natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det fremgår endvidere af Domstolens faste praksis, at en ordning med forudgående administrativ tilladelse ikke kan legitimere en skønsmæssig adfærd fra de nationale myndigheders side, som kan føre til, at fællesskabsbestemmelserne, og navnlig bestemmelserne om en grundlæggende frihedsrettighed som den i hovedsagerne omhandlede, berøves deres effektive virkning.
Only an interpretation on the basis of what is sufficiently tried and tested by international medical science can be regarded as satisfying the requirements set out in paragraphs 89 and 90 above.
Hvis en ordning med forudgående administrativ tilladelse skal være begrundet, skønt den bryder med en grundlæggende frihedsrettighed, må den
Furthermore, in order to determine whether equally effective treatment can be obtained without undue delay from an establishment
begrundes med henblik på traktatens artikel 59, for så vidt som den fortolkes således, at tilladelsen til at undergå behandling i en anden medlemsstat kun kan afslås, når en tilsvarende behandling eller en behandling, som frembyder samme grad af virkning for patienten, kan ydes rettidigt af en institution, med hvilken den forsikredes sygekasse har indgået en overenskomst.
having contractual arrangements with the insured person's fund, the national authorities are required to have regard to all the circumstances of each specific case and to take due account not only of the patient's medical condition at the time when authorisation is sought but also of his past record.
Det skal i denne sammenhæng videre præciseres, at ved vurderingen af, om en behandling, der frembyder samme grad af virkning for patienten, kan opnås rettidigt i en institution, der har indgået en overenskomst med den sygekasse, som den forsikrede er tilsluttet, er de nationale myndigheder forpligtet til at tage hensyn til alle de omstændigheder, der kendetegner hver enkelt konkret sag, under behørig hensyntagen ikke alene til patientens lægelige situation på det tidspunkt, hvor der ansøges om tilladelse, men også under hensyn til hans sygdomshistorie.
'Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the assumption of the costs of treatment provided in a hospital located in another Member State subject to prior authorisation from the insured person's sickness insurance fund and the grant of such authorisation subject to the condition that (i) the treatment must be regarded as "normal in the professional circles concerned', a criterion also applied in determining whether hospital treatment provided on national territory is covered, and (ii) the insured person's medical treatment must require that treatment.
Det skal herved bemærkes, at betingelsen om behandlingens nødvendige karakter, som fastsat ved den i hovedsagerne omhandlede ordning, kan
However, that applies only in so far as the requirement that the treatment must be regarded as "normal" L· construed to the effect that authorisation cannot be refused on that ground where it appears that the treatment concerned is sufficiently tried and tested by international medical science, and authorisation can be refused on the ground of lack of medical necessity only if the same or equally effective treatment can be obtained without undue delay at an establishment having a contractual arrangement with the insured person's sickness insurance fund.''
En sådan betingelse kan gøre det muligt, at der på det nationale område opretholdes et tilstrækkeligt, afbalanceret og vedvarende udbud af gode hospitalsydelser, samt at sikre sygeforsikringens økonomiske stabilitet.
Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 18 May 2000.
»EF-traktatens artikel 59 (efter ændring nu artikel 49 EF) og EF-traktatens artikel 60 (nu artikel 50 EF) er ikke til hinder for en medlemsstats lovgivning som den i hovedsagerne omhandlede, der betinger godtgørelse af udgifter til behandling ydet af et hospital beliggende i en anden medlemsstat af, at der indhentes en forhåndstilladelse fra den sygekasse, som den forsikrede er tilsluttet, og som for meddelelse af en sådan tilladelse fastsætter den dobbelte betingelse, deb at behandlingen kan anses for 'sædvanlig i lægekredse', hvilket kriterium også anvendes, når det drejer ng om at fastslå, om den hospitalsbehandling der gives på det nationale område, er dækket, dels at den lægelige behandling af den forsikrede kræver det. Det forholder sig dog kun således, for så vidt som
The healthcare benefits in kind which a compulsory sickness insurance scheme such as that in the Netherlands grants to the persons insured with it do not incorporate any remunerative element and do not therefore constitute services within the meaning of Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC). Accordingly, Articles 59 (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and 60 of the Treaty do not preclude sickness funds from requiring persons registered with them to seek authorisation in order to be able to receive benefits from a practitioner or an institution with whom or which they have not entered into a healthcare agreement.
— tilladelsen kun kan afslås på grund af et manglende lægeligt behov, når en tilsvarende behandling eller en behandling som frembyder samme grad af virkning for patienten, kan ydes rettidigt af en institution, der har indgået en overenskomst med den sygekasse, som den forsikrede er medlem af.«
If, on the other hand, the proposition is accepted that such benefits are services within the meaning of Article 60 of the Treaty, the requirement of authorisation would, in practice, constitute a barrier to freedom to provide services, but would have to be regarded as a necessary and proportionate means of maintaining the financial equilibrium of the system in order to provide a balanced medical and hospital service open to everyone, and to ensure the availability of the necessary treatment facilities and medical service within national territory.'
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz­Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslae til afgørelse i retsmødet f Domstolens plenum­) den 18. maj 2000.
Joined Cases C-302/99 Ρ and C-308/99 Ρ Commission of the European Communities French Republic ν Télévision française 1 SA (TFl) Competition
»1) Naturalydelser på sundhedsområdet, som en obligatorisk sygeforsikringsordning som den nederlandske tilkender de forsikrede, indebærer ikke et betalingselement og er derfor ikke tjenesteydelser som omhandlet i EF­traktatens artikel 60 (nu artikel 50 EF).
(Appeal — Inoperative plea — Challenge to the grounds of a judgment that has no effect on the operative part of the judgment — Liability for costs) (Full Court)
Hvis det derimod antages, at de pågældende ydelser er tjenesteydelser som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 60, vil kravet om en forhåndstilladelse i praksis udgøre en hindring for den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser, men vil i så fald skulle anses for et nødvendigt og forholdsmæssigt middel til at opretholde ordningens finansielle ligevægt med henblik på at sikre en stabil læge­ og hospitalstjeneste, som alle har adgang til, og for at opretholde behandlingsmuligheder og den nødvendige lægelige kompetence på det nationale område.«
By letter of 3 October 1995, TFl formally requested the Commission and, in so far as was necessary, gave it formal notice to 'define its position and act upon the submissions set out in the complaint' of 10 March 1993.
Forenede sager C-302/99 Ρ og C-308/99 Ρ Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Den Franske Republik / Télévision française 1 SA (TFl)
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 10 August 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an appeal (Case C-302/99 P) against the judgment of 3 June 1999 of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-17/96 TFl ν Commission (hereinafter 'the judgment under appeal').
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 13 august 1999 har Den Franske Republik iværksat appel i medfør af samme bestemmelse i EF­statutten for Domstolen til prøvelse af den samme dom fra Retten (sag C­308/99 P).
It is common ground that that complaint expressly referred to infringement of Article 85 (now Article 81 EC), Article 90(1) (now Article 86(1) EC) and Article 92 (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) of the EC Treaty.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 10. august 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber iværksat appel for Domstolen til prøvelse af dom afsagt den 3. juni 1999 af Retten i Første Instans (Tredje Udvidede Afdeling) i sag T­17/96, TFl mod Kommissionen (herefter »den anfægtede dom«) (sag C­302/99 P).
During the course of those proceedings, the Commission placed before the Court a copy of its letter of 15 May 1997 sent to TFl pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council
Kommissionen tilføjede i skrivelsen, at den efter en gennemgang af anbringenderne om, at traktatens artikel 90 var tilsidesat, ikke fandt det dokumenteret, at de påklagede forhold udgjorde en overtrædelse af denne traktatbestemmelse.
By its appeal, the Commission challenges the judgment under appeal in so far as it was held therein that TFl's action was admissible to the extent that it was directed against the Commission's failure to act pursuant to Article 90 of the EC Treaty. It thus asks the Court:
Det fremgår af den anfægtede dom, at sagsøgeren i første instans, Télévision française 1 SA (herefter »TFl«), som er en privat fjernsynsstation, den 10. marts 1993 indgav en klage til Kommissionen over finansierings- og driftsvilkårene for France-Télévision's stationer.
Regulation No 17, in which it informed TFl that, on the basis of the information in its possession, it was unable to uphold TFl's complaint in so far as it alleged infringement of Articles 85 and 86 (now Article 82 EC) of the EC Treaty.
Det er ubestridt, at det udtrykkeligt blev gjort gældende i klagen, at der forelå en tilsidesættelse af EF-traktatens artikel 85 (nu artikel 81 EF), EF-traktatens artikel 90, stk. 1 (nu artikel 86, stk. 1, EF) og EF-traktatens artikel 92 (efter ændring nu artikel 87 EF), og at disse traktatbestemmelser blev direkte nævnt.
The Commission invited TFl to submit its comments within two months of 15 May 1997, adding that, having considered the allegation of infringement of Article 90 of the Treaty, it had been unable to establish that the matters complained of amounted to an infringement.
Vedrørende passivitetspåstanden undersøgte Retten i hvilket omfang Kommissionens skrivelse af 15. maj 1997 udgjorde en stillingtagen i traktatens artikel 175, stk. 2's forstand, hvorved Kommissionens passivitet blev bragt til ophør, og derved medførte, at genstanden for passivitetspåstanden bortfaldt, for så vidt den vedrørte Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90.
to set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it was held therein that TFl's action was admissible to the extent that it was directed against the Commission's failure to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty; to declare TFl's action inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission's failure to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty;
Ved skrivelse af 3. oktober 1998 anmodede TFl udtrykkeligt Kommissionen om at »tage stilling og træffe foranstaltninger vedrørende de kritikpunkter, som var fremført i klagen« af 10. marts 1993, idet sagsøgeren, om nødvendigt, fremsatte en opfordring til den herom.
The Court also examined in what extent the Commission's letter of 15 May 1997 constituted the definition of a position, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty, putting an end to the Commission's inaction and rendering the action devoid of purpose in so far as it concerned the Commission's alleged failure to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty.
Ved skrivelse af 11. december 1995 meddelte Kommissionen TFl, at dens klage stadig var under behandling.
to order TFl to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and to give a new ruling on the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, limiting the order against the Commission so that it is commensurate with the outcome of the present appeal.
Retten konkluderede i den anfægtede doms præmis 103, at nævnte skrivelse udgjorde en sådan stillingtagen, hvorfor det ikke længere var fornødent at træffe afgørelse vedrørende passivitetspåstanden, i det omfang det hermed ønskedes fastslået, at Kommissionen retsstridigt havde undladt at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90.
At paragraph 103 of the judgment under appeal, the Court concluded that the letter did constitute the definition of a position and that there was therefore no longer any need to adjudicate the claim for a declaration of failure to act in so far as a declaration was sought that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty.
Den 2. februar 1996 anlagde TFl sag ved Retten, hvorunder den i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 175, stk. 3 (nu artikel 232, stk. 3, EF) nedlagde påstand principalt om, at det blev fastslået, at Kommissionen har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter traktaten ved at undlade at tage stilling til den klage, TFl har indgivet til Kommissionen, subsidiært i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 173, stk. 4 (efter ændring nu artikel 230, stk. 4, EF) påstand om annullation af den beslutning om afvisning af klagen, som hævdedes at være indeholdt i Kommissionens skrivelse af 11. december 1995.
[Declared] that the Commission [had] failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision concerning the part of the complaint lodged by Télévision Française 1 SA on 10 March 1993 concerning State aid; confirm that TFl's action directed against the Commission's failure to act pursuant to Article 90(3) of the Treaty is admissible;
Det er ufornødent at træffe afgørelse vedrørende passivitetspåstanden, i det omfang den er rettet mod Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 85 (nu artikel 81 EF) og EF-traktatens artikel 90 (nu artikel 86 EF).
[Held] that there [was] no need to adjudicate on the allegation that the Commission [had] failed to act pursuant to Articles 85 (now Article 81 EC) and 90 (now Article 86 EC) of the EC Treaty;
Sagen afvises i det omfang, den er rettet mod Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 86 (nu artikel 82 EF).
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and let the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance remain the liability of the Commission.
Ved denne skrivelse underrettede Kommissionen TFl om, at den i betragtning af de oplysninger, som den rådede over, ikke fandt at kunne give selskabet medhold i klagen, hvori EF-traktatens artikel 85 og 86 (nu artikel 82 EF) hævdedes at være tilsidesat.
[Declared] the action inadmissible in so far as it [was] directed against the Commission's failure to act under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC).
Under appelsagen har Kommissionen rejst indsigelse mod den anfægtede dom, i det omfang TFl's passivitetspåstand herved fremmes til realitetsbehandling med hensyn til Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90.
By its appeal, the French Republic seeks annulment of the judgment under appeal to the extent that TFl's action is held to be admissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission's failure to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty and, in the sixth paragraph of the operative part, it is ordered, as intervener, to pay the costs incurred by TFl as a result of its intervention.
Den Franske Republik har endvidere nedlagt påstand om, at TFl tilpligtes at betale omkostningerne under sagen ved Domstolen, og at der træffes fornyet afgørelse vedrørende omkostningerne under sagen ved Retten.
By order of the President of the Court of Justice of 8 November 1999, the Kingdom of Spain was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the French Republic.
Den anfægtede dom ophæves, i det omfang TFl's passivitetspåstand hverved fremmes til realitetsbehandling med hensyn til Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90.
In the present case, the final decision for the purposes of the provision of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice just mentioned, and the one to which the French Government explicitly refers in its appeal, namely the second paragraph of the operative part of the judgment under appeal, is the Court of First Instance's ruling that there was no need to adjudicate on the allegation that the Commission had failed to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty
TFl's passivitetspåstand afvises, i det omfang den vedrører Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90.
The grounds on which that ruling is based are set out in paragraphs 99 to 103 of the judgment under appeal, which explain that the claim of failure to act ceased to have any purpose once the Commission expressed its position.
Den anfægtede dom stadfæstes.
— confirm the judgment under appeal.
I samme sag har Kommissionen nedlagt følgende påstande:
In Case C-308/99 P, the Commission asks the Court:
Ved kendelse af 8. november 1999 har Domstolens præsident givet Kongeriget Spanien tilladelse til at intervenere til støtte for Kommissionens påstande.
Those grounds alone provide a sufficient legal basis for the decision of the Court of First Instance and thus, in any event, any errors in the grounds of the judgment under appeal concerning the admissibility of TFl's claim of failure to act, as alleged by the Commission and the French Republic, have no effect on the operative part of that judgment.
Den anfægtede dom ophæves, i det omfang TFl's passivitetspåstand fremmes til realitetsbehandling med hensyn til Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90.
to set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it was held therein that TFl's action was admissible to the extent that it was directed against the Commission's failure to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty;
TFl's passivitetspåstand afvises, i det omfang den vedrører Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90.
to declare TFl's action inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission's failure to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty;
Den anfægtede dom ophæves, i det omfang Den Franske Republik herved tilpligtes at betale de omkostninger, den har forvoldt TFl ved sin intervention.
The plea raised by the French Republic challenging the sixth paragraph of the operative part of the judgment under appeal to set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the French Republic is ordered thereby to pay the costs incurred by TFl as a result of its intervention.
Afgørelsen om at fremme TFl's passivitetspåstand vedrørende Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3, stadfæstes.
The appeals against the finding that TFl's action, in so far as it is directed against the Commission's failure to act pursuant to Article 90 of the Treaty, is admissible
Kommissionen tilpligtes at betale omkostningerne under sagen ved Domstolen tillige med omkostningerne under sagen ved Retten.
The French Republic asks for the sixth paragraph of the operative part of the judgment under appeal whereby the Court of First Instance ordered it to bear its own costs together with those incurred by TFl as a result of its intervention to be set aside.
Påstandene i appelsagen om ophævelse af den anfægtede dom, i det omfang TFl's passivitetspåstand fremmes til realitetsbehandling med hensyn til Kommissionens undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90
On this point, it should be observed that, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 49 of
Under appelsagen har Den Franske Republik nedlagt påstand om ophævelse af den anfægtede dom, i det omfang TFl's passivitetspåstand
In this connection, suffice it to say that, according to settled case-law, where all the other
I så henseende er det tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at når alle de øvrige anbringender under en appelsag forkastes, er det fast domspraksis, at en påstand om, at Rettens afgørelse vedrørende sagsomkostningerne er retsstridig, må afvises i medfør af artikel 51, stk. 2, i EF-statutten for Domstolen. Ifølge denne bestemmelse kan der ikke iværksættes appel alene til forandring af afgørelser om sagsomkostningerne eller disses størrelse.
pleas put forward in an appeal have been rejected, any plea challenging the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs must be rejected as inadmissible by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, which provides that no appeal shall lie regarding only the amount of the costs or the party ordered to pay them.
Kommissionen betaler omkostningerne i sag C-302/99 P.
Orders the Commission to pay the costs of Case C-302/99 P;
Den Franske Republik betaler omkostningerne i sag C-308/99 P.
Orders the French Republic to pay the costs of Case C-308/99 P;
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sine egne omkostninger i de to sager.«
— order the interveners to bear their own costs.'
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fDomstolens plenum1) den 8. marts 2001.
On 6 April 2001 they lodged a complaint concerning the Minister's failure to give a decision on their request for exemption.
Præjudiciel »Landbrug — bekæmpelse af mund- og klovsyge — forbud proportionalitetsprincippet — hensyntagen til dyrs velfærd« (Domstolens plenum)
By letter of 9 April 2001, that court requested the Minister to respond to that application by way of decision on the complaint.
(Nederlandene)] (herefter »H. Jippes m.fl.«), mod Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (det nederlandske Ministerium for Landbrug, Naturforvaltning og Fiskeri, herefter »ministeriet«) angående vaccination mod mundog klovsyge af nogle dyr, der tilhører H. Jippes.
Those questions have been raised in proceedings between Ms Jippes, residing at Yde (Netherlands), and the Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and the Afdeling Assen en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren (Groningen section and Assen and environs section of the Netherlands Association for the Protection of Animals) (hereinafter 'the appellants'), on the one hand, and the Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Netherlands Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, hereinafter 'the Minister'), on the other, concerning the vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease of animals belonging to Ms Jippes.
Ved kendelse af 26. april 2001, indgået til Domstolen den 27. april 2001, har College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven stillet to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende gyldigheden af artikel 13 i Rådets direktiv 85/5Il/EØF af 18. november 1985 om fællesskabsforanstaltninger til bekæmpelse af mund- og klovsyge, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 90/423/EØF af 26. juni 1990, samt af Kommissionens beslutning 2001/246/EF af 27. marts 2001 om fastlæggelse af betingelserne for bekæmpelse og udryddelse af mund- og klovsyge i Nederlandene i henhold til artikel 13 i direktiv 85/511, som ændret ved Kommissionens beslutning 2001/279/EF af 5. april 2001.
On 13 April 2001, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven decided that the case should be dealt with by way of accelerated procedure.
Det fremgår af forelæggelseskendelsen, at H. Jippes som hobby holder fire får (af racen Hampshire Down) og to geder (af racen Saane) på sin ejendom i Yde. Disse dyr anvendes hverken til avl eller opfedning eller til mælkeproduktion.
The order for reference states that Ms Jippes keeps as a hobby four sheep (Hampshire Down breed) and two goats (Saane breed) at her residential address in Yde.