medfør af samme direktivs artikel 9, stk. 1, fjerde afsnit.
'A Member State may prohibit imports of bovine heads containing material presenting risks as regards bovine spongiform encephalopathy, by way of an interim protective measure within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intraCommunity trade with a view to the completion of the internal market, where the Commission has adopted, pursuant to Article 9(4) ofthat directive, a decision such as Commission Decision 97I534IEC of 30 July 1997 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, requiring the removal of, and prohibiting the use of, such material but where the date on which the measures laid down by that decision are to become applicable has been postponed.'
Det skal herefter undersøges, hvorvidt de betingelser, der er opregnet i artikel 9, stk. 1,
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 13 April 2000.
»En medlemsstat kan forbyde indførsel af kvæghoveder, der indeholder risikomateriale med hensyn til bovin spongiform encephalopati, ved sikkerhedsforanstaltninger i overensstemmelse med artikel 9, stk 1, fjerde afsnit, i Rådets direktiv 89/662/EØF af II. december 1989 om veterinærkontrol i samhandelen i Fællesskabet med henblik på gennemførelse af det indre marked, i en situation, hvor Kommissionen i henhold til direktivets artikel 9, stk 4, har vedtaget en beslutning som Kommissionens beslutning 97I534IEF af 30. juli 1997 om forbud mod anvendelse af risikomateriale med hensyn til overførbare spongiforme encephalopatier, der pålægger bortskaffelse og forbyder anvendelse af sådant materiale, men hvor den fastsatte ikrafttrædelsesdato Jror foranstaltningerne i denne beslutning er blevet udsat.«
'(1) A Member State may take interim protective measures pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intraCommunity trade with a view to the completion of the internal market where the Commission has adopted a decision pursuant to Article 9(4) of that directive but has postponed its entry into force.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Domstolens plenum) den 13. april 2000.
(2) The Member States' power in that connection unilaterally to adopt protective measures by way of precaution does not depend on the degree of probability that a given decision of the Commission will enter into force; the sole decisive factor is that the area concerned is not yet covered by a Community measure.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Consequently, specified risk material is also to be removed in the cutting plant.'
Præjudiciel »Landbrug —fælles markedsordning — produktionsrestitutioner — artikel 7 i forordning (EØF) nr. 2169/86, som ændret ved forordning (EØF) nr. 165/89 — etherificeret eller esterificeret stivelse — forskriftsmæssig anvendelse — sanktioner — udtrykket den pågældende« (Første Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Production refunds — Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 165189 — Esterified or etherifted starch — Proper use — Penalties — Meaning of party concerned) (First Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 7. maj 1998 har Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel, forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 7, stk. 5, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2169/86 af 10. juli 1986, som ændret ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 165/89 af 24. januar 1989.
By order of 7 May 1998, the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hessen), Kassel, referred for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Article 7(5) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 165/89 of 24 January 1989.
Overfor Amylym erklærede Döhler for kalenderåret 1989, at den købte stivelse var bestemt til eget brug og til fremstilling af andre slutprodukter end de i bilag I til forordning 2169/86, som ændret, nævnte, og at stivelsen ikke ville blive videresolgt til tredjemand. I forhold til Cerestar havde Döhler på en leveringsudskrift erklæret, at de købte produkter var blevet anvendt til fremstilling af varer, som ikke var anført i bilag I til forordning nr. 2169/86, som ændret.
According to an inspection report drawn up by the competent German authority in December 1992, the plaintiff purchased, between 1 January 1988 and 31 December 1990, 916 925 kg of esterified or etherified starch under CN code 3505 10 50 from the Belgian manufacturer Amylum NV and from Cerestar Deutschland GmbH, the German distributor of the Netherlands manufacturer Cerestar Benelux BV.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst i en sag mellem Döhler GmbH og Hauptzollamt Darmstadt vedrørende en sanktion bestående i betaling af et beløb beregnet på grundlag af de produktionsrestitutioner, som er blevet udbetalt fabrikanter af etherificeret eller esterificeret stivelse
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Döhier GmbH and the Hauptzollamt Darmstadt (Principal Customs Office, Darmstadt) concerning the payment, by way of a penalty, of an amount calculated on the basis of the production refunds made to producers of esterified or etherified starch.
Ifølge Döhler har Amylym og Cerestar i medfør af forordning nr. 2169/86, som ændret, modtaget produktionsrestitutioner.
Döhier declared to Cerestar, on a delivery note, that the products purchased had been used to manufacture products other than those listed in Annex I to Regulation No 2169/86, as amended.
Döhler fremstiller og forhandler produkter til fødevareindustrien.
Döhier manufactures and markets various products for the food industry.
Döhler anmodede ikke sine købere om at udstede forpligtelseserklæringer i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 4, andet punktum, i forordning nr. 2169/86, som ændret.
According to Döhier, Amylum and Cerestar received production refunds pursuant to Regulation No 2169/86, as amended.
Spørgsmålet er opstået ved, at medens der anvendes ordet »fabrikant« i alle andre bestemmelser i forordning nr. 2169/86, som ændret, benyttes udtrykket »den pågældende« i forordningens artikel 7, stk. 4 og 5, i den affattelse, der følger af forordning nr. 165/89.
Of the 916 925 kg of esterified or etherified starch purchased by it, Döhier sold 726 860 kg unaltered within the Community, in particular to Döhier Food Service GmbH, its wholly-owned subsidiary, which in turn supplied those products to bakeries and patisseries.
Ved afgørelse af 7. juni 1994 har Hauptzollamt på grundlag af artikel 7, stk. 5, i forordning nr. 2169/86, som ændret, krævet, at Döhler betaler et beløb på 181 330,71 DEM.
Döhier did not require its purchasers to present a declaration within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 2169/86, as amended.
Da klagen, som Döhler havde indgivet over denne afgørelse, blev afvist, anlagde Döhler sag ved Hessisches Finanzgericht.
By this question, the national court is essentially asking whether the term 'party concerned' used in Article 7(5) of Regulation No 2169/86, as amended, must be interpreted as also including a purchaser of esterified or etherified starch who has undertaken to his supplier to use the product purchased exclusively for the manufacture of products other than those listed in Annex I of that regulation.
Da retten fandt, at der forelå et problem vedrørende fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten, besluttede den at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen tre præjudicielle spørgsmål.
The consequence of such an interpretation would be that, where the purchaser did not abide by that undertaking, the penalty provided for in Article 7(5) of that regulation could be imposed on him, namely, payment of an amount equal to 105% of the highest production refund applicable to the product in question during the previous 12month period.
Det følger heraf, at såfremt der ved »den pågældende« i artikel 7, stk. 4, udelukkende forstås fabrikanten, vil den samme juridiske term ikke kunne have et videre anvendelsesområde, når den benyttes i det efterfølgende stykke.
By decision of 7 June 1994, based, in particular, on Article 7(5) of Regulation No 2169/86, as amended, the Hauptzollamt required payment by Döhier of an amount of DEM 181 330.71.
Denne fortolkning er desuden i overensstemmelse med den indførte ordnings opbygning og formål, idet den beskytter fællesskabets interesse.
The point in time taken as the basis for calculating the 12month period referred to in Article 7(5) was the date of the determination of improper use, and the period fixed was therefore from May 1991 to April 1992.
En sådan fortolkning vil indebære, at køberen, såfremt han ikke overholder denne forpligtelse, vil kunne pålægges sanktionen i artikel 7, stk. 5, i forordning nr. 2169/86, nemlig betaling af et beløb, der er lig med 105 % af den højeste produktionsrestitution for det
That question arises from the fact that, whereas Regulation No 2169/86, as amended, consistently uses the term 'manufacturer' in its other provisions, the term 'party concerned' appears in Article 7(4) and (5), the wording of which stems from Regulation No 165/89.
Under hensyn til besvarelsen af første spørgsmål er det ufornødent at besvare andet og tredje spørgsmål.
Following the dismissal of the objection which it had lodged against that decision, Döhier brought proceedings before the Hessisches Finanzgericht.
•Udtrykket 'den pågældende' i artikel 7, stk 5, i Kornmissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2169/86 af 10. juli 1986 om de nærmere regler for kontrol og udbetaling af produktionsrestitutioner i kom- og rissektoren, som ændret ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 165/89 af 24. januar 1989, skal fortolkes således, at det ikke omfatter køberen af etherificeret eller esterificeret siiveke, som over for leverandøren har forpligtet ng til udelukkende at anvende dette til fremstilling af andre produkter end de i forordningens bilag
The latter, considering that a point of interpretation of Community law had arisen, decided to stay proceedings and to refer three questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Køberen kan derf or ikke pålægges sanktionen i forordningens artikel 7, stk 5, dvs. betaling af et beløb, der er lig med 105% af den højeste produktionsrestitution for det pågældende produkt i den forløbne tolvmånedersperiode.«
It follows that if, within the meaning of Article 7(4) of that regulation, the term 'party concerned' must be understood as referring exclusively to the manufacturer, there can be no question of the same legal term having a wider scope when it is used in the following paragraph.
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet CFørste Afdeling) den 18. maj 2000.
Second, that interpretation is in accordance with the underlying logic and purpose of the system established, in that it safeguards the Community interest.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
The second and third questions
Sag C-395/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik Landbrug
With regard, first, to the argument based on a literal interpretation of the provisions in question, it should be noted that, under the last subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 2169/86, as amended, where the control copy T5, production of which proves that the product in question has left the customs territory of the Community, is not returned to the competent authorities within the period laid down 'owing to circumstances beyond the control of the party concerned, the latter may apply to the competent authority for other documents to be accepted as equivalent'.
»Traktatbrud - direktiv 96/51/EF og 96/93/EF fastsatte frister« (Første Afdeling) juni 1998 med hensyn til direktiv 96/93 Den Italienske Republik en åbningsskrivelse med anmodning om, at Den Italienske Republik fremkom med sine bemærkninger inden for en frist på to måneder.
The 'party concerned' within the meaning of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 2169/86, as amended, cannot be anyone other than the manufacturer, who seeks the release of
De italienske myndigheder besvarede ikke åbningsskrivelserne.
In view of the answer given to the first question, there is no need to answer the second and third questions.
Kommissionen fandt herefter, at bestemmelserne til gennemførelse af artikel 2, stk. 1, litra a), i direktiv 96/51 og bestemmelserne i direktiv 96/93 endnu ikke var blevet vedtaget.
'The term "party concerned'' used in Article 7(5) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying down detailed rules for the control and payment of the production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 165/89 of 24 January 1989, is to be construed as meaning that it does not refer to a purchaser of esterified or etherified starch who has undertaken to his supplier to use that product exclusively for the manufacture of products other than those listed in Annex I to that regulation.
Den fremsatte derfor den 11. december 1998 begrundede udtalelser over for Den Italienske Republik, som blev anmodet om at træffe de foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at efterkomme sine forpligtelser i henhold til de nævnte bestemmelser inden for en frist på to måneder fra meddelelsen af udtalelserne.
Such a purchaser cannot therefore have imposed on him the penalty provided for in Article 7(5) ofthat régulation, namely, payment of an amount equal to 105% of the highest production refund applicable to the product in question during the previous 12month period.'
De italienske myndigheder svarede ved to skrivelser af 22. februar 1999, at de nationale
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 18 Mav 2000.
Da Kommissionen ikke havde modtaget underretning om bestemmelser til gennemførelse af direktiv 96/51 og 96/93 i italiensk ret, og da den ikke havde andre oplysninger, som gav den holdepunkter for at antage, at Den Italienske Republik havde efterkommet sin gennemførelsesforpligtelse, tilstillede Kommissionen ved skrivelse af 16. juli 1998 med hensyn til direktiv 96/51 og ved skrivelse af 3.
Case C-395/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Agriculture
foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at gennemføre direktiv 96/51 og 96/93, var under forberedelse.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 96/51 IEC and Failure to transpose directives within the prescribed periods) (First Chamber)
Den italienske regering har indrømmet, at vedtagelsen af og underretningen af Kommissionen om foranstaltningerne til gennemførelse af direktiv 96/51 og 96/93 er forsinket.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 12 October 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by not adopting or, in any event, not communicating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC and with Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and those directives.
Da Kommissionen ikke modtog yderligere oplysninger om gennemførelsen af de nævnte direktiver, har den besluttet at anlægge
The Commission therefore took the view that the measures transposing, firstly, the provisions referred to in Article 2(l)(a) of Directive 96/51 and, secondly, the provisions of Directive 96/93 had not yet been adopted and sent the Italian Republic reasoned opinions asking it to adopt the measures necessary to comply with its obligations arising from those provisions within a period of two months from the date of notification of those opinions.
»1) Den Italienske Republik har ikke inden for de fastsatte frister sat de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme artikel 2, stk 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 96/51/EF af 23. juli 1996 om ændring af direktiv 70/524/EØF om tilsætningsstof)er til foderstoffer samt bestemmelserne i Rådets direktiv 96/93/EF af 17. december 1996 om udstedelse af certifikaterfor dyr og animalske produkter og således har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til de nævnte bestemmelser.
Since no other information concerning the transposition of the directives in question had been communicated to the Commission, it decided to bring the present action.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 14. september 2000.
The Italian authorities did not reply to those letters of formal notice.