natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I®sagen Kommissionen mod Tyskland (dom af 9.6.2009, sag®C-480/06) vedrørende en aftale om bort-ska©else af a©ald i®et nyt a©aldsforbrændingsanlæg indgået mellem re Landkreise og Hamburg kommunes gaderengøringstjeneste uden forudgående udbudsprocedure fastslog Domstolen, at en aftale, der udgør både grundlaget og regelsættet for den fremtidige opførelse og drift af et anlæg til fuldførelsen af en public service-opgave, dvs. a©aldsforbrænding, ikke er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for direktiv®92/50 18, for så vidt som aftalen udelukkende er blevet indgået af o©entlige myndigheder, uden deltagelse fra en privat part, og den ikke fastsætter eller foregriber indgåelsen af o©entlige aftaler, som eventuelt er nødvendige for opførelsen og driften af a©aldsbehandlingsanlægget.
In Case C-243/08 Pannon GSM (judgment of 4 June 2009), the Court noted that the consumer protection provided by Directive 93/13/EEC (20) extends to cases in which a consumer who has concluded with a seller or supplier a contract containing an unfair term fails to raise the unfairness of the term, whether because he is unaware of his rights or because he is deterred from enforcing them on account of the costs which judicial proceedings would involve.
En o©entlig myndighed kan nemlig opfylde de opgaver, som påhviler den med hensyn til imødekommelse af almenhedens behov, enten gennem anvendelse af sine egne ressourcer eller i®sam-arbejde med andre o©entlige myndigheder, uden at være forpligtet til at gøre brug af eksterne organer, som ikke hører til dens tjenestegrene.
The role of the national court in the area of consumer protection is thus not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, including when it is assessing whether it has territorial jurisdiction.
For det første indeholder fællesskabsretten herved ikke en forpligtelse for o©entlige myndigheder til, med henblik på i®fællesskab at sikre deres public service-opgaver, at anvende en særlig retlig form.
Where the national court considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer, after having been informed of it by that court, does not intend to assert its unfair or non-binding status.
Herefter opregnes en række domme, hvori®Domstolen skulle fortolke den fællesskabslovgivning, som har til formål at opstille rammerne for handelspraksis i®et forbrugerbeskyttelsesperspektiv.
The Court also stated that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair.
I®Messner-sagen (dom af 3.9.2009, sag®C-489/07) om forbrugerbeskyttelse i®forbindelse med aftaler vedrørende ¹ernsalg undersøgte Domstolen muligheden for at forlange erstatning af forbrugeren, som efter at have underskrevet en sådan aftale fortrød.
Similarly, in Case C-40/08 Asturcom Telecomunicaciones (judgment of 6 October 2009), the Court held that a national court hearing an action for enforcement of an arbitration award which has become ¤nal and was made in the absence of the consumer is required, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, to assess of its own motion whether an arbitration clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, in so far as, under national rules of procedure, it can carry out such an assessment in similar actions of a domestic nature.
Domstolen fastslog, at bestemmelserne i®artikel®6, stk.®1, andet punktum, og artikel®6, stk.®2, i®direktiv®97/7 19 skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for en national lovgivning, hvorefter sælgeren kan forlange, at forbrugeren betaler erstatning for værdiforringelsen ved brug af et gode, der er erhvervet i®henhold til en aftale om ¹ernsalg, i®et tilfælde, hvor sidstnævnte rettidigt har udøvet sin fortrydelsesret.
If that is the case, it is for that court or tribunal to establish all the consequences thereby arising under national law, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that clause.
Forbrugeren ville nemlig i®til-fælde af, at han skulle betale en sådan erstatning for værdiforringelse af den årsag®alene, at han har haft mulighed for at bruge godet i®det tidsrum, hvor det var i®hans besiddelse, kun kunne udøve sin fortrydelsesret mod betaling af denne erstatning, hvilket ville være i®klar modstrid med ordlyden af og formålet med artikel®6, stk.®1, andet punktum, og artikel®6, stk.®2, i®direktiv®97/7 og navnlig
In reaching this conclusion, the Court stated, ¤rst, that Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 is a mandatory provision and, second, that, in view of the nature and importance of the public interest underlying the protection which that directive confers on consumers, Article 6 must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to national rules which rank, within the domestic legal system, as rules of public policy.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv®97/7/EF af 20.5.1997 om forbrugerbeskyttelse i®forbindelse med aftaler vedrørende ¹ernsalg (EFT L®144, s.®19).
) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Domstolen ville fratage forbrugeren muligheden for frit og uden pres at udnytte den betænkningstid, han er indrømmet ved direktivet.
In Case C-358/08 Aventis Pasteur (judgment of 2 December 2009), the Court, after recalling the
Fortrydelsesretten ville endvidere fungere dårligere og mindre e©ektivt, hvis forbrugeren blev pålagt at betale erstatning for værdiforringelsen alene som følge af det forhold, at han har undersøgt og afprøvet godet.
) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the substitution of one defendant for another during proceedings from being applied in a way which permits a ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3 of that directive, to be sued, after the expiry of the period prescribed by that article, as a defendant in proceedings brought within that period against another person.
Eftersom fortrydelsesretten netop har til formål at give forbrugeren denne mulighed, kan den omstændighed, at han har udnyttet muligheden, ikke have som konsekvens, at forbrugeren kun kan udøve denne ret mod betaling af en erstatning.
However, ¤rst, Article 11 must be interpreted as not precluding a national court from holding that, in proceedings instituted within the period prescribed by that article against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374, that producer can be substituted for that subsidiary if that court ¤nds that the putting into circulation of the product in question was, in fact, determined by that producer.
Bestemmelsen er imidlertid ikke til hinder for, at forbrugeren pålægges at betale erstatning for værdiforringelse ved brug af godet i®tilfælde af, at den pågældende har gjort brug af godet på en måde, der er uforenelig med civilretlige principper, såsom princippet om god tro eller forbuddet mod uberettiget vinding, på den betingelse, at direktivets formål og navnlig virkningen og e©ek-tiviteten af fortrydelsesretten ikke bringes i®fare, hvilket det påhviler den nationale ret at afgøre.
Second, Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person injured by an allegedly defective product was not reasonably able to identify the producer of that product before exercising his rights against the supplier of that product, that supplier must be treated as a ‘producer’ for the purposes, in particular, of the application of Article 11 of that directive, if it did not inform the injured person, on its own initiative and promptly, of the identity of the producer or its own supplier, which it is for the national court to determine in the light of the circumstances of the case.
I®Pannon GSM-sagen (dom af 4.6.2009, sag®C-243/08) påpegede Domstolen, at den beskyttelse, direktiv®93/13 20 tildeler forbrugerne, omfatter tilfælde, hvor en forbruger, som med en erhvervsdrivende har indgået en kontrakt med et urimeligt vilkår, afholder sig fra at påberåbe sig den urimelige karakter af vilkåret, enten fordi®han er uvidende om sine rettigheder, eller fordi®han viger tilbage for at gøre sine rettigheder gældende som følge af de omkostninger, en retssag®vil medføre.
2005/29/EC (23) in Joined Cases C-261/07 and C-299/07 VTB–VAB (judgment of 23 April 2009). It held that that directive precludes national legislation which with certain exceptions and without taking account of the speci¤c circumstances — therefore generally and as a preventative measure — imposes a general prohibition of combined o¥ers made by a vendor to a consumer.
Den nationale domstols rolle på forbrugerbeskyttelsesområdet begrænser sig følgelig ikke til blot at være muligheden for at prøve, om et kontraktvilkår eventuelt måtte være urimeligt, men indebærer ligeledes forpligtelsen til ex o§cio at prøve dette spørgsmål, så snart den råder over de oplysninger vedrørende de retlige eller faktiske omstændigheder, som denne prøvelse kræver, herunder når den kontrollerer sin egen stedlige kompetence.
The legislation in question laid down the principle that combined o¥ers are prohibited, notwithstanding the fact that such practices are not referred to in Annex I to the directive which exhaustively lists the only commercial practices which are prohibited in all circumstances and accordingly do not have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Når den nationale domstol anser et sådant vilkår for at være urimeligt, påhviler det den ikke at anvende vilkåret, medmindre forbrugeren, efter at han er blevet belært af retten, ikke har til hensigt at gøre gældende, at vilkåret er urimeligt og ikke-bindende.
The Court noted that that directive fully harmonises, at the Community level, the rules on unfair commercial practices. Therefore, Member States may not adopt stricter rules than those provided for in the directive, even in order to achieve a higher level of consumer protection.
Tilsvarende er en national regel, som bestemmer, at det kun er i®tilfælde af, at forbrugeren for den nationale domstol har anfægtet et sådant vilkår og har fået medhold i, at et urimeligt kontraktvilkår er uden bindende virkning, uforeneligt med direktivet.
By establishing a presumption of unlawfulness of combined o¥ers, even though a certain number of exceptions to that prohibition are laid down, national legislation does not meet the requirements of the directive.
En sådan regel udelukker nemlig den nationale domstols mulighed for ex o§cio at undersøge, om et kontraktvilkår er urimeligt.
In the ¤eld of intellectual property rights, two judgments are worthy of note.
Rådets direktiv®93/13/EØF af 5.4.1993 om urimelige kontraktvilkår i®forbrugeraftaler (EFT L®95, s.®29).
) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair busi- ness-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Med henblik på denne efterprøvelse præciserede Domstolen, dels at artikel®6, stk.®1, i®direktiv®93/13 er en præceptiv bestemmelse, dels at i®betragtning af karakteren og betydningen af den o©ent-lige interesse, som den beskyttelse, dette direktiv®giver forbrugerne, hviler på, skal artikel®6 anses for ligeværdig med nationale regler, der inden for den interne retsorden har rang af ufravigelige retsgrundsætninger.
First, in Case C-32/08 FEIA (judgment of 2 July 2009) the Court held that Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (24), which provides that the right to the Community design vests in the employer where a design is developed by an employee in the execution of his duties or following the instructions given by his employer, unless otherwise agreed or speci¤ed under national law, does not apply to a Community design that has been produced as a result of a commission.
I®Aventis Pasteur-sagen (dom af 2.12.2009, sag®C-358/08) havde Domstolen under henvisning til
The Community legislature intended to de¤ne the special system set out in Article 14(3) of the regulation by reference to a speci¤c type of contractual relationship, namely that of an employment relationship, which precludes the application of Article 14(3) to other contractual relationships, such as that relating to a Community design that has been produced as a result of a commission.
22 skal fortolkes retspraksis i®O’Byrne-sagen anledning til at præcisere, at artikel®11 i®direktiv®85/374 således, at den er til hinder for, at en national lovgivning, hvorefter den sagsøgte part kan udskiftes med en anden under retssagen, kan anvendes efter udløbet af den i®artiklen fastsatte frist til at inddrage en »producent«, som deneret i®dette direktivs artikel®3, som sagsøgt i®en retssag, der er indledt inden for den nævnte frist mod en anden person end denne.
Where, ¤rst, there are unregistered Community designs produced as a result of a commission, second, the national legislation does not deem such designs to be the same as designs developed in the context of an employment relationship, Article 14(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to the Community design vests in the designer, unless it has been assigning by way of contract to his successor in title.
For det første skal den nævnte artikel®11 imidlertid fortolkes således, at den ikke er til hinder for, at den nationale ret nder, at i®den retssag, som inden for den i®den nævnte artikel®fastsatte frist er blevet indledt mod det helejede datterselskab af »producenten« i®henhold til artikel®3, stk.®1, kan datterselskabet udskiftes med producenten, hvis retten fastslår, at beslutningen om at bringe det pågældende produkt i®omsætning faktisk er blevet tru©et af denne producent.
The possibility of assignment by way of contract of the right to the Community design from the designer to his successor in title within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the regulation both stems from the wording of that article and is consistent with the aims of the regulation.
For det andet skal artikel®3, stk.®3, i®direktiv®87/354 fortolkes således, at hvis den, der har lidt skade på grund af et påstået defekt produkt, ikke med rimelighed har kunnet identicere producenten af det pågældende produkt, inden han udøvede sine rettigheder over for leverandøren af dette, kan denne leverandør anses for at være en »producent«, navnlig med henblik på anvendelsen af artikel®11 i®det nævnte direktiv, såfremt leverandøren ikke på eget initiativ og uden forsinkelse har meddelt skadelidte producentens identitet eller identiteten af den person, som har leveret produktet til ham, hvilket det tilkommer den nationale ret at vurdere under hensyn til sagens konkrete omstændigheder.
Adapting the protection of Community designs to the needs of all sectors of industry in the Community by means of a contractual assignment of the right to the Community design is likely to help to achieve the essential objective of the enforcement of the rights conferred by a Community design in an ecient manner throughout the territory of the Community.
Hvad angår urimelig handelspraksis havde Domstolen anledning til at fortolke direktiv®2005/29 23 i®VTB-VAB-sagen (dom af 23.4.2009, forenede sager C-261/07 og C-299/07).
Moreover, enhanced protection for industrial design not only promotes the contribution of individual designers to the sum of Community excellence in the ¤eld, but also encourages innovation and development of new products and investment in their production.
Domstolen fastslog, at dette direktiv®er til hinder for en national bestemmelse, som, bortset fra visse undtagelser og uden at tage hensyn til særlige omstændigheder i®hver enkelt sag, således generelt og forebyggende forbyder enhver tilgift, der ydes af en sælger til en forbruger.
It is, however, for the national court to ascertain the contents of such a contract and in that regard to determine whether the right to the unregistered Community design has in fact been transferred from the designer to his successor in title, applying, in the context of that assessment, the law on contracts in order to determine who owns the right to the unregistered Community design, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the regulation.
Denne lovgivning indfører nemlig et forbud mod tilgift, selv om sådanne former for praksis ikke er omfattet af bilag I®til samme direktiv, et bilag, som på udtømmende vis opregner de eneste former for handelspraksis, som under alle omstændigheder er forbudte, og som derfor ikke skal vurderes i®hvert enkelt tilfælde.
Second, in Case C-240/07 Sony Music Entertainment (judgment of 20 January 2009), the Court held that the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, in this case rights concerning the reproduction of phonograms, laid down by Directive 2006/116/EC (25), is also applicable, pursuant to Article 10(2) thereof, where the subject matter at issue has at no time been protected in the Member State in which the protection is sought.
Domstolen påpegede, at dette direktiv®på fællesskabsplan foretager en totalharmonisering af reglerne om urimelige handelspraksis.
According to the wording of that provision, the ¤rst alternative requirement concerns the prior existence of protection for the subject matter at issue in at least one Member State.
Medlemsstaterne kan derfor ikke vedtage foranstaltninger, der
That provision does not require that Member State to be the State in which the protection for which the directive provides is sought.
Dom af 9.2.2006, sag®C-127/04, Sml. I, s.®1313.
(24) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).
Rådets direktiv®85/374/EØF af 25.7.1985 om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes administrativt eller ved lov fastsatte bestemmelser om produktansvar (EFT L®210, s.®29).
(25) Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12)
Domstolen er mere restriktive end dem, der fremgår af direktivet, ej heller med henblik på at sikre et højere forbrugerbeskyttelsesniveau.
The question whether, in the context of the provision, a holder of copyright-related rights in a work or subject matter who is a national of a non-Member State was protected on 1 July 1995 in at least one Member State must be assessed in the light of the national provisions of that Member State and not in the light of the national provisions of the Member State in which the protection for which that directive provides is sought.
Ved at opstille en formodning for ulovlighed af tilgift samtidig med, at den nationale lov indeholder en række undtagelser til forbuddet mod tilgift, opfylder en national bestemmelse ikke de krav, der følger af dette direktiv.
It follows that, in respect of a work or subject matter protected on 1 July 1995 in at least one Member State according to the national provisions of that Member State, the fact that the rightholder thus protected is a national of a non-Member State and is not entitled, in the Member State in which the term of protection provided for by Directive 2006/116 is sought, to protection under the national law of that Member State is not decisive for the application of Article 10(2) of that directive.
På området for intellektuel ejendomsret fortjener to domme en kort fremlægning.
Other sectors which have been harmonised at Community level have also given rise to litigation.
Fællesskabslovgiver har således haft til hensigt at denere den særlige ordning i®denne forordnings artikel®14, stk.®3, ved en særlig type kontraktforhold, nemlig arbejdsforhold, hvilket udelukker undtagelsens anvendelighed på øvrige kontraktforhold, såsom kontraktforhold vedrørende design, der frembringes efter bestilling.
In Case C-421/07 Damgaard (judgment of 2 April 2009), the Court was required to de¤ne more precisely the notion of advertising in the ¤eld of medicinal products for human use.
Når der for det første er tale om ikke-registrerede EF-design, der frembringes efter bestilling, og for det andet, at den nationale lovgivning ikke sidestiller sådanne design med design, der frembringes inden for rammerne af et ansættelsesforhold, skal forordningens artikel®14, stk.®1, fortolkes således, at retten til EF-designet tilkommer designeren, medmindre den ved aftale er blevet overdraget til dennes retssuccessor.
A journalist had been charged with having publicly disseminated information about the properties and availability of a medicinal product the marketing of which is not authorised in all of the Member States.
Muligheden for ved aftale at overdrage rettigheder over EF-design fra designeren til dennes retssuccessor i®henhold til forordningens artikel®14, stk.®1, er nemlig i®overens-stemmelse med såvel artiklens ordlyd som med de formål, der forfølges med forordningen.
Directive 2001/83/EC (26) provides for a high degree of consumer protection in the area of information and advertising relating to medicinal products.
Tilpasningen af beskyttelsen af EF-design til de behov, der gør sig gældende inden for alle Fællesskabets økonomiske sektorer, gennem aftale om overdragelse af EF-design kan i®den forbindelse bidrage til en e©ektiv håndhævelse af de rettigheder, der tillægges et EF-design inden for hele Fællesskabet.
The Court was therefore asked how Article 86 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC (27), should be interpreted.
I®øvrigt vil en bedre beskyttelse af industriel formgivning ikke alene fremme de enkelte designeres bidrag til summen af Fællesskabets formåen på dette område, men også fremme innovation og udvikling af nye produkter samt investering i®produktion heraf.
It held that dissemination by a third party of information about a medicinal product, including its therapeutic or prophylactic properties, may be regarded as advertising within the meaning of that article, even though the third party in question is acting on his own initiative and completely independently, de jure and de facto, of the manufacturer and the seller of such a medicinal product.
Det påhviler imidlertid den nationale ret at efterprøve indholdet af en sådan aftale og i®den forbindelse om fornødent at fastslå, om rettighederne over det ikke-registrerede EF-design rent faktisk er blevet overdraget fra designeren til dennes retssuccessor, idet den i®forbindelse med den pågældende undersøgelse anvender lovgivningen om aftaler med henblik på at fastslå, hvem der i®overensstemmelse med forordningens artikel®14, stk.®1, er indehaver af det ikke-registrerede EF-design.
The Court added that it is for the national court to determine whether that dissemination constitutes a form of door-to-door information, canvassing activity or inducement designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or consumption of medicinal products.
Det fremgår således af denne bestemmelses ordlyd, at den første af de alternative betingelser sigter til en forudgående beskyttelse af et givent emne i®mindst én medlemsstat. Bestemmelsen forudsætter ikke, at denne medlemsstat er den, hvor beskyttelsen i®henhold samme direktiv®kræves.
In UTECA, the Court held that Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of tele-
Uanset at direktivet har
), more particularly Article 3
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv®2006/116/EF af 12.12.2006 om beskyttelsestiden for ophavsret og visse beslægtede rettigheder (EUT L®372, s.®12).
) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).