natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Parlamentet kan under disse omstændigheder ikke forsøge at reducere indholdet af sin retsakt af 14. september 1999 til, at der er vedtaget en generel og abstrakt fortolkning af forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1.
In any event, from which it is clear that on 14 September 1999 the Parliament found the TDI Group to be non-existent for non-conformity with Rule 29(1), demonstrates that the Parliament decided on that date to adopt the view stated above.
Parlamentets godkendelse den 14. september 1999 af den forklarende note til forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, der blev foreslået af Udvalget om Forfatningsspørgsmål, skal bedømmes som indeholdende en godkendelse af Udvalgets stillingtagen til TDI-gruppens stiftelseserklærings overensstemmelse med denne artikel.
It follows that the plea as to nonexistence of the contested decision must also be rejected as regards Case T-329/99. Accordingly, that plea must be rejected in its entirety.
Under alle omstændigheder fremgår det, at Parlamentet den 14. september 1999 fastslog, at TDI-gruppen ikke eksisterede, idet den ikke var i overensstemmelse med forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, og at Parlamentet samme dag besluttede at vedtage ovennævnte stillingtagen.
In the light of the foregoing considerations the plea of nonexistence of the contested decision must be rejected as regards Case T-327/99.
Ovennævnte afgørelse fra Parlamentets præsidium nævner ikke TDI-gruppen blandt de grupper, der er omfattet af fordelingen af de budgetmidler, der vedrørte det nævnte halvår, hvilket dækkede tidsrummet mellem 19. juli og 14. september 1999.
As regards Case T-329/99, it appears from the verbatim report of the plenary session of the Parliament held on 13 September 1999 that in the course of that session the President made the following announcement:
Det følger heraf, at anbringendet om, at den anfægtede retsakt ikke eksisterer, ligeledes skal afvises, for så vidt angår sag T329/99.
In the three cases the Parliament contends that its act of 14 September 1999 is not capable of forming the subject-matter of an action for annulment before the Community judicature.
Dette anbringende skal således afvises i sin helhed.
Essentially it is claiming that the act is concerned solely with the internal organisation of its work and produces no legal effects in regard to third parties.
Det skal således på baggrund af ovenstående analyse fastslås, at Parlamentet den 14. september 1999 også besluttede, at TDI-gruppen ikke eksisterede ex tune, idet den ikke var i overensstemmelse med forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1.
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs ruled as follows: "The constitution of the Technical Group of Independent Members, a mixed group, is not in accordance with Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure ... ."
Det andet anbringende om, at retsakten af 14. september 1999 ikke kan anfægtes
In the present case, the act of 14 September 1999 was adopted in plenary session by a majority of the Members of the Parliament.
På baggrund af ovenstående skal anbringendet om, at den anfægtede retsakt ikke eksisterer, afvises for så vidt angår sag T-327/99.
Next, it should be emphasised that for a claim for the annulment of an act of the Parliament to be admissible the first paragraph of Article 230 EC requires, in the light of the case-law, that a distinction be drawn between two categories of acts.
Hvad angår sag T329/99, fremgår det af referatet fra Parlamentets plenarmøde den 13. september 1999, hvorunder Parlamentets formand kom med følgende meddelelse:
The verbatim report of the Parliament's plenary session of 14 September 1999 records that, following an observation by Mr Napolitano of the PSE Group to the effect that the provisional version of the minutes of the plenary session of 13 September 1999 gave an incomplete account of the statement by the President of the Parliament inasmuch as it did not reproduce the first part thereof concerning the non-conformity with Rule 29(1) of the statement of formation of the TDI Group, the President of the Parliament
Parlamentet har i det væsentlige gjort gældende, at denne retsakt udelukkende vedrører den interne organisation af dets arbejde og ikke har retsvirkninger over for tredjemand.
Acts of the Parliament which relate only to the internal organization of its work cannot be challenged in an action for annulment (orders in Case 78/85 Group of the European Right ν European Parliament and Case C-68/90 Blot and
Retsakten skal derfor under behandlingen af formaliteten anses for en retsakt fra Parlamentet selv (jf. analogt dommen i sagen Les Verts mod Parlamentet).
Front national ν European Parliament; and judgment in Weber ν Parliament).
Retsakten af 14. september 1999 kan under disse omstændigheder ikke reduceres til en retsakt, der omhandler den interne tilrettelæggelse af Parlamentets arbejde i streng forstand.
The second class comprises acts of the Parliament which produce or are intended to produce legal effects in regard to third parties or, in other words, acts going beyond the internal organization of the work of the institution.
Det skal endvidere understreges, at retsakten ikke er underlagt nogen efterprøvelse i henhold til forretningsordenen.
Those acts are open to challenge before the Community judicature (Weber ν Parliament).
Det følger heraf, i overensstemmelse med de kriterier, som Domstolen har fastsat i dommen i sagen Weber mod Parlamentet, at den kan være genstand for Fællesskabets retsinstansers efterprøvelse af lovligheden i overensstemmelse med artikel 230, stk. 1, EF.
As to whether the act of 14 September 1999 is of direct concern to the applicants, the Court finds, in the light of the analysis at paragraphs 59 and 60 above, that, without the need for any supplementary measure, it prevents Messrs Martinez and De Gaulle and the Members who brought the action in Case T329/99 from forming themselves by means of the TDI Group into a political group within the meaning of Rule 29, something which directly impinges on the performance by them of their functions.
Det skal endvidere for så vidt angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt et annullationssøgsmål rettet mod en retsakt fra Parlamentet kan antages til realitetsbehandling, understreges, at artikel 230, stk. 1, EF indebærer, hvilket også fremgår af retspraksis, at der skal sondres mellem de to slags retsakter.
Finally, it is clear from the analysis in connection with the first plea that in the act of 14 September 1999 the Parliament adopted not only the general interpretation but also the view expressed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as to the conformity with Rule 29(1) of the statement of formation of the TDI Group, and declared that group non-existent ex tunc for failure to comply with that provision.
Det tredje anbringende om, at sagsøgerne ikke er umiddelban og individuelt berørt af retsakten af 14. september 1999
As is clear from the matters mentioned at paragraphs 3 and 4 above, those Members are placed, in carrying out their mandate, in a different situation to that linked to membership of a political group from which they would have benefited had the act of 14 September 1999 not been adopted.
Der kan ikke anlægges annullationssøgsmål til prøvelse af Parlamentets retsakter, der udelukkende vedrører den interne tilrettelæggelse af dets arbejde (jf. Domstolens kendelse af 4.6.1986, sag 78/85, De Europæiske Højrepartiers Gruppe mod Parlamentet, og af 22.5.1990, sag C69/90, Blot og Front national mod Parlamentet, samt dommen i sagen Weber mod Parlamentet).
The act of 14 September 1999 therefore affects the conditions under which the parliamentary functions of the Members concerned are exercised, and thus produces legal effects in their regard.
Parlamentet har i de tre sager anført, at sagsøgerne ikke er umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af retsakten af 14. september 1999 i artikel 230, stk. 4, EFs forstand.
Accordingly, the act of 14 September 1999 affects the applicants in Cases T-222/99 and T-327/99 and the Members bringing the action in Case T329/99 owing to the spedfic decisions, referred to in the previous paragraph, contained therein concerning the TDI Group, which differentiates the situation of those applicants from that of any other person.
Retsakten indeholder en generel og retskonstaterende fortolkning af en bestemmelse af generel karakter.
It therefore concerns them individually within the meaning of the case-law referred to.
Den anden kategori består af retsakter fra Parlamentet, der har eller er bestemt til at have retsvirkninger over for tredjemand, eller med andre ord retsakter, hvis retsvirkninger går ud over den interne tilrettelæggelse af institutionens arbejde.
In support of their claims for annulment, the applicants raise a series of pleas some of which are common to the actions whilst others are specific to their own cases.
Disse retsakter kan anfægtes ved Fællesskabets retsinstanser (dommen i sagen Weber mod Parlamentet).
Essentially, their arguments may be broken down into nine pleas.
Som det fremgår af det ovenfor i præmis 3 og 4 anførte, skal løsgængerne udøve deres mandat under andre vilkår end dem, der er forbundet med et tilhørsforhold til en politisk gruppe, og som kunne have været gældende for dem, såfremt retsakten af 14. september 1999 ikke var blevet vedtaget.
Third plea: that the applicants are not directly and individually concerned by the act of 14 September 1999
Det følger heraf, at retsakten af 14. september 1999 berører sagsøgerne i sag T-222/99 og T327/99 og de medlemmer, der har anlagt sag T329/99, på grund af de særlige afgørelser, der er opregnet i ovenstående præmis, og som vedrører deres medlemskab af TDI-gruppen, hvilket
In the three cases the Parliament contends that the applicants are not directly and individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC by the aa of 14 September 1999, which, it says, is a general and declaratory interpretation of a provision of a general nature.
Retsakten af 14. september 1999 påvirker således vilkårene for de pågældende medlemmers udøvelse af deres parlamentariske virksomhed og har dermed retsvirkninger over for dem.
In the three cases the applicants maintain that the act of 14 September 1999 is based on an incorrect reading of Rule 29(1) and runs counter to the spirit of the Rules of Procedure.
forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, svarer til en obligatorisk betingelse for stiftelsen af en gruppe.
On this question the Court of First Instance would point out that under Rule 29(1) Members may form themselves into groups according to their political affinities.
Sagsøgerne har til støtte for deres annullationspåstande anført en række anbringender, der er snart fælles og snart særegne for deres sag.
Such a provision in a rule dealing with the 'formation of political groups' must necessarily be construed as meaning that Members who choose to form a group within the Parliament may do so only on the basis of political affinities.
Deres argumentation består i det væsentlige af ni anbringender.
The applicants' argument as to the optional nature of the criterion of political affinities referred to in that provision is therefore negated by the very terms of Rule 29(1), in conjunction with the heading of that Rule.
Det første anbringende om, at retsakten af 14. september 1999 støttes på en urigtig forståelse af forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1
The fact that the Parliament did not oppose formation of the EDD Group cannot in any event assist the applicants in challenging the mandatory nature of the requirement of political affinity laid down in Rule 29(1).
Sagsøgerne har i de tre sager anført, at deres opfattelse støttes af den omstændighed, at Parlamentet indtil nu aldrig har efterprøvet overholdelsen af betingelsen om politisk tilhørsforhold, og at grupper med et teknisk formål tidligere er blevet tilladt.
However, the status accorded by the Parliament to Members not belonging to a political group cannot in any event be used to advocate a reading of Rule 29(1) which runs counter to a literal reading of that provision.
Sagsøgerne har i de tre sager anført, at retsakten af 14. september 1999 støttes på en fejlagtig forståelse af forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, og forbryder sig mod forretningsordenens ånd.
Moreover, the Rules of Procedure, invariably refer to political groups, which undeniably conveys the idea of the organisation of the European parliamentary assembly being based on the formation of groups of an exclusively political nature.
Betingelsen om politisk tilhørsforhold, der findes i denne bestemmelse, er nemlig fakultativ. Ligesom medlemmerne frit kan danne en gruppe på grundlag af politisk tilhørsforhold, har de mulighed for at danne grupper ud fra andre kriterier.
That finding corroborates the argument put forward by the Parliament that the criterion of political affinities in Rule 29(1) constitutes a mandatory requirement for the formation of a group.
Front national og Emma Bonino m.fl. har anført, at deres forståelse af forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, støttes af det forhold, at Parlamentet, i dets sammensætning efter det seneste valg, har tilladt stiftelsen af »Gruppen for Demokratiernes og Mangfoldighedens Europa« (herefter EDD-gruppen), selv om denne gruppe åbenbart er en teknisk gruppe.
The second plea: infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the lack of a legal basis, inasmuch as the Parliament was wrong to review conformity of the TDI Group with Rule 29(1) and to take the view that the members ofthat group did not share political affinity.
Retten skal vedrørende dette spørgsmål erindre om, at forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, bestemmer, at medlemmerne kan danne grupper efter politisk tilhørsforhold.
In order to reply to the parties' arguments under this plea, the Court of First Instance considers it appropriate, to examine, first, whether the Parliament has competence to verify, as it did in the presence case, observance of Rule 29(1) by a group whose formation is declared by a number of Members in accordance with Rule 29(4).
Retten finder imidlertid, at denne gruppes navn afslører en politisk vision om Europa, der er fælles med dens medlemmer, hvilket begrunder, at Parlamentet til forskel fra de foreliggende sager var af den opfattelse, at betingelsen om politisk tilhørsforhold i forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, var opfyldt for denne gruppe.
In the three cases the applicants maintain that their arguments are supported by the fact that the Parliament had never hitherto monitored observance of the condition as to political affinities and that technical groups have been allowed there in the past.
Det fremgår, at Parlamentets manglende indsigelse over for stiftelsen af EDD-gruppen i alle tilfælde ikke med held kan fremføres af sagsøgerne for at så tvivl om den obligatoriske karakter af betingelsen om politisk tilhørsforhold i forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1.
Thus the formation was authorised in 1979 of the 'Groupe de coordination technique des groupes et des parlementaires indépendants' (CDI Group); in 1984 of the 'Groupe arc-en-del' (Rainbow Group), comprising the Green-European Alternative Alliance, Agalev-Ecolo, Mouvement Populaire danois contre l'Appartenance à la Communauté Européenne (Danish Popular Movement against Membership of the European Community) and the Europe Free Alliance within the European Parliament; in 1987 of the Groupe technique de défense des groupes et des députés indépendants (Technical Group for the Defence of Independent Groups and Members (the CTDI Group); and in 1989 of the Rainbow Group within the European Parliament. The Front national also mentions the formation under previous legislatures of the Europe of the Nations Group.
En sådan bestemmelse, der findes i en artikel om »Dannelse af politiske grupper«, skal nødvendigvis læses således, at de medlemmer, der vælger at danne en gruppe i Parlamentet, alene kan gøre det på grundlag af politisk tilhørsforhold.
On the first question, as is clear from Rule 180 of the Rules of Procedure, the Parliament has competence to ensure, if need be by referring a matter to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, that its Rules of Procedure are being correctly applied and interpreted.
Selve ordlyden af forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, i forbindelse med overskriften til den artikel, den indgår i, medfører således, at sagsøgernes opfattelse, hvorefter kriteriet om politisk tilhørsforhold i denne bestemmelse er fakultativt, skal afvises.
In that respect it has competence specifically to monitor, as it did in the present case, compliance with the requirement of political affinity laid down in Rule 29(1) by a group declaring its formation to the President of the Parliament under Rule 29(4). To deny the Parliament that monitoring
En sådan konstatering støtter Parlamentets opfattelse, hvorefter det kriterium vedrørende politisk tilhørsforhold, der findes i
The Front national and Mrs Bonino and Others maintain that their reading of Rule 29(1) is
En sådan bedømmelse ligger inden for grænserne for den skønsmæssige beføjelse, der er redegjort for ovenfor.
power would be tantamount to compelling it to deprive Rule 29(1) of all effectiveness.
Det tilkommer under disse omstændigheder Retten i overensstemmelse med det ovenfor anførte at efterprøve berettigelsen heraf.
Thus, the members of the TDI Group categorically rejected any common political affinity, undertook on no account to give the impression of sharing any such affinity and precluded in advance any action, even of an ad hoc nature, which might during the currency of that legislature have been condudve to that end.
Disse elementer viser, at TDI-gruppens medlemmer har aftalt at undgå enhver risiko for at blive opfattet som om, de deler politisk tilhørsforhold, og har nægtet, at denne gruppe kan anvendes som ramme for fælles politiske handlinger ved at begrænse den til funktioner, der er rent administrative og økonomiske.
Thus, the applicants cannot criticise the Parliament for not interpreting the purpose declared in the statement of formation of the TDI Group as evidence of the existence of political affinities between the members of that group.
Hvad angår det første spørgsmål, skal det understreges, hvilket også følger af forretningsordenens artikel 180, at Parlamentet har kompetence til at føre tilsyn med den rette anvendelse og fortolkning af forretningsordenen og i givet fald henvise spørgsmålet til Udvalget om Forfatningsspørgsmål.
In the present case the Parliament, ratifying the view expressed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, considered that the statement of formation of the TDI Group did not comply with Rule 29(1) because it excluded any political affiliation and gave total political independence within that group to the various signatories comprising it.
Nægtes det, at Parlamentet har denne kompetence til at efterprøve, ville det svare til, at denne sidstnævnte bestemmelse fratages enhver effektiv virkning.
In any event, that declaration cannot negate the analysis, from which it is clear that the members of that group openly sought to deny that it was political in nature.
Hvad dernæst angår spørgsmålet om rækkevidden af den skønsmæssige beføjelse, som Parlamentet har i kraft af denne kompetence til al efterprøve, skal Retten bemærke, at hverken artikel 29 eller nogen anden bestemmelse i forretningsordenen definerer begrebet politisk tilhørsforhold, som omhandlet i artikel 29, stk. 1.
It warrants the conclusion that the Parliament was right to take the view that the statement of formation of the TDI Group evinced a total and manifest absence of political affinities between the members of that group. In taking that view, the Parliament did not, contrary to the applicants' assertions, arrogate to itself the right to pass judgment on the political affinities of the members of that group.
Forretningsordenen kræver i øvrigt ikke, at en gruppes stiftelseserklæring i forretningsordenens artikel 29 's forstand skal være ledsaget af nogen angivelse af det politiske tilhørsforhold for de medlemmer, der udgør denne gruppe.
It did no more than find, on the basis of the abovementioned statement, that those members were openly denying any such affinity, thus themselves rebutting the presumption in favour of political affinities That being the case, short of depriving Rule 29(1) of any effect, the Parliament could not but find that the TDI Group had failed to comply with that provision.
Tværtimod blev formålet med TDI-gruppen præsenteret som bestående i at give de medlemmer, der ikke havde et sådant tilhørsforhold til andre, mulighed for at danne en
Third plea: infringement of the principle of equal treatment in regard to the members of the TDI Group
I disse sager har Parlamentet, der bekræftede Udvalget om Forfatningspørgsmåls stillingtagen, antaget, at TDI-gruppens stiftelseserklæring ikke
Those matters show that the members of the TDI Group agreed to eliminate any risk of being perceived as sharing political affinities and refused to regard the group as a vehicle for articulating joint political action, restricting it solely to financial and administrative functions.
Retten er af den opfattelse, at denne ulovlighedsindsigelse skal behandles først.
The same arguments are put forward by Mrs Bonino and Others in support of the objection of illegality raised by them under Article 241 EC to Rule 29(1) and' Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure taken together.
Parlamentet har bestridt, at indsigelsen kan antages til realitetsbehandling.
The Court of First Instance considers that this objection of illegality should be examined first.
Under alle omstændigheder kan en sådan angivelse ikke ændre den ovenstående analyse, hvoraf det fremgår, at denne gruppes medlemmer åbenbart ønskede at nægte gruppen enhver politisk karakter.
Secondly, organisation in political groups is justified by the extent, particularly since the adoption of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty of Amsterdam, of the Parliament's responsibilities in performing the tasks conferred on the Community by the EC Treaty and in the procedure for adopting the Community acts necessary for the performance of those tasks (see Articles 7, 192 to 195, 200 and 201 EC).
I disse sager er det ikke omtvistet, at bestemmelserne i forretningsordenens artikel 29 og 30, der har virkninger på vilkårene for udøvelsen af medlemmernes mandat, er af generel karakter.
In the present case the terms of Rules 29 and 30 of the Rules of Procedure, which affect the conditions under which Members carry out their mandate, are undeniably general in nature.
De finder anvendelse på objektivt bestemte situationer, der har retsvirkninger over for persongrupper, der er beskrevet generelt og abstrakt (jf. analogt Domstolens dom af 18.3.1975, forenede sager 44/74, 46/74 og 49/74, Acton m.fl. mod Kommissionen, og af 14.2.1989, sag 206/87, Lefebvre Frère et Soeur mod Kommissionen).
They apply to situations determined objectively and have legal effeas with regard to categories of persons referred to in a general and abstract manner (see, by analogy, Joined Cases 44/74, 46/74 and 49/74 Acton and Others ν Commission and Case 206/87 Lefebvre Frère et Soeur ν Commission).
Sagsøgerne kan således ikke påstå den annulleret på grundlag af artikel 230 EF.
The applicants are therefore not in a position to seek the annulment thereof under Article 230 EC.
Under disse omstændigheder og under hensyn til, at den af Emma Bonino m.fl. anlagte sag er anset for at kunne antages til realitetsbehandling (jf. ovenfor), skal den af disse sagsøgere påberåbte ulovlighedsindsigelse over for forretningsordenens artikel 29, stk. 1, og artikel 30, anses for at kunne antages til realitetsbehandling.
That being so, and inasmuch as the action for annulment brought by Mrs Bonino and Others has been declared admissible (see above), the objection of illegality raised by those parties to Rules 29(1) and 30 of the Rules of Procedure must be declared admissible.
Denne indsigelses berettigelse skal nu behandles, for så vidt som den støttes på en tilsidesættelse af ligebehandlingsprincippet.
It is now appropriate to examine whether that objection is well founded inasmuch as it alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment.