natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Når en statsborger i en første medlemsstat, der er gift med en tredjelandsstatsborger, som han lever sammen med i en anden medlemsstat, vender tilbage til den medlemsstat, hvori han er statsborger, for dér at udøve lønnet beskæftigelse, og ægtefællen ikke nyder de rettigheder, der er fastsat i artikel 10 i forordning nr. 1612/68, idet ægtefællen ikke lovligt har opholdt sig på en medlemsstats område, skal den første medlemsstats kompetente myndigheder ved behandlingen af ægtefællens ansøgning om indrejse og ophold på deres område dog tage hensyn til retten til respekt for familielivet som omhandlet i artikel 8 i den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, der blev undertegnet i Rom den 4. november 1950, når der er tale om et reelt ægteskab.*
Where a national of a Member State married to a national of a nonMember State with whom she is living in another Member State returns to the Member State of which she is a national in order to work there as an employed person and, at the time of her return, her spouse does not enjoy the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 because he has not resided lawfully on the territory of a Member State, the competent authorities of the first-mentioned Member State, in assessing the application by the spouse to enter and remain in that Member State, must none the less have regard to the right to respectf or family life under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, provided that the marriage is genuine. '
Generaladvokat L. A. Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Domstolens plenum) den 27. februar 2003.
Advocate General L. A. Geelhoed delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 27 February 2003.
»Traktatbrud — artikel 28 EF og 30 EF — forbud mod markedsføring af levnedsmidler, der er tilsat vitaminer og mineraler — begrundelse —folkesundheden — ernæringsmæssigt behov*
A national of a Member State who has pursued an occupational activity in another Member State as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC continues after returning to his own country to enjoy rights under Community law, in particular Article 39 EC.
Kommissionen modtog i 1998 en klage fra en erhvervsdrivende som følge af hindringer for markedsføringen af et levnedsmiddel, der markedsførtes lovligt i andre medlemsstater.
Those rights include the right in favour of the worker's spouse to installation with the worker in the worker's country, irrespective of the nationality of the spouse.
Der stilledes i klagen spørgsmålstegn ved den danske administrative praksis' forenelighed med bestemmelserne i artikel 28 EF og 30 EF.
In such a case the worker's spouse has an autonomous right under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community to remain in the Member State of which the worker is a national.
Kommissionen fremsendte den 4. november 1999 en åbningsskrivelse til Kongeriget Danmark, hvori Kommissionen gjorde Danmark opmærksom på, at den danske administrative praksis udgør en uberettiget hindring for samhandelen, jf. artikel 28 EF-30 EF, for så vidt som Fødevaredirektoratets anvendelse af denne praksis medfører et forbud mod markedsføring i Danmark af levnedsmidler, som er tilsat næringsstoffer, herunder vitaminer og mineraler, medmindre der er et ernæringsmæssigt behov for disse stoffer i den danske befolkning.
None the less, the Member State of which the worker is a national may, relying on an overriding national interest, refuse entry to the worker's spouse, following a prior individual assessment, on the basis of criteria laid down in national immigration law in a case where a spouse who is a national of a nonMember State has not been admitted to the European Union in accordance with the immigration laws of a Member State.
Da Kommissionen ikke fandt de danske myndigheders svar på den begrundede udtalelse overbevisende, har den anlagt nærværende sag.
That Member State's competence in that regard stems from the interest in the viability and enforceability of immigration laws.
Den danske regering har ikke bestridt, at dens praksis udgør en hindring for de frie varebevægelser, men den har gjort gældende, at hindringen er begrundet i medfør af artikel 30 EF.
The intentions of the worker and his spouse in making use of the rights conferred on them by Community law and, in particular, the rules on freedom of movement for workers are immaterial.'
Den omstændighed, at der ikke foreligger et ernæringsmæssigt behov, er ifølge Kommissionen ikke en begrundelse, der er tilladt i henhold til artikel 30 EF.
Case C-192/01 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Denmark Free movement of goods
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt denne administrative praksis ikke desto mindre kan retfærdiggøres efter artikel 30 EF, tilkommer det medlemsstaterne, når der ikke er sket en harmonisering, og i det omfang, der på den videnskabelige forsknings nuværende udviklingstrin består en vis usikkerhed, at afgøre, hvor langt de vil strække beskyttelsen af menneskers sundhed og liv, og dermed kræve en forudgående tilladelse til at markedsføre levnedsmidlerne under hensyntagen til de krav, der følger af de frie varebevægelser inden for Fællesskabet.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations —Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —Prohibition on marketing of foodstuffs to which vitamins and minerals have been added —Justification —Public health —Nutritional need) (Full Court)
Fællesskabsretten er i princippet ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat forbyder markedsføring af levnedsmidler uden forudgående tilladelse, når de er tilført næringsstoffer såsom vitaminer og mineraler ud over dem, hvis anvendelse er erklæret lovlig ved fællesskabsbestemmelserne.
By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 May 2001, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by applying an administrative practice which entails that enriched foodstuffs lawfully produced or marketed in other Member States may be marketed in Denmark only if it is shown that such enrichment with nutrients meets a need in the Danish population, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
Hvis det viser sig ikke at være muligt med sikkerhed at fastslå om, og i givet fald i hvilket omfang, den påståede risiko foreligger, som følge af, at resultaterne af de foretagne undersøgelser er utilstrækkelige, ikke er overbevisende eller er upræcise, men at sandsynligheden for en reel skade på folkesundheden varer ved, dersom risikoen indtræder, begrunder forsigtighedsprincippet restriktive foranstaltninger.
It is common ground that, at the date relevant to this action, there were no provisions of Community legislation laying down the conditions under which nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, could be added to foodstuffs for daily consumption.
Det skal tilføjes, at i denne sammenhæng kan kriteriet om et ernæringsmæssigt behov i en medlemsstats befolkning spille en rolle ved den grundige evaluering, der foretages af medlemsstaten af den risiko, der kan være for folkesundheden ved tilsætning af næringsstoffer til levnedsmidler.
In 1998, a complaint casting doubt on the compliance of the Danish administrative practice with the provisions of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC was made to the Commission by an economic operator because of obstacles to the marketing of a foodstuff lawfully marketed in other Member States.
I den foreliggende sag er den danske administrative praksis uproportional, for så vidt som den systematisk forbyder markedsføring af alle levnedsmidler, der er tilsat vitaminer og mineraler, uden at sondre mellem de forskellige tilsatte vitaminer og mineraler eller efter det risikoniveau, som tilsætningen heraf eventuelt kan udgøre for folkesundheden.
On 4 November 1999, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Kingdom of Denmark, in which it drew the attention of that Member State to the fact that the Danish administrative practice constitutes an unjustified obstacle to trade for the purposes of Articles 28 EC to 30 EC, since the Office applies the said practice in such a way as to prohibit the marketing in Denmark of foodstuffs to which nutrients, in particular vitamins and minerals, have been added, unless there is a nutritional need for those elements in the Danish population.
»1) Kongeriget Danmark har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 28 EF, idet det anvender en administrativ praksis, som medfører, at berigede levnedsmidler, som lovligt produceres og markedsføres i andre medlemsstater, kun kan markedsføres i Danmark, hvis der er et dokumenteret behov for næringsstofberigelsen hos den danske befolkning.
The Danish Government does not dispute the fact that its practice constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of goods, but it contends that it is justified under Article 30 EC.
Kongeriget Danmark betaler sagens omkostninger.*
It is not disputed that the Danish administrative practice is a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC.
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 12. december 2002.
As regards the question whether that administrative practice may none the less be justified on the basis of Article 30 EC, it is for the Member States, in default of harmonisation and to the extent that uncertainties continue to exist in the current state of scientific research, to decide on their intended level of protection of human health and life and on whether to require prior authorisation for the marketing of foodstuffs, always taking into account the requirements of the free movement of goods within the Community.
Præjudiciel »Frie kapitalbevægelser - EF-traktatens artikel 73 Β (nu artikel 56 EF) — artikel 40 i og bilag XII til EØS-aftalen - procedure for forudgående tilladelse til erhvervelse af land- og skovbrugsarealer — lovlig — betingelser*
Indeed, the systematic prohibition under the Danish administrative practice on the marketing of enriched products which do not meet a nutritional need of the population does not enable Community law to be observed in regard to the identification and assessment of a real risk to public health, which requires a detailed assessment, case-by-case, of the effects which the addition of the minerals and vitamins in question could entail.
Tvisten i hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
Denmark only if it is shown that such enrichment with nutrients meets a need in the Danish population, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;
De andre jordlodder er skovbrugsarealer.
Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs. '
Denne afslog ansøgningen, idet den fandt, at betingelserne for udlændinges erhvervelse ikke var opfyldt.
He proposed that the Court should:
Det første spørgsmål
23 September 2003
I betragtning af de faktiske omstændigheder i tvisten i hovedsagen og ordlyden af de præjudicielle spørgsmål forekommer det, at den nationale ret således implicit anser Fyrstendømmet Liechtenstein, der er medlem af Den Europæiske Frihandelssammenslutning (herefter »EFTA«), for et tredjeland i traktatens artikel 73 B's forstand.
Preliminary ruling (Free movement of capital —Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) —Article 40 of and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement — Prior authorisation procedure for the acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots —Admissibility —Conditions) (Full Court)
I bilag XII til EØS-aftalen, der indeholder de nødvendige bestemmelser til gennemførelse af aftalens artikel 40, angives, at direktiv 88/361 og bilag I til dette direktiv finder anvendelse i EØS.
By order of 19 October 2001 the Verwaltungsgerichtshof referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC) and Articles 73b to 73d, 73f and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC to 60 EC).
Bestemmelserne i artikel 40 i og bilag XII til EØS-aftalen finder anvendelse på tvisten i hovedsagen, der vedrører en transaktion mellem statsborgere i stater, der er parter i denne aftale.
Ms Ospelt, a national of the Principality of Liechtenstein, owns land measuring 43 532 m2 on which she resides in Zwischenwasser, in the Land of Vorarlberg.
Det følger imidlertid af disse bestemmelser, at de regler, der forbyder restriktioner for kapitalbevægelser og forskelsbehandling, som bestemmelserne omtaler — med hensyn til relationerne mellem de stater, der
On 16 April 1998, the entire property was notarially authenticated with the purpose of transferring it to the Foundation, which is established in the Principality of Liechtenstein and whose first beneficiary is Ms Ospelt.
er parter i EØS-aftalen, hvad enten det drejer sig om EF-medlemsstater eller EFTA-stater — er identiske med de regler, der i fællesskabsretten gælder for relationerne mellem medlemsstaterne.
On 3 April 1998, an application was made to the Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Vorarlberg for the authorisation required under Paragraph 4(1) of the Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of 23 September 1993 (hereinafter 'the VGVG') ('the prior authorisation').
De nationale foranstaltninger vedrørende erhvervelse af land- og skovbrugsarealer er derfor som i fællesskabsretten undergivet nævnte regler.
It was refused on the ground that the conditions for acquisition by foreigners had not been fulfilled.
Et af hovedformålene med EØS-aftalen er at opnå den videst mulige gennemførelse af den frie bevægelighed for varer, personer, tjenesteydelser og kapital inden for hele EØS, således at det indre marked, der består på Fællesskabets område, kan blive udstrakt til EFTA-staterne. I dette perspektiv har flere af bestemmelserne i aftalen til formål at sikre en så ensartet fortolkning som mulig af aftalen inden for hele EØS (jf. udtalelse 1/92 af 10.4.1992).
Ms Ospelt and the Foundation appealed against that refusal to the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat (Austria) which, by a decision of 19 October 1998, also refused to grant prior authorisation on the ground that neither the Foundation nor Ms Ospelt pursued an agricultural activity or intended to do so in the future and that such a transaction was contrary to the public-interest aims of the VGVG as regards preserving and creating viable medium and small-scale agricultural holdings.
Det tilkommer herved Domstolen at sørge for, at de bestemmelser i EØS-aftalen, der i det væsentlige er identiske med bestemmelserne i traktaten, fortolkes ensartet inden for medlemsstaterne.
It took the view that that ground of refusal was applicable also where the land in question was not farmed by the person who had until then been the owner, as was the case in the main proceedings.
Medlemsstaterne kan under disse omstændigheder efter den 1. maj 1995, datoen for EØS-aftalens ikrafttrædelse for Fyrstendømmet Liechtenstein, og på de områder, der er omfattet af aftalen, ikke længere påberåbe sig artikel 73 C med hensyn til Fyrstendømmet Liechtenstein.
In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and refer a number of questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Med sit andet spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om traktatens artikel 6 samt artikel 73 Β 73 D, 73 F og 73 G er til hinder for en procedure for forudgående tilladelse som den, der er indført ved VGVG for handel med landbrugsarealer.
By its first question, the national court seeks to ascertain whether rules such as those laid down by the VGVG which make transactions relating to agricultural and forestry plots subject to administrative controls could, in the event that Articles 6, 73b to 73d, 73f and 73g of the Treaty do not preclude their application to such transactions as between nationals of Member States, also be accepted in respect of transactions between nationals of Member States and those of a third country under those articles.
Med hensyn til betingelsen vedrørende målsætningen for de omhandlede nationale foranstaltninger er der ingen tvivl om, at VGVG forfølger almene hensyn, der kan begrunde restriktioner for de frie kapitalbevægelser.
Given the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings and of the wording of the questions referred, it would appear that the national court implicitly regards the Principality of Liechtenstein, which is a member of the European Free Trade Association ('EFTA'), as a third country for the purposes of Article 73b of the Treaty.
Med hensyn for det tredje til proportionalitetsbetingelsen bemærkes, at en forudgående tilladelsesordning i visse tilfælde kan være nødvendig og forholdsmæssig ud fra de tilstræbte mål, hvis de samme mål ikke kan realiseres ved mindre restriktive foranstaltninger, navnlig ved en ordning med anmeldelser.
Annex XII to the EEA Agreement, which contains the provisions necessary to implement Article 40, declares that Directive 88/361 and Annex I thereto are applicable to the EEA.
Dette er tilfældet, når de nationale myndigheder søger at styre udviklingen af landbrugsarealernes strukturer ved at fastsætte mål såsom VGVG's.
Article 40 of and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement are applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings which relates to a transaction between nationals of States party to that Agreement.
Den anfægtede fremgangsmåde med forudgående tilladelse må imidlertid ikke ved dens gennemførelsesbestemmelser og dens grundlæggende vilkår gå ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for, at det forfulgte mål opfyldes.
The Court may give an interpretation of them where a reference is made by a court of a Member State with regard to the scope within that State of an agreement which forms an integral part of the Community legal system.
Selv om VGVG hviler på kriterier, der giver de berørte investorer mulighed for at kende de særlige og konkrete omstændigheder, hvorunder deres ansøgning bliver imødekommet, fastsætter VGVG's § 5, stk. 1, litra a), for erhvervelse af landbrugsarealer en restriktiv betingelse, der ikke i alle tilfælde er nødvendig for opfyldelsen af det forfulgte mål.
However, it is apparent from those provisions that the rules laid down in them prohibiting restrictions on the movement of capital and discrimination, so far as concerns relations between the States party to the EEA Agreement, irrespective of whether they are members of the Community or members of EFTA, are identical to those under Community law with regard to relations between the Member States.
Hvis VGVG af de nationale myndigheder blev fortolket således, at meddelelse af en forudgående tilladelse til overdragelse af fast ejendom under alle omstændigheder krævede, at denne betingelse var opfyldt, ville det imidlertid gå ud over, hvad der var nødvendigt for at nå de mål begrundet i almene hensyn, som VGVG forfølger, og måtte i dette omfang anses for uforenelig med de frie kapitalbevægelser.
It would run counter to that objective as to uniformity of application of the rules relating to free movement of capital within the EEA for a State such as the Republic of Austria, which is a party to that Agreement, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, to be able, after its accession to the European Union on 1 January 1995, to maintain legislation which restricts that freedom vis-à-vis another State party to that Agreement by basing itself on Article 73c of the Treaty.
VGVG bestemmer i § 5, stk. 1, litra a), at der kan meddeles tilladelse til erhvervelsen, selv om de ovenfor nævnte betingelser ikke er opfyldt, hvis erhvervelsen »ikke er i strid med hensynet til at opretholde og etablere et økonomisk sundt selveje for små og mellemstore landbrug«.
Thus, since 1 May 1995, the date on which the EEA Agreement entered into force in respect of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and in the sectors covered thereby, Member States may no longer invoke Article 73c vis-à-vis the Principality of Liechtenstein.
Hvis VGVG i lyset af denne bestemmelse af de nationale myndigheder blev fortolket således, at den forudgående tilladelse afhængig af omstændighederne kan meddeles personer, som ikke er landmænd med bopæl på de pågældende arealer, som giver de nødvendige garantier for opretholdelse af den landbrugsmæssige drift af arealerne, ville VGVG ikke hindre de frie kapitalbevægelser ud over, hvad der var nødvendigt for at opfylde sit formål.
Consequently, contrary to the arguments advanced by the Austrian Government, it is not for the Court to examine, pursuant to that provision, whether the restrictions on the movement of capital between Austria and Liechtenstein as a consequence of the VGVG were already substantively in force on 31 December 1993 and thus whether they could be maintained by virtue of the same article.
•1) Ordninger som dem, der er omhandlet i Vorariberger Grundverkehrsgesetz (lov om ejendomsretten til jordarealer) af 23. september 1993, som ændret, hvorefter handel med land- og skovbrugsarealer er undergivet begrænsninger fra forvaltningsmyndighedernes side ved transaktioner mellem statsborgere i stater, der er parter i aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde af 2. maj 1992, skal vurderes i henhold til aftalens artikel 40 og bilag XII, hvilke bestemmelser har samme retlige indhold som de hovedsagelig identiske bestemmelser i EF-traktatens artikel 73 B (nu artikel 56 EF).
By its second question, the referring court asks whether Articles 6, 73b to 73d, 73f and 73g of the Treaty preclude a system of prior authorisation such as that established by the VGVG for transactions involving agricultural land.
Traktatens artikel 73 B og EF-traktatens artikel 73 C, 73 D, 73 F og 73 G (nu artikel 57 EF — 60 EF) er ikke til hinder for, at erhvervelse af landbrugsarealer gøres afhængig af meddelelse af en forudgående tilladelse som den, der er indført ved denne lov.
So far as concerns the condition as to proportionality, it must be borne in mind that a system of prior authorisation may, in certain circumstances, be necessary and proportionate to the aims pursued, if the same objectives cannot be attained by less restrictive measures, in particular by a system of declarations.
Bestemmelserne er imidlertid til hinder for, at denne tilladelse i alle tilfælde afslås med den begrundelse, at erhververen ikke selv dyrker de pågældende arealer i forbindelse med en landbrugsbedrift og ikke har bopæl på bedriften.*
That is the case where national authorities seek to control the development of agricultural land ownership by laying down objectives such as those in the VGVG.
Generaladvokat L. A. Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenuml den 10. april 2003.
None the less, the rules and the substantive conditions laid down by the prior authorisation mechanism chosen must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued.
Sag C-437/01 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik Fiskale bestemmelser
Paragraph 5( 1 )(a) of the VGVG provides that acquisition may be permitted, even where the condition referred to above is not met, when such acquisition 'is not contrary to the preservation and creation of an economically healthy, medium and small-scale agricultural estate'.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 12. november 2001 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 3, stk. 2, i Rådets direktiv 92/12/EØF af 25. februar 1992, og artikel 8, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 92/81/EØF af 19. oktober 1992, idet den har opretholdt en afgift af smøreolier.
If, in view ofthat provision, the national authorities were to interpret the VGVG as meaning that prior authorisation may be granted, depending on the circumstances, to persons who are not farmers resident on the land concerned but who can give the necessary assurances that the abovementioned land will be kept in agricultural use, the VGVG would not fetter the free movement of capital beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objectives.
Traktatbruddet
The Court ruled: