natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Et medlem af Kommissionen, hvis mandat er udløbet, kan blive idømt en sanktion for en tilsidesættelse, der har fundet sted under udøvelsen af vedkommendes mandat, men som er blevet opdaget senere.
A Member of the Commission whose term of oce has come to an end can be punished in respect of a breach which occurred during his term of oce but is discovered subsequently.
Eftersom den pågældende ikke længere kan afskediges, har Domstolen kun mulighed for at fratage rettigheder og kan frit bestemme, om de skal frakendes helt eller delvist, afhængigt af tilsidesættelsens grovhed.
Since compulsory retirement can no longer be ordered, the only penalty available to the Court is the deprivation of rights, which may be total or partial depending on the degree of gravity of the breach.
Fristen for sagsanlæg er imidlertid ikke ubegrænset, idet der skal tages hensyn til kravet om retssikkerhed og retten til kontradiktion, hvorefter det kræves, at den person, som Kommissionen har indledt en administrativ procedure imod, skal være sat i stand til på hensigtsmæssig måde at tilkendegive sine synspunkter.
However, the period for taking action is not unlimited, given the requirement of legal certainty and the right to be heard by virtue of which the person against whom an administrative procedure has been initiated by the Commission must be aorded the opportunity to make known his views.The Court also stated that that the fact that no appeal may be brought against the Court’s decision does not in any way constitute, in light of the right of Members of the Commission to eective judicial protection, a deciency which would preclude exercise of its jurisdiction.
Desuden anførte Domstolen, at den omstændighed, at det ikke er muligt at appellere dens afgørelse, på ingen måde udgør en mangel i forhold til
However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court held that the finding of breach
Domstolen kommissionsmedlemmernes ret til en effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse, der vil hindre Domstolen i at udøve sin beføjelse.
Court of Justice constituted, of itself, an appropriate penalty, and it did not impose on Mrs Cresson a penalty in the form of a deprivation of her right to a pension or other benets in its stead.
I sagen Spanien mod Det Forenede Kongerige (dom af 12.9.2006, sag C-145/04, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser) og sagen Eman og Sevinger (dom af 12.9.2006, sag C-300/04, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser) tog Domstolen stilling til traktatbestemmelserne om unionsborgerskabet og valget af repræsentanter til Europa-Parlamentet, særligt for så vidt angik valgret ved dette valg og valgets gennemførelse.
In Case C-145/04 Spain v United Kingdom (judgment of 12 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR) and Case C-300/04 Eman and Sevinger (judgment of 12 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court adjudicated on the Treaty rules relating to European citizenship and the election of representatives to the European Parliament, in particular with regard to the right to vote in such elections and the exercise of that right.
I sagen Spanien mod Det Forenede Kongerige skulle Domstolen således behandle spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt medlemsstaterne havde kompetence til at udvide valgretten ved valg til Europa-Parlamentet til statsborgere, som ikke var statsborgere i Den Europæiske Union.
In Spain v United Kingdom, the Court was required to consider the power of the Member States to extend the right to vote in European Parliament elections to residents who are not citizens of the European Union.
I det konkrete tilfælde havde Kongeriget Spanien anfægtet en lov i Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland, hvorved det for så vidt angik Gibraltar var bestemt, at statsborgere i Commonwealth, som havde bopæl på dette område, og som ikke var statsborgere i en medlemsstat, havde valgret og var valgbare til Europa-Parlamentet.
The Kingdom of Spain was contesting, in the case in point, a statute of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which provides, in relation to Gibraltar, that Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar who are not Community nationals have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament.
I denne henseende fastslog Domstolen, at det tilkom medlemsstaterne under overholdelse af fællesskabsretten at afgrænse kredsen af de personer, som havde valgret og var valgbare ved valg til Europa-Parlamentet. Domstolen var af den opfattelse, at artikel 189 EF, 190 EF, 17 EF og 19 EF ikke var til hinder for, at medlemsstaterne gav bestemte personer, som havde en tæt tilknytning til dem, og som ikke var deres egne statsborgere eller unionsborgere, som havde bopæl på deres område, valgret og valgbarhed.
The Court held that it is for the Member States to dene, in compliance with Community law, the persons entitled to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament.
Desuden kunne det ifølge Domstolen ikke udledes af traktatbestemmelserne om Europa-Parlamentets sammensætning og unionsborgerskabet, at der var en direkte forbindelse mellem unionsborgerskab og valgret.
Nor, according to the Court, can a clear link between citizenship and the right to vote be deduced from the Treaty provisions relating to the composition of the European Parliament and to citizenship of the Union.
Endelig konkluderede Domstolen, idet den understregede, at der ikke af traktatbestemmelserne om unionsborgerskabet kan udledes et princip om, at alle de øvrige traktatbestemmelser kun gælder for unionsborgere, at den anfægtede lovgivning i Det Forenede Kongerige var i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten.
Finally, observing that a principle cannot be derived from the Treaty’s articles relating to citizenship of the Union that its citizens are the only persons entitled under all the other provisions of the Treaty, the Court concluded that the contested United Kingdom legislation was consistent with Community law.
I sagen Eman og Sevinger tog Domstolen stilling til fortolkningen af artikel 17 EF, artikel 19, stk. 2, EF, artikel 189 EF, 190 EF og 299, stk. 3, EF i forbindelse med en anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Raad van State (Nederlandene) under en sag vedrørende to nederlandske statsborgere, der var bosat i Aruba, som anfægtede afslaget på at optage dem på valglisten med henblik på valget til Europa-Parlamentet den 10. juni 2004 på grund af deres bopæl. Ifølge Domstolen kan personer, der er statsborgere i en medlemsstat,
In Eman and Sevinger, the Court ruled on the interpretation of Articles 17 EC, 19(2) EC, 190 EC and 299(3) EC in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands). The proceedings before the national court concerned two Netherlands nationals resident in Aruba who contested the rejection, on the basis of their place of residence, of their application for registration on the electoral roll for the election of Members of the European Parliament on 10 June 2004.
Sagen i-21 Germany og Arcor (dom af 19.9.2006, forenede sager C-392/04 og C-422/04, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser) gav Domstolen lejlighed til at finde ligevægten mellem fællesskabsrettens forrang og retssikkerhedsprincippet i forbindelse med spørgsmålet om, hvorledes en forvaltningsakt, der var ulovlig, fordi den var i strid med fællesskabsretten, skulle behandles.
Joined Cases C-392/04 and C-422/04 i-21 Germany and Arcor (judgment of 19 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR) gave the Court the opportunity to strike a balance between the primacy of Community law and legal certainty with regard to the treatment to be accorded to an administrative act which is unlawful because it infringes Community law.
Domstolen fastslog, at et forvaltningsorgan i overensstemmelse med retssikkerhedsprincippet ikke er forpligtet til at omgøre en forvaltningsafgørelse, der er blevet endelig ved udløbet af en rimelig søgsmålsfrist eller ved udtømning af de til rådighed stående retsmidler.
The Court stated that, in accordance with the principle of legal certainty, administrative bodies are not placed under an obligation to reopen an administrative decision which has become final upon expiry of the reasonable time limits for legal remedies or by exhaustion of those remedies.
For det første fik Domstolen i sagen Regione Siciliana mod Kommissionen (dom af 2.5.2006, sag C-417/04 P, Sml.
First, Case C-417/04 P Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006] ECR I-3881, which was an appeal in which the Regione Siciliana sought the setting aside of an order of the Court of First Instance that had declared its action for annulment of a Commission decision closing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund to be inadmissible, allowed the Court to give further consideration to the concept of a ‘Member State’.
I, s. 3881) angående en appel, hvorved Regione Siciliana havde nedlagt påstand om ophævelse af Rettens kendelse vedrørende afvisning af den af Regione Siciliana anlagte sag om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning om afslutning af sagen
It stated, however, that, on the basis of that article, a local or regional entity may, to the extent that it has legal personality under national law, institute proceedings against a decision addressed to it or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to it.
En regional myndighed, der er ansvarlig for gennemførelsen af et projekt for Den Europæiske Fond, kunne imidlertid ikke anses for at være umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af Kommissionens beslutning rettet til den omhandlede medlemsstat om afslutning af sagen vedrørende den finansielle støtte fra fonden.
Individuals who nevertheless consider that they have suered damage because of an institution’s unlawful conduct are not, however, denied access to justice since an action for noncontractual liability is available if the conduct in question is of such a nature as to entail liability on the part of the Community.
For det andet måtte Domstolen i sagen Reynolds Tobacco m.fl. mod Kommissionen (dom af 12.9.2006, sag C-131/03 P, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser) behandle spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt det var muligt at opnå annullation af Kommissionens beslutninger om at anlægge et søgsmål.
In Case C-344/04 International Air Transport Association and Others [2006] ECR I-403, the Court held, with regard to Article 234 EC, that the fact that the validity of a Community act is contested before a national court is not in itself sucient to warrant referral of a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Domstolen fastslog, at kun foranstaltninger, som har retligt bindende virkninger, der kan berøre sagsøgerens interesser gennem en væsentlig ændring af hans retsstilling, udgør retsakter eller beslutninger, der kan gøres til genstand for et annullationssøgsmål.
A court against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law is required to stay proceedings and make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a Community act only where it considers that one or more arguments for invalidity of the act which have been put forward by the parties or otherwise raised by it of its own motion are well founded.
Beslutningen om at anlægge sag ved en domstol er således nødvendig for at opnå en bindende retsafgørelse, men er ikke i sig selv endelig afgørende for de forpligtelser, der påhviler parterne i tvisten, og ændrer ikke i sig selv den omtvistede retsstilling.
Finally, in a whole series of cases the Court was faced with the problem of the choice of the legal basis for Community measures.
I, s. 403) fastslog Domstolen for så vidt angik artikel 234 EF, at den omstændighed, at gyldigheden af en fællesskabsretsakt er blevet anfægtet ved den nationale ret, ikke i sig selv kan begrunde, at der skal forelægges et præjudicielt spørgsmål for Domstolen.
The Court recalled (i) that the choice of the legal basis for a Community measure must be founded on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review and include in particular the aim and content of the measure, (ii) that if examination of a Community measure reveals that it pursues a twofold purpose or that it has a twofold component and if one of those is identiable as the main or predominant purpose or component, whereas the other is merely incidental, the act must be founded on a single legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant purpose or component, and (iii) that, exceptionally, if on the other hand it is established that the act simultaneously pursues a number of objectives or has several components that are indissociably linked, without one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other, such an act will have to be founded on the various corresponding legal bases, but recourse to a dual legal basis is not possible where the procedures laid down for each legal basis are incompatible with each other or where the use of two legal bases is liable to undermine the rights of the Parliament.
Det er kun, når en national ret, hvis afgørelser ifølge de nationale retsregler kan appelleres, finder, at et eller flere anbringender vedrørende ugyldigheden af en fællesskabsretsakt, som parterne har fremført, eller som er blevet rejst ex officio, er begrundede, at den skal udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen en præjudiciel anmodning med henblik på bedømmelse af gyldigheden.
Applying that case-law, the Court held in the first case that Decision 2003/106/EC should have been founded on Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC, in conjunction with the relevant provisions of Article 300 EC, and therefore had to be annulled since it was based solely on Article 175(1) EC, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC. Similarly, in the second
Endelig er Domstolen i en hel række sager blevet konfronteret med problematikken omkring valg af hjemmel for fællesskabsretsakter.
Council Decision 2003/106/EC of 19 December 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 27).
Der skal først henvises til sagen Kommissionen mod Rådet (dom af 10.1.2006, sag C-94/03, Sml.
Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 1).
Udviklingen og arbejdet
Court of Justice
I den anden sag fastslog Domstolen ligeledes, at forordning nr. 304/2003 skulle have været baseret på artikel 133 EF og artikel 175, stk. 1, EF, og at den følgelig skulle annulleres, for så vidt som den alene var udstedt i henhold til artikel 175, stk. 1, EF.
Proceedings case the Court held that Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 should have been founded on Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC and therefore had to be annulled since it was based solely on Article 175(1) EC.
Fire andre sager havde det til fælles, at de vedrørte betingelserne for at anvende artikel 95 EF som hjemmel.
The other four cases have the common feature that they concern the conditions governing recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis.
For det første henviste Domstolen i sagen Parlamentet mod Rådet (dom af 2.5.2006, sag C436/03, Sml. I, s. 3733) til sin praksis, hvorefter artikel 95 EF bemyndiger fællesskabslovgiver til at vedtage foranstaltninger til forbedring af vilkårene for det indre markeds oprettelse og funktion, idet disse foranstaltninger reelt skal have dette formål og bidrage til at erne hindringerne for de økonomiske friheder, der er garanteret ved traktaten, herunder etableringsfriheden, eller foranstaltninger med henblik på at undgå, at der opstår fremtidige hindringer for samhandelen, der skyldes en uensartet udvikling i de nationale lovgivninger – idet der dog skal være sandsynlighed for, at der opstår sådanne hindringer – og den pågældende foranstaltning skal have til formål at forebygge sådanne hindringer.
First of all, in Case C-436/03 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-3733, the Court recalled its caselaw which states that Article 95 EC empowers the Community legislature to adopt (i) measures to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market — and they must genuinely have that object, contributing to the elimination of obstacles to the economic freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, which include the freedom of establishment, and (ii) measures whose aim is to prevent the emergence of obstacles to trade resulting from heterogeneous development of national laws, provided that the emergence of such obstacles is likely and the measure in question is designed to prevent them.
I denne sag fastslog Domstolen således, at artikel 95 EF ikke kunne udgøre en korrekt hjemmel for vedtagelsen af forordning 1435/2003 6, og at det var med rette, at den var blevet vedtaget på grundlag af artikel 308 EF.
The Court accordingly held in the case in point that Article 95 EC could not constitute an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 6 and that it was correctly adopted on the basis of Article 308 EC.
Endvidere var det ligeledes i overensstemmelse med denne retspraksis, at
It was also in application of that caselaw that the Court held in Case C-217/04 United Kingdom v Parliament and Council [2006] ECR I-3771 that Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 7was rightly based on Article 95 EC.
Rådets afgørelse 2003/106/EF af 19.12.2002 om indgåelse på Fællesskabets vegne af Rotterdamkonventionen om proceduren for forudgående informeret samtykke for visse farlige kemikalier og pesticider i international handel (EUT L 63, s. 27).
Finally, in Case C-380/03 Germany v Parliament and Council (judgment of 12 December 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court recalled that, provided that the conditions for recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis are fullled, the Community legislature cannot be prevented from relying on that legal basis on the ground that public health protection is a decisive factor in the choices to be made.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 304/2003 af 28.1.2003 om eksport og import af farlige kemikalier (EUT L 63, s. 1).
It then held, principally on the basis of that case-law, that by adopting Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2003/33/EC 10solely on the basis of Article 95 EC, the Community legislature did not
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1435/2003 af 22.7.2003 om statut for det europæiske andelsselskab (SCE) (EUT L 207, s. 1).
Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE) (OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 1).
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 460/2004 af 10.3.2004 om oprettelse af et europæisk agentur for net- og informationssikkerhed (EUT L 77, s. 1).
Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 1).
Europa-Parlamentet og Rådets direktiv 95/46/EF af 24.10.1995 om beskyttelse af fysiske personer i forbindelse med behandling af personoplysninger og om fri udveksling af sådanne oplysninger (EFT L 281, s. 31), som ændret.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31), as amended.
Udviklingen og arbejdet friheder, som ifølge artikel 18 EF tilkommer enhver unionsborger. Den anerkendte imidlertid, at denne hindring var begrundet i objektive almene hensyn, der var uafhængige af de berørte personers nationalitet.
The Court found that the Belgian legislation places certain Belgian nationals at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom of movement and residence, and is thus is a restriction on the freedoms conferred by Article 18 EC.
Domstolen fastslog således, at et bopælskrav beror på hensynet til kontrollen med de arbejdsløses erhvervs- og familiemæssige situation, idet det giver inspektionstjenesterne mulighed for at efterprøve, om situationen for de personer, som oppebærer arbejdsløshedsydelser, har gennemgået nogen ændringer af betydning for den ydelse, der udbetales.
The Court stated that a residence condition reects the need to monitor the employment and family situation of unemployed persons by allowing inspectors to check whether the situation of a recipient of the unemployment allowance has undergone changes which may have an eect on the benet granted.
Domstolen bemærkede ligeledes, at den specifikke karakter af den kontrol, som udføres på arbejdsløshedsområdet, begrunder indførelsen af mere indgribende foranstaltninger end med hensyn til andre ydelser, og at mindre indgribende foranstaltninger, som fremlæggelsen af dokumenter eller attester, ville berøve kontrollen dens uventede karakter og dermed gøre den mindre effektiv.
The Court also noted that the specic nature of monitoring with regard to unemployment justies the introduction of arrangements that are more restrictive than for other benets and that more flexible measures, such as the production of documents or certicates, would mean that the monitoring would no longer be unexpected and would consequently be less eective.
Det var ligeledes et bopælskravs forenelighed med artikel 18 EF, som var omhandlet i Tas-Hagen og Tas-sagen (dom af 26.10.2006, sag C-192/05, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser) vedrørende en lovgivning om tildeling af ydelser til civile krigsofre, hvorefter det kræves, at den pågældende på datoen for ansøgningens indgivelse er bosat på det nationale område.
The compatibility of a residence condition with Article 18 EC was also at issue in Case C-192/05 Tas-Hagen and Tas (judgment of 26 October 2006, not yet published in the ECR), concerning legislation on the award of benets to civilian war victims which requires the person concerned to be resident on national territory at the time at which the application is submitted.
Domstolen indledte med at tage stilling til, hvorvidt en sådan problematik henhører under artikel 18 EF.
The Court sought first to determine whether such an issue falls within the scope of Article 18 EC.
I denne henseende bemærkede den, at en ydelse, der har til formål at yde civile krigsofre erstatning, på fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin henhører under medlemsstaternes kompetence, idet disse dog er forpligtede til at udøve deres kompetence under overholdelse af fællesskabsretten.
It observed in this regard that, as Community law now stands, a benet to compensate civilian war victims falls within the competence of the Member States, although they must exercise that competence in accordance with Community law.
Med hensyn til en sådan lovgivning kan udøvelsen af retten til frit at færdes og tage ophold, som er fastslået i artikel 18 EF, imidlertid påvirke muligheden for at få udbetalt ydelsen, således at en sådan situation ikke kan anses for ikke at have nogen tilknytning til fællesskabsretten.
In the case of legislation of the kind at issue, exercise of the right of free movement and of residence which is accorded by Article 18 EC is such as to aect the prospects of receiving the benet, so that the situation cannot be considered to have no link with Community law.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt bopælskravet kunne tillades, fastslog Domstolen, at det kan hæmme udøvelsen af de friheder, som er fastslået i artikel 18 EF, og dermed udgør en hindring for disse friheder.
With regard to the permissibility of the residence condition, the Court stated that it is liable to deter exercise of the freedoms accorded by Article 18 EC and therefore constitutes a restriction on those freedoms.