natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Generaladvokat A Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 23. januar 2003.
Advocate General A Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 23 January 2003.
Sag C-416/00 Tommaso Morellato / Comune di Padova Frie varebevægelser
Case C-416/00 Tommaso Morellato ν Comune di Padova Free movement of goods
Præjudiciel »EF-traktatens artikel 30 og 36 (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF og 30 EF) — salgsbetingelser - national lovgivning der kræver forudgående emballering og særlig mærkning før salg af dybfrosset brød, der lovligt er fremstillet i en medlemsstat og bragt på markedet i en anden medlemsstat efter yderligere bagning« (Femte Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Selling arrangements — National legislation requiring prior packaging and specific labelling for the marketing of deep-frozen bread lawfully produced in a Member State and placed on the market in another Member State after further baking) (Fifth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 16. oktober 2000 har Tribunale civile di Padova forelagt fem præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 30 og 36 (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF og 30 EF).
By decision of 16 October 2000 the Tribunale Civile di Padova (Civil District Court of Padua, Italy) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling five questions on the interpretation of Article 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC).
Tvisten i hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
Main proceedings and questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Den 26. april 1994 foretog den offentlige inspektion med ansvar for hygiejnekontrol en undersøgelse af fremstillingslokalet i Tommaso Morellatos bageri og konstaterede, at der på hylder og i beholdere fandtes adskillige typer forskelligt brød, der fremstod i løs og uemballeret tilstand, og som alle var fremstillet efter bagning i dette bageri, på grundlag af forbagt og dybfrosset brød, som Tommaso Morellato havde indført fra Frankrig.
On 26 April 1994, inspectors from an Italian local health unit arrived in Mr Morellato's bakery and observed several different kinds of bread on the shelves and in receptacles, loose and unpackaged, all of which were the product of on-site baking of pre-cooked, deep-frozen bread which he had imported from France.
Hylderne og beholderne var forsynet med mærker, hvorpå stod salgsbetegnelsen, en bemærkning om, at der var tale om brød fremstillet på grundlag af et forbagt dybfrosset produkt, listen over ingredienser såvel som navnet på producenten og distributøren.
Labels had been affixed to those shelves and receptacles bearing the name under which it was sold, the information that the bread was produced from a pre-cooked, deep-frozen product, the list ofingredients and the name of the manufacturer and distributor.
Inspektørerne konstaterede bl.a., at brødet ikke var anbragt i papirsposer, der var fremstillet til dette formål, og først blev lukket ved hjælp af en hæftemaskine i det øjeblik, hvor brødet blev udleveret til kunden, og ikke før salget, således som den dagældende italienske lovgivning foreskrev.
The inspectors also observed that the bread was placed in a paper bag intended for that purpose and stapled shut only at the moment it was handed over to the buyer and not before it was put on sale, as required under the Italian legislation in force at the time.
Følgelig pålagde borgmesteren i Padova Tommaso Morellato at betale 1 200 000 ITL, fordi han som indehaver af et fremstillingslokale med tilhørende butik, hvorfra der sælges dybfrosset færdigbagt brød, dybfrosset bagværk samt dybfrosset dej til bagværk, havde tilsidesat artikel 14 i lov nr. 580/1967 ved at have solgt disse varer indpakket i papirsposer, der først på tidspunktet for varens udlevering til kunderne blev lukket med hæftemaskine.
Accordingly, the Mayor of the commune of Padua issued an order requiring Mr Morellato to pay ITL 1 200 000 on the ground that, as the owner of premises for baking deep-frozen bread, deep-frozen pastry and preparations with a sales point, he had infringed Article 14 of Law No 580/1967, as amended, by selling those products in paper bags which were stapled shut only at the moment they were handed over to the customer.
den frie bevægelighed for varer, der lovligt er fremstillet i en anden medlemsstat, uden at dette som krævet i artikel 36 var begrundet af hensyn til beskyttelse af menneskers liv og sundhed.
Mr Morellato challenged that order before the Tribunale Civile di Padova. He claimed, inter alia, that Article 14 of Law No 580/1967 as amended was contrary to Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty, in that the national provision restricts, or at least limits, the free movement of goods lawfully manufactured in another Member State and is not justified by arguments relating to the protection of the health and life of humans within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty.
Idet Tribunale civile di Padova er i tvivl om den korrekte fortolkning af den relevante fællesskabsret, har den besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen fem præjudicielle spørgsmål.
Since it had doubts as to the correct interpretation of the relevant Community law, the Tribunale Civile di Padova decided to stay proceedings and to refer a number of questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Hverken parterne i hovedsagen eller den italienske regering har indgivet skriftlige indlæg til Domstolen.
Neither the parties in the main proceedings nor the Italian Government have submitted written observations to the Court.
Det fremgår af sagens akter, at Tommaso Morellato bliver retsforfulgt for tilsidesættelse af en bestemmelse i national ret, hvis indhold forekommer at være blevet præciseret ved en cirkulæreskrivelse, efter at en traktatbrudsprocedure blev indledt af Kommissionen mod Den Italienske Republik.
The file shows that Mr Morellato is being prosecuted for infringement of a provision of national law whose content appears to have been clarified in the circular letter prompted by the infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against the Italian Republic.
Domstolen har bedt den italienske regering om at præcisere, om denne cirkulæreskrivelse kunne have betydning for hjemmelen for de foranstaltninger, der blev iværksat af borgmesteren i Padova mod Tommaso Morellato, i givet fald i lyset af princippet om tilbagevirkende kraft af den mildeste straffenorm.
The Court asked the Italian Government to explain whether that circular letter could affect the legal basis of the measures adopted by the Mayor of the commune of Padua against Mr Morellato, having regard, if relevant, to the principle that the least rigorous criminal law at any particular time should apply.
Den italienske regerings svar viser, at cirkulæreskrivelsen blev ophævet ved dekret nr. 502/1998, uden at den dog præciserer, hvilken betydning denne ophævelse har for Tommaso Morellatos situation.
The reply by the Italian Government states that the circular letter was repealed by Decree No 502/1998 but does not make clear how that repeal affects Mr Morellato's situation.
Under disse omstændigheder må Domstolen forudsætte, at borgmesteren havde kompetence til at pålægge Tommaso Morellato en sanktion på grundlag af de bestemmelser i national ret, som den forelæggende ret har nævnt i sine spørgsmål.
In those circumstances, the Court must assume that the Mayor was authorised to impose a penalty on Mr Morellato on the basis of the provisions of national law referred to by the national court in its questions.
Første til tredje spørgsmål
First to third questions
Med det første til tredje spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om et krav om forudgående emballering, der af en medlemsstat stilles som betingelse for salg af brød fremstillet i denne medlemsstat på grundlag af delvist bagt brød, hvad enten det er dybfrosset eller ej, og indført fra en anden medlemsstat, udgør en kvantitativ restriktion eller en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning i traktatens artikel 30's forstand.
By its first to third questions, the national court essentially asks whether the requirement for prior packaging imposed by the law of a Member State on the sale of bread obtained by completing the baking, in that Member State, of partly baked bread, whether deep-frozen or not, that has been imported from another Member State constitutes a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty.
I bekræftende fald ønsker den forelæggende ret desuden oplyst, om dette krav kan anses for begrundet af hensyn til beskyttelse af menneskers liv og sundhed i artikel 36's forstand.
If the answer is in the affirmative, that court also wishes to know whether that requirement can be justified by reasons relating to the protection of the health and life of humans within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty.
Hovedsagen er speciel derved, at den vare, der bringes i omsætning af Tommaso Morellato, blev indført, inden fremstillingsprocessen var tilendebragt.
The distinctive feature of the main proceedings is that the product put on sale by Mr Morellato was imported at a stage when its production process was not yet finished.
For at kunne sælge varen i Italien som færdigbagt brød var det nemlig nødvendigt at foretage en yderligere bagning af det forbagte brød indført fra Frankrig.
In order to be able to market the product in Italy as bread ready for consumption, it was necessary to complete the baking of the pre-baked bread imported from France.
Den omstændighed, at en vare i et vist omfang skal forarbejdes efter indførslen, udelukker ikke i sig selv, at et krav vedrørende markedsføringen kan falde inden for traktatens artikel 30's anvendelsesområde.
The fact that a product must, to a certain extent, be transformed after importation does not in itself preclude a requirement relating to its marketing from falling within the scope of application of Article 30 of the Treaty.
Det kan nemlig være, således som det er tilfældet i hovedsagen, at den indførte vare ikke er en simpel del af eller ingrediens i en anden vare, men i realiteten udgør den vare, der skal bringes i omsætning, når en simpel forarbejdningsproces er blevet gennemført.
It is possible that, as in the main proceedings, the imported product is not simply a component or ingredient of another product but in reality constitutes the product that is intended for marketing as soon as a simple transformation process has been carried out.
I en sådan situation er det afgørende spørgsmål, om kravet om forudgående emballering i importmedlemsstatens bestemmelser indebærer, at det er nødvendigt at tilpasse varen for at efterkomme dette krav.
In such a situation, the relevant question is whether the requirement for prior packaging laid down in the legislation of the Member State of import makes it necessary to alter the product in order to comply with that requirement.
I den forbindelse bemærkes, at hvis der ikke findes en produktion af den pågældende vare i importmedlemsstaten, er et sådant krav, selv om det forskelsløst finder anvendelse, alene til ulempe for indførte varer, da det vil hæmme indførslen af dem eller gøre dem mindre attraktive for den endelige bruger.
In this respect, where there is no manufacture of the product at issue in the Member State of import, such a requirement, although it applies without distinction, disadvantages imported products only, in that it discourages their import or makes them less attractive to the final consumer.
Hvis dette er tilfældet, hvilket det ligeledes tilkommer den nationale ret at afgøre, udgør nævnte krav en hindring for indførslen og falder således ind under forbuddet i traktatens artikel 30, medmindre kravet kan begrundes ud fra et alment hensyn, der går forud for hensynet til de frie varebevægelser.
If that were the case, which it is also for the national court to determine, that requirement would constitute an obstacle to imports and would therefore be caught by the prohibition in Article 30 of the Treaty, unless it could be justified by a public-interest objective which takes precedence over the requirement for the free movement of goods.
Det fremgår af formuleringen af det tredje præjudicielle spørgsmål, at den eneste begrundelse, der er gjort gældende i hovedsagen, er hensynet til beskyttelse af menneskers liv og sundhed i traktatens artikel 36's forstand.
As is clear from the wording of the third question referred, the sole justification relied on in the main proceedings is the protection of the health and life of humans within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty.
Hverken den forelæggende ret eller den italienske regering har fremlagt oplysninger, hvorefter det er sundhedsfarligt, at det af Tommaso Morellato solgte brød ikke er emballeret før salg.
Neither the national court nor the Italian Government has provided information showing that the fact that the bread sold by Mr Morellato was not packaged prior to being put on sale represents a risk to health.
Under disse omstændigheder må det antages, at hvis der i hovedsagen fastslås at foreligge en hindring, kan den ikke begrundes i hensynet til beskyttelse af menneskers liv og sundhed i traktatens artikel 36's forstand.
In those circumstances, if it were held in the main proceedings that an obstacle exists, it could not be justified for reasons relating to the protection of the health and life of humans within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty.
»1) Der foreligger ikke en kvantitativ restriktion eller en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning i EF-traktatens artikel 30's forstand (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF) i forbindelse med et krav om forudgående emballering, der af en medlemsstat stilles som betingelse for salg af brød fremstillet i denne medlemsstat på grundlag af delvist bagt brød, hvad enten det er dybfrosset eller ej, og indført fra en anden medlemsstat. Det er herved en betingelse, at kravet anvendes uden forskel på indenlandske varer og indførte varer, og at det ikke i realiteten udgør en indirekte forskelsbehandling af indførte varer.
The requirement f or prior packaging imposed by the law of a Member State on the sale of bread obtained by completing in that Member State, the baking of partly baked bread, whether deep-frozen or not, that has been imported from another Member State does not constitute a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), provided that it applies without distinction to both national and imported products and that it does not in reality constitute discrimination against imported products.
Hvis den nationale ret ved denne vurdering konstaterer, at kravet medfører en hindring for indførslen, kan det ikke begrundes i hensynet til beskyttelse af menneskers liv og sundhed i EF-traktatens artikel 36's forstand (efter ændring nu artikel 30 EF).
if the national court, in examining these measures, finds that that requirement results in an obstacle to imports, then it cannot be justified by reasons relating to the protection of the health and life of humans within the meaning of Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC).
Den nationale ret har pligt til at sikre den fulde virkning af traktatens artikel 30 og til herved af egen drift at undlade at anvende nationale regler, der er i strid med denne bestemmehe.«
National courts have an obligation to ensure the full effect of Article 30 of the Treaty by disappfying on their own initiative domestic provisions which do not comply with that article.'
Præjudiciel »Beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne — arbejdsgiverens insolvens — garanti for betaling løntilgodehavender — national bestemmelse om en præklusiv frist på to måneder anmeldelse af krav samt mulighed for fristforlængelse« (Femte Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer — Guarantee of payment of outstanding salary — National provision laying down a two-month timelimit for lodging applications for payment and providing for an extension of that time-limit) (Fifth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 21. februar 2001, indgået til Domstolen den 19. marts 2001, har Sozialgericht Leipzig i medfør af artikel 234 EF forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 9 i Rådets direktiv 80/987/EØF af 20. oktober 1980 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne i tilfælde af arbejdsgiverens insolvens.
By order of 21 February 2001, received at the Court on 19 March 2001, the Sozialgericht Leipzig (Social Court, Leipzig) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC three questions on the interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.
Peter Pflücke var indtil sin fratræden den 30. juni 1997 ansat som murer hos G. & S. Bau GmbH i Pfaffenhofen (Tyskland). Denne arbejdsgiver, af hvem han fortsat kræver betaling af løn for juni måned 1997 med 3 502,80 DEM, indstillede driften fuldstændigt den 31. december 1997, og firmaet blev taget under konkursbehandling den 2. januar 1998. For at få dækket sit løntilgodehavende hos garantiinstitutionen, dvs. Bundesanstalt, skulle Pflücke ifølge tysk ret have anmodet denne om betaling af en insolvensydelse inden for to måneder fra den sidstnævnte dato, altså mellem den 3. januar og den 2. marts 1998.
Mr Pflücke was employed as a bricklayer by G. & S. Bau GmbH in Pfaffenhofen (Germany) until he handed in his notice, which took effect on 30 June 1997. His former employer, from which he is still seeking payment of wages of DEM 3 502.80 for June 1997, completely ceased trading on 31 December 1997, and is now the subject of insolvency proceedings which were commenced on 2 January 1998. Under German law, in order to recover that claim for outstanding pay from the competent guarantee institution — namely, the Bundesanstalt — Mr Pflücke should have applied to that institution for payment of insolvency compensation within two months of the date on which the insolvency proceedings were commenced, in other words between 3 January and 2 March 1998.
Pflücke indgav dog ikke en sådan anmodning i løbet af denne periode.
Mr Pflücke did not make any such application during that period.
Hans daværende juridiske rådgiver indskrænkede sig til den 2. februar 1998 at anmelde Pflückes løntilgodehavende over for den ret, der varetog behandlingen af konkursboet.
His legal counsel at the time merely notified Mr Pflücke's claim for outstanding pay to the court in charge of the insolvency proceedings on 2 February 1998.
Kurator for konkursboet bekræftede efterfølgende, at der forelå en lønrestance, dog kun på 3 132,65 DEM.
The court-appointed receiver then certified the existence of pay arrears of DEM 3 132.65 only.
Han sendte erklæringen herom til Pflücke den 10. marts 1999, og denne videresendte den til Bundesanstalt den 9. april 1999.
The certificate that he sent to Mr Pflücke on 10 March 1999 was forwarded to the Bundesanstalt by Mr Pflücke on 9 April 1999.
Bundesanstalt afslog anmodningen ved afgørelse af 14. juli 1999.
On 9 June 1999, Mr Pflücke expressly applied for insolvency compensation from the Bundesanstalt.
Det første og det andet spørgsmål
The Bundesanstalt rejected that application by decision of 14 July 1999.
Med hensyn til udbetaling af løntilgodehavender, som efter deres beskaffenhed er af meget stor betydning for arbejdstageren, bør det påses, at den præklusive frist ikke er så kort, at arbejdstageren i praksis ikke kan overholde fristen og dermed ikke kan få den beskyttelse, som direktiv 80/987 netop har til formål at sikre.
The Sozialgericht Leipzig decided to stay proceedings and refer a number of questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Det tilkommer derfor den forelæggende ret at efterprøve, om længden af den præklusive frist i hovedsagen er motiveret af tvingende hensyn afledt af retssikkerhedsprincippet, herunder at garantiinstitutionen kan fungere efter hensigten.
By its first and second questions the national court seeks to ascertain essentially whether Directive 80/987, properly construed, precludes the application of a timelimit laid down by national law for the lodging of an application by an employee seeking to obtain, in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in that directive, payment of insolvency compensation.
»1) Rådets direktiv 80/987/EØF af 20. oktober 1980 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne i tilfælde af arbejdsgiverens insolvens er ikke til hinder for, at der i medfør af national ret anvendes en præklusiv frist for en arbejdstagers indgivelse af anmodning om i henhold til det nævnte direktivs bestemmelser at få udbetalt en ydelse til dækning af løntilgodehavender i anledning af arbejdsgiverens insolvens, på betingelse af, at en sådan frist ikke er mindre gunstig end dem, der gælder for tilsvarende anmodninger på grundlag af national ret (ækvivalensprincippet), og ikke er udformet således, at den i praksis umuliggør udøvelsen af rettigheder, som hjemles i Fællesskabets retsorden (effektivüetsprincippet).
As regards payment of claims for salary which, by their very nature, are of great importance to the individual concerned, the shortness of the timelimit prescribed should not have the result that the individual concerned does not in practice succeed in complying with that time-limit, so that he does not benefit from the protection that Directive 80/987 is specifically intended to guarantee him.
Den nationale ret skal, hvis den fastslår, at den nationale bestemmelse om den præklusive frist ikke er i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsrettens krav, og at en med fællesskabsretten overensstemmende fortolkning af bestemmelsen heller ikke er mulig, afvise at anvende den«
While it is true that compared with the time-limits applicable in other Member States, the two-month timelimit laid down by German law is not the shortest, the fact remains that several other Member States prescribe significantly longer periods or have chosen not to set such a time-limit.
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Femte Afdeling) den 24. september 2002.
The national court must therefore determine whether the timelimit at issue in the main proceedings is justified by overriding reasons relating to legal certainty, in particular the proper working of the guarantee institution.
Rådets direktiv 80/987/EØF af 20. oktober 1980 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne i tilfælde af arbejdsgiverens insolvens skal fortolkes
Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer does not preclude the application of a timelimit laid down by national law for the lodging of an application by an employee seeking to obtain, in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in that directive, a compensation payment in respect of outstanding salary claims resulting from his employer's insolvency, provided that the timelimit is no less favourable than those governing similar domestic applications (principle of equivalence) and is not framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness);