natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At der ikke er en direkte sammenhæng mellem de indbetalte bidrag og de udbetalte ydelser indebærer således solidaritet mellem de højest lønnede arbejdstagere og de, som i betragtning af deres lavere indkomst, ikke ville opnå en passende social dækning, såfremt en sådan sammenhæng forelå.
The statutory scheme providing insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases in question in the main proceedings, in so far as it provides for compulsory social protection for all non-salaried workers in the non-agricultural professions who carry out an activity classified as a 'risk activity' by the law, pursues a social objective.
For det andet fremgår det af sagen, at den virksomhed, som udøves af INAIL, der ved lov er blevet tillagt forvaltningen af den omhandlede ordning, er undergivet statens kontrol, og at
In the second place, it is clear from the case-file that the activity of the INAIL, entrusted by law with management of the scheme in question, is subject to supervision by the State and that the amount of benefits and of contributions is, in the last resort, fixed by the State.
Det bemærkes desuden, at en lovpligtig forsikringsordning mod de i hovedsagen omhandlede arbejdsskader og erhvervssygdomme har et socialt formål, idet der fastsættes en
Such a scheme is intended to provide all the persons protected with cover against the risks of
størrelsen af ydelserne og af bidragene i sidste instans fastsættes af staten.
paid to insured persons are not strictly proportionate to the contributions paid by them.
Endelig bemærkes, at INAIL udfylder en udelukkende social funktion ved at deltage i forvaltningen af en af de traditionelle grene inden for social sikring, i det foreliggende tilfælde forsikring mod arbejdsskader og erhvervssygdomme.
In conclusion, it may be stated that in participating in this way in the management of one of the traditional branches of social security, in this case insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases, the INAIL fulfils an exclusively social function.
Det følger heraf, at INAIL's virksomhed ikke er en økonomisk virksomhed i konkurrencerettens forstand, og at dette organ derfor ikke er en virksomhed i traktatens artikel 85 og 86's forstand.
It follows that its activity is not an economic activity for the purposes of competition law and that this body does not therefore constitute an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.
»Begrebet virksomhed i EF- traktatens artikel 85 og 86's forstand (nu artikel 81 EF og 82 EF) omfatter ikke et organ som Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), der ved lov er tillagt forvaltningen af en forsikringsordning mod arbejdsskader og erhvervssygdomme.*
'The concept of an undertaking, within the meaning of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC), does not cover a body which is entrusted by law with the management of a scheme providing insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases, such as the Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavori (INAIL).'
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 13. september 2001.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 13 September 2001.
Sag C-466/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
Case C-466/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Environment and consumers
»Traktatbrud - miljø affaldshåndteringsplaner* (Anden Afdeling)
(Failure by a Member State to fulß its obligations — Environment — Waste — Directives 75I442IEEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC - Waste management plans) (Second Chamber)
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt sag med
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 3 December 1999, the
Ved stævning indleveret til Justitskontor den 3. december
Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a
Regeringen har lovet at træffe særligt drastiske foranstaltninger for at bringe traktatbruddet til ophør.
It intends to take particularly energetic action to put an end to those failures.
Den har dog anført, at de af Kommissionen anførte omstændigheder ikke fuldt ud underbygger påstanden om, at der foreligger en ensartet og samlet tilsidesættelse af de tre direktiver.
It maintains, none the less, that the matters set forth by the Commission are insufficient to substantiate fully its claim for a declaration of total and uniform failure to fulfil the obligations under those three directives.
påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 7 i Rådets direktiv 75/442/EØF af 15. juli 1975 om affald, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991, artikel 6 i Rådets direktiv 91/689/EØF af 12. december 1991 om farligt affald og artikel 14 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 94/62/EF af 20. december 1994 om emballage og emballageaffald, idet den ikke har meddelt Kommissionen oplysninger vedrørende planerne for håndtering og bortskaffelse af affald, af farligt affald, af emballage og af emballageaffald.
declaration that, by not forwarding to the Commission information concerning plans for the management and disposal of waste, hazardous waste, packaging and packaging waste, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste.
Det påståede bemærkninger
The alleged infringement and the findings of the Court
Den italienske regering har således gjort gældende, at de forhold, der er beskrevet i stævningen, udelukkende synes at skildre en fuldstændig tilsidesættelse af forpligtelserne i henhold til direktiv 94/62.
The Italian Government claims that the position described in the application reveals a total failure to fulfil obligations only with regard to the obligations set out in Directive 94/62.
Hvad derimod angår forpligtelserne i direktiv 75/442, som ændret, og direktiv 91/689 er der kun tale om en delvis tilsidesættelse, idet Kommissionen kun har konstateret, at der mangler en plan for to regioner, og at indholdet i planerne for syv regioner er utilstrækkeligt.
On the other hand, in relation to the obligations resulting from amended Directive 75/442 and Directive 91/689, there has only been a partial failure, given that the Commission has established only a lack of plans in two regions and shortcomings in the content of the plans in seven regions.
I stævningen har Kommissionen gjort gældende, at det er ubestridt, at Den Italienske Republik i henhold til artikel 7 i direktiv 75/442, som ændret, artikel 6 i direktiv 91/689 og artikel 14 i direktiv 94/62 skulle meddele oplysninger vedrørende udarbejdelse af planerne for håndtering og bortskaffelse af affald, af farligt affald, af emballage og af emballageaffald.
In its application, the Commission claims that it is not disputed that the Italian Republic should have sent it information concerning the drawing up of disposal plans for waste, hazardous waste, packaging and packaging waste, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of amended Directive 75/442, Article 6 of Directive 91/689 and Article 14 of Directive 94/62.
Da disse oplysninger imidlertid ikke alle er blevet meddelt Kommissionen, end ikke efter, at den begrundede udtalelse var blevet fremsat over for Den Italienske Republik, har Den Italienske Republik derfor ifølge Kommissionen tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til fællesskabsretten.
However, that information has not all been sent to the Commission, even after the notification of the reasoned opinion to the Italian Republic, which has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
Hertil bemærkes, at det fremgår af ovenstående, at den italienske regering på tidspunktet for udløbet af fristen i den begrundede udtalelse hverken havde meddelt Kommissionen oplysninger vedrørende planer for håndtering og bortskaffelse af affald og af farligt affald i regionerne Sicilien og Basilicata eller oplysninger vedrørende planer for håndtering af emballage og af emballageaffald i samtlige italienske regioner.
It follows from the foregoing that, at the date of expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the Italian Government had sent to the Commission neither the information relating to plans for the management and disposal of waste and hazardous waste in respect of the regions of Sicily and Basilicata, nor the information relating to plans for the management of packaging and packaging waste in respect of all the Italian regions.
»1) Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 7 i Rådets direktiv 75/442/EØF af 15. juli 1975 om affald, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991, artikel 6 i Rådets direktiv 91/689/EØF af 12. december 1991 om fattigt affald og artikel 14 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 94/62/EF af 20. december 1994 om emballage og emballageaffald, idet den hverken har meddelt Kommissionen oplysninger vedrørende planerne f or håndtering og bortskaffelse af affald og af farligt affald i regionerne Sicilien og Basilicata eller oplysninger vedrørende planer for håndtering af emballage og af emballageaffald i samtlige italienske regioner.
Declares that, by not forwarding to the Commission information concerning plans for the management and disposal of waste and hazardous waste in respect of the regions of Sicily and Basilicata, or information concerning plans f or the management of packaging and packaging waste in respect of all the Italian regions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulß its obligations under Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste;
Sag C-35/00 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
Case C-35/00 Commission of the European Communities ν United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Environment and consumers
»Traktatbrud miljø affaldshåndteringsplaner* (Anden Afdeling) affaldshåndteringsplaner, som er i overensstemmelse med alle bestemmelserne i de nævnte direktiver, og/eller har undladt at give Kommissionen meddelelse herom.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfl its obligations — Environment — Waste 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC - Waste managementplans) (Second Chamber) whole of the United Kingdom. It points out, by way of example, that only 29 out of the 34 County Councils of England have submitted plans.
Det påståede traktatbrud bemærkninger
Next, the Commission claims that, having evaluated the information supplied by the United Kingdom Government, it concluded that only 53 of the notified plans satisfy all the conditions laid down by amended Directive 75/442 and Directives 91/689 and 94/62.
Kommissionen har for det første anført, at de gældende affaldshåndteringsplaner, som den har fået tilsendt, ikke synes at dække hele Det Forenede Kongeriges område.
The Commission submits, first, that the waste management plans in force that were notified to the Commission do not appear to cover the
Den har eksempelvis påpeget, at kun 29 af Englands 34 County Councils har forelagt planer.
The United Kingdom Government does not dispute its alleged failure to fulfil its obligations.
I øvrigt er der ifølge Kommissionen en vis uoverensstemmelse mellem antallet af lokale myndigheder i England, Wales, Skotland og Nordirland og dem, der har forelagt affaldshåndteringsplaner. Efter Kommissionens opfattelse følger det heraf, at de planer, Det Forenede Kongerige har tilsendt, ikke dækker hele dets område.
It follows from the foregoing that, at the end of the period fixed by the reasoned opinion, the United Kingdom had not adopted and/or notified waste management plans covering the whole of its territory.
Kommissionen har desuden gjort gældende, at den efter en vurdering af de af Det Forenede Kongerige meddelte oplysninger kunne konstatere, at kun 53 af de tilsendte planer opfylder alle betingelserne i direktiv 75/442, som ændret, direktiv 91/689 og direktiv 94/62.
It also follows that some of the waste management plans adopted and notified to the Commission before that date did not satisfy the conditions laid down by amended Directive 75/442, and Directives 91/689 and 94/62.
Det fremgår ligeledes, at visse af de affaldshåndteringsplaner, som var vedtaget og tilsendt Kommissionen før dette tidspunkt, ikke opfylder de krav, der er opstillet i direktiv 75/442, som ændret, direktiv 91/689 og 94/62.
Accordingly, the United Kingdom has not fulfilled all its obligations under Article 7 of amended Directive 75/442 and Article 6 of Directive 91/689, and, leaving aside Gibraltar, Article 14 of Directive 94/62.
Det Forenede Kongeriges regering har ikke bestridt det påståede traktatbrud.
It accepts that the Commission has valid grounds for a declaration of failure to fulfil Treaty obligations in the terms of the application.
Den har indrømmet, at den i den pågældende periode ikke har vedtaget og/eller har undladt at tilsende Kommissionen de affaldshåndteringsplaner, der omfatter hele Det Forenede Kongeriges område, og for så vidt kun angår direktiv 75/442, som ændret, og direktiv 91/689, omfatter Gibraltar.
It states that the competent authorities are engaged in rectifying that situation, by replacing local plans with national strategies, which should constitute the appropriate means of satisfying the requirements of amended Directive 75/442, and Directives 91/689 and 94/62.
»1) Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 7 i Rådets direktiv 75/442/EØF af 15. juli 1975 om affald, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991, artikel 6 i Rådets direktiv 91/689/EØF af 12. december 1991 om farligt affald samt, idet der bortses fra Gibraltar, artikel 14 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 94/62/EF af 20. december 1994 om emballage og emballageaffald, idet det ikke har udarbejdet affaldshåndteringsplaner, der omfatter hele dets område, og som er i overensstemmelse med alle bestemmelserne i direktiv 75/442, som ændret ved direktiv 91/156, i direktiv 91/689 og i direktiv 94/62, og/eller har undladt at underrette Kommissionen herom.
Declares that, by not drawing up waste management plans covering the whole of its territory and complying with all the provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, and/or by not informing the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Article 6 of Directive 91/689 and, having aside Gibraltar, under Article 14 of Directive 94/62.
Generaladvokat A Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling) den 11. september 2001.
Advocate General A Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 11 September 2001.
Præjudiciel »Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser -virksomheder inden for byggesektoren - udstationering af arbejdstagere mindsteløn* (Femte Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Freedom to provide services — Construction undertakings —Directive 96/71 /EC — Posting of workers — Minimum wage) (Fifth Chamber) the difference between the hourly wage payable and that actually paid, multiplied by the total number of hours worked, making a total sum of DEM 138 018.52.
Ved kendelse af 13. april 1999, indgået til Domstolen den 4. maj 1999, har Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim i medfør af artikel 234 EF forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 59 (efter ændring nu artikel 49 EF) og EF-traktatens artikel 60 (nu artikel 50 EF) samt Europa-Parlamentet og Rådets direktiv 96/71/EF af 16. december 1996 om udstationering af arbejdstagere som led i udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
The questions have been raised in proceedings between the Tauberbischofsheim Employment Office and Portugaia Construções L- (hereinafter 'Portugaia'), which lodged an objection against a notice which it received for recovery of a sum of DEM 138 018.52.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en tvist mellem Arbeitsamt i Tauberbischofsheim da
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
I marts og maj 1997 foretog Arbeitsamt Tauberbischofsheim en inspektion af arbejdsvilkårene på nævnte byggeplads.
Between March and July 1997, it carried out structural building work in Tauberbischofsheim.
På grundlag af de af Portugaia fremlagte dokumenter fastslog Arbeitsamt, at selskabet havde betalt mindre i løn til de arbejdstagere, inspektionen vedrørte, end mindstelønnen ifølge den kollektive overenskomst.
In order to carry out that work, it posted a number of its workers to that building site.
(herefter »Portugaia«), som har rejst indsigelse mod et betalingspålæg på 138 018,52 DEM.
Taking the view that the case depended on an interpretation of the relevant Community rules, the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Portugaia er et i Portugal etableret selskab.
In March and May 1997, the Arbeitsamt (Employment Office) in Tauberbischofsheim carried out an investigation into the employment conditions on that building site.
Fra marts til juli 1997 udførte selskabet arbejder i
It accordingly ordered payment of the sum outstanding, that is to say
Den forelæggende ret, for hvem Portugaia har indbragt sagen i forbindelse med, at selskabet rejste indsigelse mod betalingspålægget, er i tvivl om den tyske ordnings forenelighed med traktatens artikel 59 og 60. Den anfører i den
Is an interpretation of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services ... or, if that directive is not applicable, an interpretation of Article 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty, under which overriding requirements of public interest capable of
forbindelse, at Arbeitnehmer-Entsendegesetz (lov om udstationering af arbejdstagere, herefter »AEntG«) ifølge motiverne har til formål at beskytte det indenlandske arbejdsmarked — og navnlig at beskytte mod »social dumping« på grund af tilstrømningen af billig arbejdskraft — at nedsætte arbejdsløsheden i landet og at gøre det muligt for virksomheder i Tyskland at tilpasse sig det indre marked. Ifølge den forelæggende ret har arbejdsgivere fra andre medlemsstater i modsætning til tyske arbejdsgivere ikke mulighed for at indgå kollektive særoverenskomster med en tysk fagforening for at undgå anvendelse af den generelle kollektive overenskomst.
However, it clear from settled case-law that, where such domestic legislation is applicable to all persons and undertakings operating in the territory of the Member State in which the service is provided, it may be justified where it meets overriding requirements relating to the public interest in so far as that interest is not safeguarded by the rules to which the provider of such a service is subject in the Member State in which he is established and in so far as it is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, in particular, Case 279/80 Webb, paragraph 17; Case C-205/99 Analir and Others, paragraph 25, and Mazzoleni and ISA, cited above, paragraph 25).
Da Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim har fundet, at løsningen af tvisten er afhængig af fællesskabsrettens fortolkning, har den besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
Does it amount to an unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services under the EC Treaty if a domestic employer can pay less than the minimum wage laid down in a collective agreement declared to be generally binding by concluding a collective agreement specific to one undertaking (and enjoying precedence), whereas this is — at least in fact — not possible for any nonGerman EC employer when he plans to post workers to the Federal Republic of Germany?'
Anvendelsen af værtsmedlemsstatens nationale lovgivning på tjenesteydere kan være til hinder for, indebære ulemper for eller gøre tjenesteydelser præsteret af personer eller virksomheder med hjemsted i andre medlemsstater mindre tiltrækkende, i det omfang denne lovgivning medfører udgifter samt yderligere administrative og økonomiske omkostninger (jf. Mazzoleni og ISA-dommen, præmis 24).
As the Netherlands Government rightly points out, the first question does not have to be considered with reference to Directive 96/71 since the time-limit for transposition of that directive, fixed for 16 December 1999, had not expired at the time of the events in question.
Det fremgår dog af fast retspraksis, at når sådanne lovbestemmelser gælder for enhver person eller ethvert selskab, der driver virksomhed på modtagerstatens område, kan de begrundes med tvingende almene hensyn, såfremt disse hensyn ikke tilgodeses i kraft af de bestemmelser, tjenesteyderen er undergivet i den medlemsstat, hvor han er etableret, forudsat bestemmelserne er egnede til at sikre virkeliggørelsen af det formål, de forfølger, og ikke går ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at opfylde formålet (jf· bl.a. dom af 17.12.1981, sag 279/80, Webb, præmis 17, af 20.2.2001, sag C-
As regards, more specifically, national provisions relating to minimum wages, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that in principle Community law does not preclude a Member State from requiring an undertaking established in another Member State which provides services in the territory of the first State to pay its workers the minimum remuneration laid down by the national rules of that State (Joined Cases 62/81 and 63/81 Seco and Desquenne & Girai, paragraph 14; Guiot, paragraph 12; Arblade and Others, paragraph 33; and Mazzoleni and ISA, paragraphs 28 and 29). It is settled case-law that Article 59 of the Treaty requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against providers of services who are established in another Member State, but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, which is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State in which he lawfully provides similar services.
Udgør det en uberettiget begrænsning af retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser i henhold til EF-traktaten, at en indenlandsk arbejdsgiver ved indgåelse af en firmaoverenskomst (der har forrang) kan omgå de bestemmelser om mindsteløn, som er fastsat i en overenskomst, der er erklæret for almindeligt gældende, mens en udenlandsk arbejdsgiver fra et andet EF-land, der påtænker at udstationere arbejdstagere i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, ikke har mulighed herfor, i hvert fald ikke i praksis?«
In other words, it may be acknowledged that, in principle, the application by the host Member State of its minimum-wage legislation to providers of services established in another Member State pursues an objective of public interest, namely the protection of employees.
at nedsætte arbejdsløsheden for at undgå sociale spændinger.
conformity with Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty (see, to this effect, Mazzoleni and ISA, paragraph 30).