natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det skal i den forbindelse bemærkes, at det faktum, at der i en medlemsstat gælder mindre strenge regler end dem, som anvendes i en anden medlemsstat, ikke i sig selv indebærer, at reglerne i denne medlemsstat står i urimeligt
It should be borne in mind, however, that the fact that one Member State imposes less strict rules than another Member State does not necessarily mean that the latter's rules are
Med det andet spørgsmål ønsker Oberster Gerichtshof nærmere bestemt oplyst, om traktatens artikel 52 og 59 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat, som ikke tillader, at Heilpraktikervirksomhed i den betydning,
By its second question, the national court asks essentially whether Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty preclude a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise of the activity of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of the German legislation by persons other than those with a doctor's qualification from likewise prohibiting, firstly, the organisation of training in such activity by institutions not authorised to do so and, secondly, advertising of that training.
Forbuddet mod at tilbyde uddannelsen til Heilpraktiker
The prohibition Heilpraktiker
Hertil bemærkes, at når fællesskabsretten ikke er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat forbyder udøvelsen af Heilpraktikererhvervet, må det også anerkendes, at medlemsstaten kan gennemføre dette forbud konsekvent og troværdigt.
Thirdly, without prejudice to training which may be organised by institutions authorised to offer such training in the medical sector, the prohibition of training as a Heilpraktiker may be regarded as a suitable means of ensuring the efficacy of the national measure prohibiting the exercise of the profession of Heilpraktiker.
Nødvendigheden af at opretholde effektiviteten af en national foranstaltning, der er i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten, som f.eks. forbuddet mod at udøve erhvervet som Heilpraktiker, der er begrundet ud fra hensynet til beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed, kan betragtes som et tvingende samfundsmæssigt hensyn.
It must be stated, first, that the prohibition imposed by the Austrian training law on the organisation of training as a Heilpraktiker by unauthorised institutions applies regardless of the nationality and Member State of establishment of the persons at which it is directed.
Det skal for det første fastslås, at det i den østrigske lov om forbeholdte uddannelser opstillede forbud mod, at institutioner, der ikke er godkendt hertil, tilbyder uddannelse til Heilpraktiker, finder anvendelse, uanset hvilken nationalitet de personer har, som forbuddet gælder for, og i hvilken medlemsstat de er etableret.
Accordingly, it is necessary to consider, fourthly, whether the prohibition on the organisation of training as a Heilpraktiker by unauthorised institutions is necessary and proportionate in light of the objective pursued.
For det tredje bemærkes imidlertid, at forbuddet mod uddannelse til Heilpraktiker — bortset fra uddannelser, som tilbydes af institutioner, der er bemyndiget til at tilbyde uddannelser på det lægelige område - kan betragtes som et middel, der er egnet til at sikre effektiviteten af den nationale foranstaltning, hvorefter erhvervet som Heilpraktiker ikke må udøves.
Secondly, in order to determine whether there is an overriding reason based on the general interest which may justify the prohibition, it is necessary to consider whether it may be justified by the need to safeguard public health.
For det andet bemærkes med hensyn til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der findes et tvingende samfundsmæssigt hensyn, der kan begrunde forbuddet, at det først må undersøges, om forbuddet kan være begrundet ud fra det formål, der udgøres af beskyttelsen af den offentlige sundhed.
It should be noted that not all of the forms of training as a Heilpraktiker which may be offered in a Member State necessarily prejudice the efficacy of the national measure prohibiting the profession in that Member State.
Det må herefter for det fjerde undersøges, om forbuddet mod, at institutioner, der ikke er godkendt hertil, tilbyder uddannelse til Heilpraktiker, er nødvendigt og står i et rimeligt forhold til det formål, der forfølges med det.
The prohibition may be regarded as being directly justified by that aim only if the risk posed by such training to public health has been shown by reference to its content, which is not the case.
Hertil bemærkes, at forbuddet kun kan anses for at være direkte begrundet ud fra det pågældende formål, såfremt det er godtgjort, at en sådan uddannelse på grund af sit indhold udgør en fare for den offentlige sundhed. Dette er ikke tilfældet.
The efficacy of the measure is liable to be affected only by training in a form which may create confusion in the minds of the public as to whether the activity in which the training is provided may be exercised as a profession in the territory of the Member State in which the training takes place.
Hertil bemærkes, at ikke alle de praktiske regler, hvorefter uddannelsen til Heilpraktiker kan tilbydes i en medlemsstat, nødvendigvis berører effektiviteten af den nationale foranstaltning, hvorefter der gælder et forbud mod dette erhverv i den pågældende medlemsstat.
As is apparent from the Explanatory Notes to the Austrian training law, the prohibition is based rather on the fact that the profession of Heilpraktiker is not recognised as such in Austria because it consists of the exercise of activities which are regarded as pertaining to the exercise of the medical profession, which is restricted to persons with a doctor's qualification.
Effektiviteten af et sådant forbud kan således kun påvirkes af nærmere omstændigheder ved uddannelsen, som kan være vildledende for offentligheden med hensyn til, om den virksomhed, uddannelsen omhandler, lovligt kan praktiseres erhvervsmæssigt på den medlemsstats område, hvor uddannelsen finder sted.
The issue is whether, as Mr Gräbner, the Austrian Government, the United Kingdom Government and the Commission submit, a Member State may prohibit the organisation of training as a Heilpraktiker by unauthorised institutions on the ground that the exercise of the profession of Heilpraktiker itself is prohibited in that Member State.
Det må fastslås, at som det fremgår af bemærkningerne til den østrigske lov om forbeholdte uddannelser, er forbuddet snarere en følge af, at erhvervet som Heilpraktiker ikke som sådan er anerkendt i Østrig, idet det består i udøvelse af virksomhed, som anses for henhørende under udøvelse af lægegerning, hvilket er forbeholdt personer, der er indehavere af et eksamensbevis som læge.
It is for the national court to assess, in the main proceedings, in the light of that criterion, whether, taking into account the fact that the training concerned is essentially to take place in Germany and that Mr Gräbner was informed that the profession of Heilpraktiker could not be exercised in Austria, the performance of the contract for training as a Heilpraktiker is liable to undermine the effectiveness of the national measure prohibiting the exercise of that profession and, if so, to decide in accordance with domestic law whether the contract must be regarded as void for that reason.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret i lyset af dette kriterium at vurdere, om forholdet i hovedsagen er det, at gennemførelsen af kontrakten om uddannelse til Heilpraktiker under hensyntagen til, at den i hovedsagen omtvistede uddannelse i det væsentlige finder sted i Tyskland, og at Kurt Gräbner var underrettet om, at Heilpraktikererhvervet ikke måtte udøves i Østrig, kan antages at påvirke effektiviteten af den nationale foranstaltning, hvorefter dette
The first point to be noted is that, in response to a question posed by the Court, the Austrian Government stated that an advertisement in Austria for training as a Heilpraktiker offered in another Member State is not covered by the prohibition on advertising for this type of
Der må derfor tages stilling til, om en medlemsstat som hævdet af Kurt Gräbner, den østrigske regering, Det Forenede Kongeriges regering og af Kommissionen, kan forbyde, at institutioner, der ikke er godkendt hertil, tilbyder uddannelse til Heilpraktiker, med den begrundelse, at Heilpraktikererhvervet som sådan ikke må udøves i den pågældende medlemsstat.
If Community law does not preclude a Member State from prohibiting the profession of Heilpraktiker, it must also permit that prohibition to be applied in a coherent and credible manner. The need to ensure the efficacy of a national measure which complies with Community law, such as the prohibition on exercising the profession of Heilpraktiker, which is justified by the aim of safeguarding public health, may therefore be regarded as an overriding reason based on the general interest.
erhverv ikke må udøves, og, i bekræftende fald, at afgøre, om kontrakten i henhold til national yret derfor må antages at være ugyldig.
training which follows from the Austrian law on training since, according to its purpose, that law is directed only at institutions intending to offer training in Austria.
Da en sådan form for reklame præciserer det sted, hvor uddannelsen skal finde sted, og det nævnes, at Heilpraktikererhvervet ikke må udøves i førstnævnte medlemsstat, kan den ikke berøre effektiviteten af den nationale foranstaltning, hvorefter Heilpraktikererhvervet ikke må udøves i denne medlemsstat.
If such advertising states where the training is to take place and mentions that the profession of Heilpraktiker cannot be exercised in the first Member State, it does not undermine the effectiveness of the national measure prohibiting the exercise of that profession in that Member State.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at den østrigske regering som svar på et spørgsmål fra Domstolen har oplyst, at reklamering i Østrig for en Heilpraktikeruddannelse, der tilbydes i en anden medlemsstat, ikke er omfattet af det forbud mod at reklamere for denne form for uddannelse, der følger af den østrigske lov om forbeholdte uddannelser, idet den pågældende lov i overensstemmelse med sit formål kun omfatter institutioner, der ønsker at tilbyde en sådan uddannelse i Østrig.
If the national court does not follow that interpretation of the scope of the Austrian law on training, it should be noted at the outset that the prohibition on advertising in a Member State for training as a Heilpraktiker offered in a different Member State is a measure impeding the exercise of the freedom to provide services by nationals of the latter State which is not justified by an overriding reason based on the general
For så vidt angår det forhold, at en medlemsstat forbyder reklamering for en Heilpraktikeruddannelse, som i det mindste delvis tilbydes på dens område, bemærkes, at det udgør en hindring, som er berettiget, såfremt reklameringen vedrører nærmere omstændigheder ved uddannelsen, som i overensstemmelse med traktaten i sig selv er forbudt i den pågældende medlemsstat.
A prohibition by a Member State on advertising for training as a Heilpraktiker to be offered, at least in part, in its territory constitutes an obstacle which is justified if it relates to training of a kind prohibited in that Member State in accordance with the Treaty.
For det tilfælde, at Oberster Gerichtshof ikke måtte tiltræde denne fortolkning med hensyn til rækkevidden af den østrigske lov om uddannelser, skal det allerede nu bemærkes, at forbuddet mod at reklamere i én medlemsstat for
No provision of Community law, as it presently stands, precludes a Member State from restricting the exercise of an activity such as that of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of the German legislation to holders of a doctor's qualification.
»1) På fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin er ingen fællesskabsretlig bestemmelse til hinder for, at en medlemsstat fastsætter bestemmelser om, at kun personer, der er indehavere af et eksamensbevis som læge, må udøve en virksomhed som f.eks. Heilpraktikervirksomhed (naturlægevirksomhed) i den betydning, begrebet har i tysk lovgivning.
Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) do not preclude a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise of the activity of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of the German legislation by persons other than those with a doctor's qualification from likewise prohibiting the organisation in its territory of training in that activity by unauthorised institutions, provided that that prohibition is applied in such a way that it covers only training of a kind liable to create confusion in the minds of the public as to whether the profession of Heilpraktiker may lawfully be exercised in the territory of the Member Stale in which the training is to take place; a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise of the activity of a Heilpraktiker by persons other than those with a doctor's qualification and prohibits training in that activity from likewise prohibiting the advertising of such training offered in its territory if that advertising concerns training of a kind which is prohibited in that Member Stale in accordance with the Treaty.
2) EF-traktatens artikel 52 og 59 (efter ændring nu artikel 43 EF og 49 EF) er ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat, som fastsætter bestemmelser om, at Heilpraktikervirksomhed i den betydning, begrebet hari tysk lovgivning, ikke må udøves på statens område af andre personer end dem, der er indehavere af et eksamensbevis som læge, ligeledes fastsætter bestemmelser om, at institutioner, som ikke er godkendt hertil, ikke må tilbyde uddannelser til Heilpraktiker, på betingelse af, at forbuddet anvendes på en sådan måde, at det kun omfatter de nærmere regler om opbygningen af de pågældende uddannelser, som kan være vildledende for offentligheden med hensyn til, om Heilpraktikererhvervet lovligt kan praktiseres på den medlemsstats område, hvor uddannelsen finder sted at en medlemsstat, som fastsætter bestemmelser om, at Heilpraktikervirksomhed ikke må udøves på statens område af andre end dem, der er indehavere af et
However, Article 59 of the Treaty precludes a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise of the profession of Heilpraktiker and training in the activity of a HeUpraktiker from likewise prohibiting the advertising of such training offered in a different Member Stale, if that advertising states where the training is to take place and mentions the fact that the profession of Heilpraktiker may not be exercised in the first Member State.''
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 13. december 2001.
Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 13 December 2001.
Præjudiciel »Bruxelles-konventionen — anmodning omfortolkning af artikel 5, nr. 1 og 3, samt artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3 ret for forbrugere, som har modtaget vildledende reklame, til at afkræve en tilsyneladende vundet gevinst gennem sagsanlæg - kvalifikation — en sag om en kontrakt, som omhandlet i artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3 - betingelser* (Sjette Afdeling) fortolkningen af artikel 5, nr. 1 og 3, samt artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3, i denne konvention, som ændret ved konventionen af 9. oktober 1978 om Kongeriget Danmarks, Irlands og Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirlands tiltrædelse, ved konventionen af 25. oktober 1982 om Den Hellenske Republiks tiltrædelse, ved konventionen af 26. maj 1989 om Kongeriget
Preliminary ruling (Brussels Convention Request for interpretation of Articles 5(1) and (3) and 13, first paragraph, point 3 — Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the prize which he has apparently won -Classification - Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first paragraph, point 3 — Conditions) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 15. februar 2000, indgået til Domstolen den 13. marts 2(KX), har Oberster Gerichtshof i medfør af protokollen af 3. juni 1971 vedrørende Domstolens fortolkning af konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende
That question has arisen in proceedings brought before the Oberster Gerichtshof by Mr Gabriel, an Austrian national domiciled in Vienna, for the purpose of determining the court having jurisdiction ratione loci to give judgment in the action which he proposes to bring in his State of domicile against a mailorder company established in Germany.
Spaniens og Den Portugisiske Republiks tiltrædelse og ved konventionen af 29. november 1996 om Republikken Østrigs, Republikken Finlands og Kongeriget Sveriges tiltrædelse (herefter »Bruxelles-konventionen«).
he claims were of such a kind as to lead him to believe that, following a draw, he was the lucky winner of ATS 49 700 and that he was entitled to receive that amount simply on demand, subject only to the condition that he ordered at the same time from that company goods to a minimum value of ATS 200, to be selected in a catalogue and entered on an order form attached to those letters.
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under behandlingen af en begæring fremsat for Oberster Gerichtshof af Rudolf Gabriel, der er østrigsk statsborger med bopæl i Wien (Østrig), med henblik på at få fastlagt, hvilken ret der er stedligt kompetent til at påkende det søgsmål, som han agter at anlægge i sin bopælsstat mod et postordrefirma, der har hjemsted i Tyskland.
Reference was also made to the fact that the draw had been made by the mailorder company, that the cash prizes were divided into 'different lots' being the subject of several payments split up according to the number of copies of receipts returned to the organiser with the properly filled-out order form, and that, on grounds of cost, the 'credits' having a value lower than ATS 35 would not result in any payment but would be placed in the jackpot for a later draw.
Hovedsagen og det præjudicielle spørgsmål navn og for et beløb på 49 700 ATS.
Those letters stated inter alia as follows: 'Dear Mr Rudolf Gabriel, you have not yet claimed your cash credit. ...
Nu er der ikke længere noget, der står i vejen for udbetalingen.
The attached letter from European Credit explains everything in greater detail... PS.
Denne check kan De indløse, når De vil og ved et hvilket som helst pengeinstitut efter Deres valg.«
You are entitled to 100% of your cash credit on condition that you also order goods without incurring any obligation.'
Det fremgår af hovedsagens akter, at Schlank & Schick GmbH (herefter »Schlank & Schick«), der er et tysk selskab med hjemsted i Lindau (Tyskland), udøver virksomhed med postordresalg af varer, navnlig i Tyskland, Østrig, Frankrig, Belgien og Schweiz. Det fremgik imidlertid af forskellige bemærkninger trykt med temmelig små typer på bagsiden af de skrivelser, som var sendt til Rudolf Gabriel, at gevinstsummen på 49 700 ATS ikke var et bindende gevinstløfte fra Schlank & Schick. I oktober 1999 modtog Rudolf Gabriel på sin private postadresse og i lukkede forsendelser, adskillige personlige skrivelser fra Schlank & Schick, som han hævder har givet ham indtryk af, at han, efter afholdelse af en lodtrækning, var den heldige vinder af 49 700 ATS, og at han havde ret til at indløse dette beløb blot ved at fremsætte krav herom på den ene betingelse, at han samtidig bestilte varer for et mindstebeløb på 200 ATS hos firmaet. Varerne skulle vælges ud fra et katalog og bestilles ved brug af en bestillingsseddel, som var vedlagt skrivelserne. Det fremgik således på bagsiden af brevet fra »European Credit«, under overskriften »Betingelser for tildeling«, at deltagelse i »gevinstspillet« var undergivet tysk lovgivning og var betinget af en »uforbindende prøvebestilling«.
Mr Gabriel duly filled out and returned to Schlank & . Schick the relevant documents to claim payment of the financial benefit promised and placed an order for goods in that company's catalogue for an amount in excess of ATS 200. Schlank & Schick subsequently delivered to him the goods which he had ordered but did not send him the sum of ATS 49 700 which he claimed to have won. Mr Gabriel accordingly decided to institute legal proceedings for an order requiring Schlank & Schick to pay him that amount, together with interest and legal costs, pursuant to Paragraph 5j of the Austrian Consumer Protection Law. A letter annexed to that mail, headed 'European Credit' and entitled 'Official confirmation of payment', to which were annexed the copy of a 'receipt' and the facsimile of a 'savings book', both of which bore Mr Gabriel's name and the amount of ATS 49 700, was worded as follows: 'Dear Mr Rudolf Gabriel, we hereby confirm to you once again the payment to our account of the cash credit amount totalling ATS 49 700.
Det fremgik videre, at fristen for denne »aktion« var den 30. november 1999, og at enhver adgang til at indtale krav herpå for retten var udelukket.
We have attached specially for you a copy of a receipt.
Af skrivelserne fremgik følgende: »Kære Rudolf Gabriel, De har stadig ikke gjort krav på udbetaling af Deres kontantgevinst. [...]
In order to seize your opportunity and speed up payment of the sum of ATS 49 700, all you have to do is return the copy of the receipt together with your test order, which does not involve any obligation ...
Vil De virkelig gå glip af pengene? [...]
There is now nothing further to prevent payment.
De har stadig ret til Deres gevinst, men nu skal De virkelig handle hurtigt.
In order that you can receive your money as quickly as possible, I shall simply send you a cheque after the receipt has been received.
Alt er forklaret nærmere i vedlagte brev fra European Credit [...] PS: Som bevis for Dem, Hr. Gabriel, har jeg vedlagt kvitteringen for indbetalingen.
You will then be able to encash it as you please at the financial institution of your choice.'
Denne skrivelse var vedlagt et brev med brevhovedet »European Credit« og overskriften »Officiel bekræftelse af indbetaling«, hvortil var vedhæftet en »kvittering« såvel som en faksimile af en »sparekassebog«, begge i Rudolf Gabriels
It appears, however, from various statements printed in relatively small characters and featuring in part on the reverse side of the documents sent to Mr Gabriel that the sum of ATS 49 700 did not constitute a firm promise on the part of Schlank & Schick to pay the prize. Thus, on the reverse of the letter from 'European Credit', it was stated inter alia, under the heading 'Award Conditions', that
Rudolf Gabriel udfyldte dokumenterne på korrekt måde og sendte dem til Schlank & Schick for at få udbetalt den lovede gevinst, og han bestilte varer fra firmaets katalog for et beløb, der oversteg de påkrævede 200 ATS. 40
The Oberster Gerichtshof takes the view that, while the action which Mr Gabriel proposes to bring appears to be covered by Paragraph 5j of the Austrian Consumer Protection Law, the question whether his application for designation of the national court having territorial jurisdiction should be granted depends on the
Firmaet leverede da også de bestilte varer til ham uden dog samtidig at udbetale beløbet på 49 700 ATS, som Rudolf Gabriel mente at have vundet.
The question submitted for preliminary ruling nature of the action which Mr Gabriel intends to bring against Schlank & Schick. If that action relates to a contract concluded by a consumer within the meaning of Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, of the Brussels Convention, such a designation will be indispensable because that Convention allows a consumer only to bring the dispute before the courts of the Contracting State in which he is domiciled but does not determine directly which court of that State has jurisdiction to give judgment in that regard.