natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I. s. 4239), hvorefter "fastlreggelsen afkriterierne for erhvervelse og fortabelse af statsborgerskab t...1 efter folkeretten [horer] under medlemsstaternes kompetence, idet de herved skaloverholde fallesskabsretten" (premis 19). Med hensyn til rakkevidden af disse erklaringer udtalte Domstolen, at L97}-erklaringen, som Det ForenedeKongerige havde afgivet ved sin tiltreedelse af De Europriske Fellesskaber forat gore det klart, hvilke kategorier af personer der skulle anses for detsstatsborgere i fallesskabsretlig forstand, skulle inddrages som etfortolkningsinstrument med henblik pä at fastlegge traktatens personelleanvendelsesomräde. l982-erklaeringenudgar kun en tilpasning af 1972erkleringen.
Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss ofnationality' (paragraph 19). As to the effect of the declarations, the Court held that that the the
Blandt sagerne vedrsrende hjemmelssporgsmälskal n & vnes en sagangäende hjemmelen til indgäelse af en international aftale og en sagvedrorende trjemmelen for direktivet om retlig beskyttelse af bioteknologiskeopfindelser.
concerns concerns the the legal legal basis basis for for conclusion conclusion of of an an international international
Rädets direktiv 93 l96l B g F af 29.10.1993 om opholdsret for studerende (EFT L 317,s. 59).
Council Directive 93l96lEEC of 29 October L993on the right of residence for students(OJ1993 L3Ll,p.59).
I den fsrste sag (dom af 30.1.2001,sag C-36198, Spanien mod Rädet, Sml.
In CaseC-36198 Spain v Council [200U ECP.I-779,the Court dismissed anaction brought by the Kingdom of Spain for annulment of a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Convention on cooperation for the protectionand sustainable use of the river Danube,a adopted on the basis of Article175(1) EC.
I,s. 779) frifandt Domstolen Rädet i en sag, hvor Kongeriget Spanien havdenedlagt pästand om annullation af Rädets afgorelse om indgäelse afkonventionen om samarbejde om beskyttelse og beredygtig udnyttelse af Donau a, der var indgäet med hjemmel i artikel I75, stk. 1, EF. lfalgesagssgeren burde afgorelsen alene have vreret vedtaget med hjemmel i artikel175, stk. 2, EF, der bestemmer, at Rädet skal treffe afgorelse medenstemmighed, idet afgorelsen godkendte en konvention om forvaltning afvandressourcer i Donau-brekkenet.
In the applicant's submission, the decision should have been basedexclusively on Article L75(2) EC, under which the Council is to actunanimously, because it approved a Convention relating to the management of water resources in the basin of the river Danube.
Domstolen bekreftede valget af hjemmel og frifandt Rädet.Den fastlagde fsrstde respektiveanvendelsesomräder for artikel 175, stk. I og2, EF, og udtalte, at begrebet "forvaltning af vandressourcerne" i stk. 2 "ikke dakker enhverforanstaltning vedrsrende vand, men kun sigtertil foranstaltninger, som angär regulering af udnyttelsenaf vandomräderog disses forvaltning i kvantitativhenseende" (prremis 55).
The Court upheld the choice of legal basis and dismissed the action. Itdetermined first of all the respective scope of Article 175(1) EC and Article175(2) EC, concluding that the concept of 'management of water resources'referred to in the latter 'doesnot cover every measure concerned with water,but coversonly measures concerning the regulation of the use of water and themanagement of water in its quantitative aspects' (paragraph 55).
Derefter henviste den til, at när en retsakt har etdobbelt formäl eller bestär af to led, skal den vedtages med den hjemmel, der kreves til det vrsentligste eller fremherskendeformäl eller led. Efter enindgäende gennemgang af den pägreldende internationale konvention fastslog
It thenrecalled that where a measure pursuesa twofold purpose or has a twofoldcomponent, it must be founded on the basis required by the main orpredominant purpose or component.The Court deduced from a detailedexaminationof the international Convention that its 'primary purpose ... is theprotection and improvement of the quality of the waters of the catchment areaof the river Danube, although it also refers, albeit incidentally, to the use ofthose waters and their management in its quantitative aspects'.
Den udtalte derefter, at Rädet havde anvendt den rette hjemmel.
Accordingly,it concluded that the legal basis adopted by the Council was correct.
I den anden sag (dom af 9.10.2001, sag C-377198, Kongeriget Nederlandenemod Parlamentet og Rädet, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser) havde
In the second case (udgment of 9 October 2001 in CaseC-377198 Netherlandsv Parliament and Council, not yet published in the ECR), the Kingdom of theNetherlands sought the annulment of Directive 98l44lEC on the legalprotection of biotechnological inventions.
Kongeriget Nederlandene nedlagt pästand om annullation af direktiv 98l44lEF om retlig beskyttelse af bioteknologiske opfindelser 5.
5 This directive was adopted on thebasis of Article 95 EC and its purpose is to require the Member States toprotect biotechnological inventions through their patentlaws.
Direktivet, der varvedtaget med hjemmel i EF-traktatens artikel 95 EF, havde til formäl atpälregge medlemsstaterne at beskytte bioteknologiske opfindelser efter deresnationale patentret.
The Netherlandsput forward a number of pleas, including the allegedly incorrect choice of Article 95 EC as the legal basis for the directive, breach of the principle ofsubsidiarity and breach of the fundamental right to respect for humandignity. dignity.
Nederlandene fremforte en rakke anbringender,der bl.a.vedrorte fejlagtigt valg af artikel 95 EF som hjemmel for direktivet,tilsidesrettelse af subsidiaritetsprincippet og tilsidesaettelse af dengrundlreggende ret til respektfor den menneskeligeverdighed. verdighed.
Council Decision 97l825lEC of 24 November L997 concerning the conclusion of ttre
Rädets afgorelse 97/825/EF af 24.11.1997 om indgäelse af konventionen om samarbejdeom beskyttelse og baredygtig udnyttelse af Donau (EFT L 342,s. 18).
Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the river Danube(OJ1997 L342, p. 18)"
Europa-Parlamenrets og Rädets direktiv 98l44lEF af 6.7.1998 om retlig beskyttelse afbioteknologiske opfindelser (EFTL213, s. 13).
Directive 98144/ECof the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 onthe legal protection of biotechnologicainventl ions (OJ 1998L213, p. 13).
De sagsogte blev frifundet.
Its action was dismissed.
Med hensyn til anbringendet vedrorende fejlagtigtvalg af hjemmel henviste Domstolen til sin tidligere praksis, hvorefter artikel95 EF kan anvendes som hjemmel, när det er nsdvendigt med henblik pä atundgä, at der opstär päregneligefremtidige hindringer for samhandelen pä grund af en uensartetudvikling af de nationale lovgivninger fif. dom af5.10.2000,sag C-376198Tysk,land mod Parlamenteogt Rädet,Sml.I, s. 8419, premis 86).
So far as concerns the plea alleging that the legalbasis chosen was incorrect, the Court recalled its previous caselaw accordingto which Article 95 EC may be used as a legal basis where it is necessary to prevent prevent the the likely likely emergence emergence of of future future obstacles obstacles to to trade trade resulting resulting fromfrom multifarious development of national laws (see the judgment in CaseC-376198 C-376198
95 EF udgjorde säledes det rette hjemmelsgrundlag.
Therefore, Article 95 EC constituted the correct legal basis.
Med hensyn tilanbringendet vedrsrende subsidiaritetsprincippet udtalte Domstolen, atdirektivets formäl ikke kunne opfyldes alene ved indgrebpä faellesskabsniveau,Under hensyn til virkningerne af beskyttelsen af bioteknologiske opfindelserpä samhandelen inden for Frellesskabet kunne formälet bedstgennemfores päfellesskabsplan.
In In view view of of the the effects effects of of the the protection protection of of biotechnological biotechnological inventions inventions on on intraCommunity intraCommunity trade, trade, the the objective objective could could bebe better better achieved achieved by by the the
Direktivet var endvideretilstrekkeligt begrundet for sä vidtangik subsidiaritetsprincippet.
Community. Community.
For sä vidt angär anbringendet vedrsrende de grundleeggende rettigheder udtalte Domstolen, at det tilkommer den "ved efterprovelsen afoverensstemmelsen mellem institutionernes retsakter og fellesskabsrettens generelle principper at sorge for, at den grundlreggende ret til menneskeligverdighed og personersintegritet respekteres"(pramis 70).
Community Community law, law, to to ensure ensure that that the the fundamental fundamental right right to to humanhuman dignity and integrity is observed' (paragraph 70).
Den henvisteendvidere til de forskellige bestemmelser i direktivet og fastslog, at direktivetregulerer patentretten pä en tilstrrekkelig streng mäde til, at der fortsat ikkekan rädesover det menneskelige legeme,og at det ikke kan overdrages, og atden menneskelige vrerdighedsäledes beskyttes.
It noted the various provisions provisions of of the the directive directive and and concluded concluded that that the the latter latter frames frames the the law law onon patents patents in in a a manner manner sufficiently sufficiently rigorous rigorous to to ensure ensure that that the the human human body body effectively effectively remains remains unavailable unavailable and and inalienable inalienable and and that that human human dignity dignity is is thusthus safeguarded
For sä vidt angär äbenhedog aktindsigt i institutionernes dokumenterskal der henvisestil sagen Rädet mod Hautala (dom af 6.12.20A1,sag C-353199P, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser), der blev afsagt i enappelsag iverksat af Rädet til provelse af Rettens dom af 79.juli 1999 (sag T-14198, Hautala mod Rädet, Sml.
So far as concerns transparency and the principle of access to documents documents of of the the institutions, institutions, judgment judgment the the of of
II, s. 2489),der annullerede Rädets afgarelseom ikke at give Heidi Hautala aktindsigt i rapportenfra Rädets arbejdsgruppe
C-353199 P Councilv Hautala (not yet published in the ECR) should be noted.This judgment was delivered on an appeal brought by the Council against thejudgment of the Court of First Instance in CaseT-I4198 Hautala v Council t19991 ECR II-2489 which had annulled a Council decision refusing Ms
"Eksport af KonventionelleVäben" med den begrundelse, at offentliggsrelsekunne skade beskyttelsen af offentlige interesser. Domstolens dom stadfrestede bäde tvistens losning og Rettens tilgang til den, idet den forkastede alle Rädetsanbringender.
Hautala Hautala access access to to a a report report of of the the
I dommen fremheves det, atafgorclse93l731/EF om aktindsigt
The The underlined underlined that that
17 til slutakten til traktaten om Den Europreiske Union om retten til adgang til oplysninger.Afgorelsen angik säledes ikke kun aktindsigt i dokumenter som sädan, menogsä adgang til de oplysninger, de indeholder.
That decision thus does not concern only access todocuments as such, but also access to the information contained in them.
Ifolge Domstolen var oRädet ud fra proportionalitetsprincippet ogsä [...] forpligtet til at undersoge, om der kangives delvis aktindsigt i et dokument, der i ovrigt indeholder oplysninger, hvis offentliggsrelse kunne skade en af de interesser, der er beskyttet i henhold tilartikel 4, stk. I, i afgorelse 931731" (prremis 27). Domstolen fandt ikke, at detmed henblik pä afgorelsen af appelsagen var nsdvendigt at tage stilling til, om
TheCourt stated that 'the principle of proportionality also requires the Council toconsider partial access to a document which includes items of informationwhose disclosure wouldendanger one of the interests protected by Article 4(1)of Decision 931731'(paragraph 27).In determining this appeal, the Court didnot consider it necessary to decide whether the Court of First Instance hadbeen wrong in relying on the existence of a 'principle of the right toinformation' (paragraph 31).
Domstolen argumenterede kun ud fra en fortolkning af afgorclse 931731 pä baggrund af dens formäl og proportionalitetsprincippet.
It founded its reasoning simply on aninterpretation of Decision93/731, in the light of its objective and the principleof proportionality.
I sagen Ismeri Europa mod Revisionsretten (dom af 10.7.2001, sag C-315199 P, Sml. I, s. 5281) havde selskabet Ismeri Europaivrerksat appel tilprovelse af dom afsagt den 15. juni 1999 af Retten i Fsrste Instans i sag T-
In Case C-3I5/99 P Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [200U ECRl-528I, the company Ismeri Europa brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-277 /97 Ismeri Europa v Court of
, Ismeri Europa mod Revisionsretten havde frifundet Revisionsretten for Ismeri's pästand om tilkendelse aferstatning for det tab, selskabet havdede at have lidt pä grund af den kritik afdet, som Revisionsretten fremfsrte i sin serberetning nr. 1196 Underappelsagen fremfsrte Ismeri Europa seks anbringender til ststte for annullation,som alle blev forkastet af Domstolen, der stadfastede Rettens dom.
Auditors U9991 ECR II-1825, in which the Court of First Instance haddismissed its application for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by it as a result of criticisms made against it by the Court of Auditors in Special Report No 1/96. 7 In its appeal, Ismeri Europa put forward six pleas for annulment, all rejected by the Court of Justice which upheld the judgment of the Court ofFirst Instance.
Selv om vedtagelsen og offentliggsrelsen af Revisionsrettensberetninger ikke udgor beslutninger, som direkte pävirker de heri naevntepersoners rettigheder, kan de have sädanne folger for dem, at de pägeldendeskal have mulighed for at fremsrette bemarkninger vedrsrende de punkter iberetningerne, hvori de omtales med navns nrevnelse, for disse vedtagesendeligt. Domstolen fandt imidlertid, at Revisionsretten i den foreliggende sagpä grund af äbenbar og grov tilsidesettelse af reglerne om god forvaltning ikke
Although the adoption and publication of reports of theCourt of Auditors are not decisions directly affecting the rights of personsmentioned in such reports, they are capable of having consequences for thosepersons such that those concerned must be ableto make observations on thepoints in the reports which refer to them by name, before the reports aredefinitively drawn up.
Rädets afgorelse 93/73llEF af 2O.12.1993 om aktindsigt i Rädets dokumenter (EFTL 340, s. 43).
Council Decision 93l73IlEC of 20 December 1993 on public access to Councildocuments (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43).
Revisionsrettens srerberetning nr. 1/96om MED-programmerne, der blev vedtaget den30.5.1996(EFTC 240,s. 1).
Special Report No 1/96 of the Court of Auditors on the MED programmes, adopted on30 May 1996 (OJ 1996 C 240, p. 1).
efter en horing af Ismeri Europa ville have aendret sit synspunkt omhensigtsmressigheden af at omtale Ismeri med navns nevnelse i sin beretning,Domstolen fandt ogsä, at det pä grund af serlige omstendigheder, säsomtilsidesettelsens grovhed eller risikoen for en sammenblanding, der kan v & reskadelig for tredjemands interesser, kunne v & re berettiget, at Revisionsretteni sine beretninger omtalte personer med navns nrevnelse, som i princippet ikkeer undergivet dens kontrolbefojelse, forudsat de pägreldende er indrsmmet rettil kontradiktion.
Court Court also also held held that that there there may may bebe specific circumstances, such as the gravity of the facts or the risk of confusionliable to harm the interests of third parties, allowing the Court of Auditors to mention mention by by name name in in its its reports reports persons persons who who in in principle principle are are not not subject subject to to itsits supervision, provided that such persons have the right to a hearing.In such a case case it it is is for for judicature judicature the the
Det tilkommer i sä fald Retten at vurdere, om det henset tilformälet med beretningens offentliggsrelse er nodvendigt og ioverensstemmelse med proportionalitetskravetat nevne de pägreldendes navne.
Community Community to to assess assess whether whether the the naming naming of of persons persons is is necessary necessary and and proportionate proportionate to to the the objective objective pursued pursued by by publicationpublication of the report.
Sagen PreussenElektra (dom af 13.3.200I, sag C-379198,Sml. I, s,2099) vedrartefrie varebevegelser, men havde ogsä et aspektaf statsststte, dervil blive behandlet nedenfor i afsnit 10.
CaseC-379198 PreussenElelara l200ll ECR I-2099relates to the freemovement of goods,while also having a State aid dimensionwhich will be dealt with in section 10 below.
I den pägreldende sag rejste en tysk retsporgsmälet, om en tysk lov, der forpligtede elforsyningsvirksomheder til atkobe strom fremstillet i deres forsyningsomräde fra vedvarende energikilderog til at betale en i loven fastsat minimumspris for dennestrsm, var foreneligmed frellesskabsretten.
In this case, a German court was unsure as tothe compatibility with Community law of German legislation which obliged electricity electricity supply supply undertakings undertakings to to purchase purchase the the electricity electricity produced produced in in their their area area of of supply supply from from renewable renewable energy energy sources sources and and to to pay pay for for it it in in accordance accordance withwith a a statutory statutory minimum minimum price. price.
Den nationale ret forelagde en prcjudiciel anmodningom fortolkning af artikel 28 EF og artikel 87 EF.
The The national national court court sought sought a a preliminary preliminary ruling ruling onon the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 87 EC.
For sä vidt angär de frie varebevaegelser fastslog Domstolen for det fsrste, atden tyske lovgivning i hvert fald potentielt udgjorde en hindring for handelen inden for Frllesskabet.Imidlertid fortsatte den med at udtale,at "med henblikpä at afgare,om en sädan kobsforpligtelse alligevel er forenelig med [artikel
So far as concerns the free movement of goods,the Court found first of allthat the German legislation constituted, at least potentially, an obstacle to intraCommunity trade.
28 EFl, mä der tages hensyn dels til den pägaeldende ordningsformäl, dels tilelektricitetsmarkedets kendetegn" (prremis 72).
However, it then stated that, 'in order to determine whether such a purchase obligation is nevertheless compatible with Article [28 EC],account must be taken, first, of the aim of the provision in question, and, second, of the particular features of the electricitymarket' (paragraph 72).Such a provision is designed to protect the environment and the health and life of of humans, humans, animals animals and and plants. plants.
Endvidere anfsrte Domstolen, at pä grund afelektricitetens kendetegn er det - när elektriciteten fsrst er blevet indfsrt itransmissions- eller distributionsnettet vanskeligt at bestemme densoprindelse og saerligt den energikilde, pä grundlag af hvilken den erfremstillet.
Court Court observed observed that that the the nature nature of electricity is such that, onceit has been allowed into the transmission ordistribution system, it is difficult to determine its origin and in particular thesource of energy from which it wasproduced.
Domstolen henviste tillige til et direktivforslagfra Kommissionen,der var af den opfattelse,at indfsrelsen i hver medlemsstat af en ordning medoprindelsescertifikater for elektricitet fremstillet fra vedvarende energikilder,der skulle anerkendes gensidigt af medlemsstaterne, var nodvendig for at sikre,at handelen med denne type elektricitet forlsb pälideligt og var praktisk mulig.
It also referred to a proposal fora a directive directive in in which which the the Commission Commission had had taken taken the the view view that that thetheimplementation in each Member State of a system of certificates of origin forelectricity produced from renewable sources, capable of being the subject of mutual mutual recognition, recognition, was was essential essential in in order order to to make make trade trade in in that that type type of of electricity both reliable and possible in practice.The Court concluded from all
Under hensyn hertil fastslog Domstolen, at "pä det nuvaerende udviklingstrinaf fellesskabsrettens bestemmelser vedrsrende elektricitetsmarkedet" var den tyske ordning ikke uforenelig med artikel 28 EF (pramis 81).
Community Community law law concerningconcerning the electricity market', the German legislation was not incompatible withArticle 28 EC (paragraph 81).
I sagen Gourmet International Products (dom af 8.3.2001, sagC-405/98, Sml.I, s. L795)udtalte Domstolen, at traktatens bestemmelser om varernesfrie frie bevegelighed og den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser ikke var til hinder foret forbud i svensklovgivning mod kommercielle annoncerfor alkoholholdigedrikkevarer i tidsskrifter, medmindre det fremgik, at hensynettil beskyttelsenaf den offentlige sundhed mod de skadeligevirkninger af alkohol kan varetagesved foranstaltninger, der i mindre grad pävirker samhandelen inden for Frellesskabet.
In Case C-405198 Gourmet International Products [2001] ECR I-1795, theCourt ruled that the Treaty provisions relating to the free movement of goods and the freedom to provideseryices do not preclude a prohibition,imposed byswedish legislation, on the advertising of alcoholic beverages in periodicals,unless it is apparent that the protection of public health against the harmfuleffects of alcoholcan be ensured by measures having less effect on intra-
Domstolen skulle ogsä tage stilling til, om retspraksis frafortilfeldet Keck og Mithouard (dom af 24.11.1993, forenede sager C-267191 og C-268l91, Sml.
Joined Cases C-267/9I andC-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097was applicable in the case in point.
I, s. 6097) kunne anvendes i sagen.Ifolge Domstolenvardet en betingelse for, at nationale bestemmelser, der begrenser eller forbyderbestemte former for salg, falder uden for anvendelsesomrädet for artikel 28EF, at de ikke mätte kunne forhindre, at varer fra en anden medlemsstat fikadgang til markedet, eller medfsre stsrre ulemper i denne henseende end forindenlandsk fremstillede varer.
The Court stated that, if national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements are to avoidbeing caughtby Article 28 EC, they must not be of such a kind as to preventaccess to the market by products from another Member State or to impedeaccess any more than they impede the access of domestic products.
Domstolen fandt, at forbuddet - idet der vartale om varer som alkoholholdige drikkevarer, hvis indtagelseer knyttet tilsamfundsmassige traditioner samt til skik og brug og lokale sedvaner- modenhver reklame over for forbrugerne gennem annoncer i pressenkan medfsrestsrre ulemper for adgangen til markedet for varer med oprindelse i andremedlemsstater end for indenlandskevarer.
It heldthat, in the case of products like alcoholicbeverages, the consumption ofwhich is linked to traditional social practices and to local habits and customs,a prohibition of all advertising directed at consumers in the form of advertisements in the press is liable to impede access to the market by productsfrom other Member States more than it impedes access by domestic products.
Fortolkningen af reglerne om frieudveksling af tjenesteydelser er i storetrek den samme.
The Court's interpretation of the rules concerning the freedom to provideservices was broadly similar.
Domstolen näede fremtil, at der forelä en hindring, og tog derved hensyn til, at reklamemarkedet eraf international karakter.
In concluding that there was an obstacle to thatfreedom, the Court took account of the international nature of theadvertisins advertisins market.
For sä vidt angär den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser skal nrevnessagerne Vanbraekel m.fl. og Smits og Peerbooms (domme af 12.7.2001, henholdsvissag C-368/98 og C-L57199S,rnl.I, s.5363 og s.5473).
So far as concerns the freedom to provide services, Case C-368/98
Sagerneligger i forlengelse af Decker-dommen (dom af 28.4.1998, sag C-120195,Srnl. I, s. 1831)og Kohll-dommen(domaf 28.4.1998, sag C-158196, Sml.
Vqnbraekel and Others [2001] ECR I-5363 and CaseC-L57/99 Smitsand and