natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter afsigelsen af Browndommen indførte traktaten om Den Europæiske Union unionsborgerskabet i EF-traktaten og indsatte i dennes tredje del, afsnit VIII, et kapitel 3, som bl.a. omhandler uddannelse og erhvervsuddannelse.
Thus, Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, in so far as it concerns the compatibility of subsidies or aid with the common market, is implemented by Decision No 3632/93, so that, to that extent, that provision has no independent application and therefore no direct effect.
Intet i den således ændrede traktattekst gør det muligt at antage, at de studerende, som er unionsborgere, ikke har de rettigheder, som ved traktaten er tillagt unionsborgerne, når de rejser til en anden medlemsstat for dér at fortsætte studierne.
By its second question, the national court asks essentially whether Article 4(b) and (c) of the ECSC Treaty or Article 9(1) and (4) of Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry directly produce rights in favour of individuals which the national courts are required to safeguard, and whether Banks may rely on those provisions in order to defend non-payment or claim repayment of the royalties to which it has been made subject.
Desuden har Rådet efter afsigelsen af Browndommen ligeledes udstedt direktiv 93/96, som fastsætter, at medlemsstaterne skal give opholdsret til studerende, som er statsborgere i en medlemsstat, og som opfylder visse betingelser.
Articles 8 and 9 of Decision No 3632/93 confer an exclusive power on the Commission to assess the compatibility of aid with the criteria laid down by that decision. It follows that, in the absence of a Commission decision, individuals cannot challenge the compatibility of aid measure before the national courts.
Den omstændighed, at en unionsborger fortsætter sine universitetsstudier i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvori han er statsborger, kan derfor ikke i sig selv afskære ham fra muligheden for at påberåbe sig forbuddet i traktatens artikel 6 mod enhver i nationaliteten begrundet forskelsbehandling.
The Court must reject at the outset the argument of the Coal Authority and the United Kingdom Government that Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty constitutes a specific rule which prevents the provisions in question of Article 4 from being applicable independently.
Ved blot at stille krav om en sådan erklæring adskiller direktiv 93/96 sig fra direktiverne 90/364 og 90/365, der indeholder oplysninger om det mindstebeløb, som de af de to sidstnævnte direktiver omfattede personer skal råde over. Disse forskelle skyldes de særlige kendetegn ved studerendes ophold i forhold til opholdet for dem, der er omfattet direktiverne 90/364 og 90/365.
However, Article 9(1) of Decision No 3632/93 requires Member States to notify the Commission of all the financial measures which they intend to take in favour of the coal industry, whereas the first sentence of Article 9(4) does not authorise them to put planned aid into effect until it has been approved by the Commission.
Dette forbud skal i det foreliggende tilfælde, som anført i præmis 30, læses i sammenhæng med traktatens artikel 8 A, stk. 1, som fastslår »ret til at færdes og opholde sig frit på medlemsstaternes område med de begrænsninger og på de betingelser, der er fastsat i denne traktat og i gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil«.
Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty provides in particular that, if the Commission considers that a State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the ECSC Treaty, it is to record that failure in a reasoned decision after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its comments.
Denne fortolkning udelukker imidlertid ikke, at værtsmedlemsstaten finder, at en studerende, der er tildelt en bistandsydelse, ikke længere opfylder de betingelser, som gælder for hans opholdsret, og under iagttagelse af de grænser, der herved er fastlagt i fællesskabsretten, træffer
It follows from the above that Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, in so far as it concerns the compatibility of aid with the common market, does not have direct effect. However, the first sentence of Article 9(4) of Decision No 3632/93
Kun undtagelsesvis vil Domstolen under anvendelse af et almindeligt retssikkerhedsprincip, der er knæsat i Fællesskabets retsorden, finde anledning til at begrænse borgernes mulighed for at påberåbe sig den således fortolkede bestemmelse med henblik på anfægtelse af tidligere i god tro stiftede retsforhold.
By its third question, the national court asks whether, in the event of the second question being answered in the affirmative, a national court is entitled to hold that there has been discrimination, within the meaning of Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, or aid within the meaning of Article 4(c) of that Treaty and Article 1 of Decision No 3632/93, notwithstanding:
Under hensyn til besvarelsen af det første spørgsmål, og da andet spørgsmål er blevet forelagt subsidiært, er det ufornødent at besvare dette.
In the case at issue in the main proceedings, Banks is not claiming that aid should be repaid, but is asking to be exonerated from royalties.
De tidsmæssige virkninger af denne dom
the adoption of Decision 94/995;
I denne sag har den belgiske regering til støtte for sin anmodning om en begrænsning af dommens tidsmæssige virkninger ikke påberåbt sig noget forhold, der kan godtgøre, at en objektiv og betydelig usikkerhed vedrørende rækkevidden af traktatens bestemmelser om unionsborgerskabet, der var trådt i kraft den 1. november 1993, havde forledt de nationale myndigheder til at følge en adfærd, som ikke var i overensstemmelse med disse bestemmelser.
Despite the negative answer given to the second part of the national court's second question, and bearing in mind the interest which the defendant in the main proceedings may have in nevertheless securing a finding of the existence of discrimination and aid within the meaning set forth above, the Court considers that it may be useful to reply to the third question.
I sit skriftlige indlæg har den belgiske regering anmodet om, at Domstolen, såfremt den måtte antage, at en person som sagsøgeren i hovedsagen kan blive omfattet af minimex, begrænser dommens tidsmæssige virkninger.
Article 66(2) provides in particular that, in its assessment of an operation and in accordance with the principle of nondiscrimination laid down in Article 4(b), the Commission is to take account of the size of like undertakings in the Community, to the extent that it considers justified in order to avoid or correct disadvantages resulting from unequal competitive conditions.
»EF-traktatens artikel 6 og 8 (efter ændring nu artikel 12 EF og 17 EF) er til hinder for, at tildeling af en social ydelse i henhold til en ikkebidragspligtig ordning, såsom ydelsen til sikring af et eksistensminimum i henhold til artikel 1 i den belgiske lov af 7. august 1974, for så vidt angår statsborgerne fra andre medlemsstater end den værtsmedlemsstat, på Avis område nævnte statsborgere har lovligt ophold, er undergivet den betingelse, at de er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet, selv om der ikke gælder en sådan betingelse for værtsmedlemsstatens statsborgere.«
As regards these issues, it is clear from the Court's answer to the second question that the national courts have jurisdiction to make a finding of the existence of discrimination between producers, within the meaning of Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, and of aid, within the meaning of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty and Article 1 of Decision No 3632/93.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenumt den 28. september 2000.
It is therefore necessary, as a preliminary, to examine the content of those decisions.
Han foreslog Domstolen at svare således:
It follows that Article 67 of the ECSC Treaty is not designed to implement Article 4(b) either.
»Ved besvarelsen af spørgsmålet, om en fællesskabsborger har krav på en eksistensminimumsydelse, skal det for det første undersøges, om den pågældende er arbejdstager i fællesskabsretlig forstand, og om han i kraft af denne status har krav på samme behandling som statens egne statsborgere.
The Commission did not adopt a position, in any of the decisions referred to by the national court, as to the compatibility of the royalty system in question with the ECSC Treaty.
Det er som udgangspunkt ikke foreneligt med fællesskabsretten, navnlig med principperne om unionsborgerskab og forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling i EF-traktatens artikel 6 og 8 (efter ændring nu artikel 12 EF og 17 EF), såfremt et krav på en ikkebidragspligtig social ydelse, såsom kravet ifølge den belgiske lov af 7. august 1974 om en ydelse til sikring af eksistensminimum, ikke tilkommer samtlige unionsborgere, i hvilken forbindelse ligebehandlingsprincippet imidlertid finder anvendelse inden for
It follows from the above that the ECSC Treaty does not contain more specific rules than Article 4(b), in so far as that provision covers discrimination between producers. Therefore, that provision applies independently.
snævre grænser, navnlig således at denne grænse nås, hvor afhængighed af socialhjælp medfører opholdsrettens ophør.«
decisions does not preclude Banks from pleading, in proceedings before the national courts, infringement of Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty in so far as it concerns discrimination between producers, or infringement of the first sentence of Article 9(4) of Decision No 3632/93.
»Appel —formaliteten — EF-varemærker —förordning (EF) nr. 40/94 - absolut hindring for registrering — fornødent særpræg — varemærker som udelukkende består af tegn eller angivelser, der kan tjene til at betegne varens anvendelse — ordsammensætningen Baby-dry« (Domstolens plenum)
By the first part of its fourth question, the national court asks whether the fact that Banks or NALOO did not bring any annulment action under Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty against Decision 94/995, the Decision of 21 December 1994, or the letters of 4 May and 14 July 1995 precludes Banks from raising alleged breaches of Article 4(b) or (c) of the ECSC Treaty, or of Decision No 3632/93, before the national courts.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
The first part of the fourth question
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenumi den 5. april 2001.
As the answer to the second question has shown, the national courts have jurisdiction to assess whether there has been a breach of Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, in so far as it concerns discrimination between producers, and of Article 9(4) of Decision No 3632/93.
Præjudiciel •EF-traktatens artikel 85 (nu artikel 81 EF) — eksklusivaftale om køb af øl —forpagtning af udskænkningssteder — aftale — en aftaleparts ret til erstatning«
It follows that the fact that Banks or NALOO did not bring an annulment action against those
Ved kendelse af 16. juli 1999, indgået til Domstolen den 30. november 1999, har Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) forelagt fire præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 85 (nu artikel 81 EF) og andre fællesskabsbestemmelser. Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag anlagt af selskabet Courage Ltd mod B. Crehan, der er restauratør, angående ubetalte leverancer af øl til sidstnævnte.
A situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as from the time of the transfer of the shares of the Crown-owned companies which succeeded British Coal Corporation as operator to the successful private tendering undertakings, does not reveal the existence of aid or special charges within the meaning of Article 4(c) of the Treaty, or discrimination between producers, within the meaning of Article 4(b) of the Treaty, since access to the various means of acquiring the lease and licence rights was not, and is not, discriminatory.
11993 anlagde sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, Courage, sag mod sagsøgte i hovedsagen, B. Crehan, med påstand om betaling af 15 266 GBP for ubetalte ølleverancer.
On the other hand, Article 4(c) of the Treaty, in so far as it concerns the compatibility of aid with the common market, does not itself create such rights.
B. Crehan bestred på den ene side grundlaget for sagsanlægget, idet han gjorde gældende, at købsforpligtelsen var i strid med traktatens artikel 85, mens han på den anden side fremsatte et modkrav om erstatning.
However, the national courts have jurisdiction to interpret the concept of aid for the purposes of Article 4(c) of the Treaty and Article 1 of Decision No 3632/93, with a view to drawing the consequences from any infringement of the first sentence of Article 9(4) ofthat decision.
Han gjorde gældende, at denne prisforskel formindskede rentabiliteten af virksomheden for de forpagtere, der var undergivet en sådan klausul og tvang dem ud af markedet.
of Decision 94/995/ECSC of 3 November 1994 ruling on financial measures by the United Kingdom in respect of the coal industry in the 1994/95 and 1995/96 financial years, of the Decision of 21 December 1994 authorising the acquisition of Central and Northern Mining Ltd by RJB Mining (UK) pic, and of the decisions contained in the letters of 4 May and 14 July 1995 sent to the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators in reply to the complaint by that association of 19 August 1994.
I 1990 indgik bryggeriet Courage, der i Det Forenede Kongerige har en markedsandel på 19 % af markedet for salg af øl, og Grand Metropolitan (herefter »Grand Met«), et selskab der driver forskellige former for virksomhed inden for hotel- og restaurationsbranchen, en aftale om sammenlægning af de udskænkningssteder, som disse selskaber bortforpagter (herefter »pubberne«).
'The difference in the amounts effectively charged for coal-mining licences and coal-reserve leases complained of in the defence and counterclaim in the main proceedings is not capable of constituting discrimination between producers within Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, a special charge within Article 4(c) of that Treaty, or aid within Article 4(c) of the same Treaty or within Article 1 of Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry.
Courage og Grand Met overdrog med dette formål for øje hver især deres pubber til selskabet Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd (herefter »IEL«), som de ejer i lige forhold.
In the alternative, should the Court take the view that the difference in treatment complained of is capable of coming within one of the abovementioned provisions, I would propose that the Court rule that, in the circumstances of the present case, Article 4(b) or, as the case may be, Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty is directly effective and enforceable before national courts.
Ifølge en aftale indgået mellem IEL og Courage var IEL's forpagtere forpligtet til udelukkende at købe øl af Courage.
In such circumstances, I would also recommend that the Court give a positive response to the third question referred by the Court of Appeal and reply in the negative to the fourth question, in so far as those questions relate to discrimination or to special charges.'
Courage skulle levere bestilte mængder af øl til gældende listepris i de pubber, der var bortforpagtet af IEL.
Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk ν Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve Principles of Community law
Den standardforpagtningsaftale, som Courage, Grand Met og disses datterselskaber anvendte, blev anmeldt til Kommissionen i 1992.
Preliminary ruling (Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive 93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allowance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign student who has met his own living expenses during the first years of his studies) (Full Court) taking on various minor jobs and by obtaining credit facilities.
I 1993 offentliggjorde Kommissionen i medfør af artikel 19, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikler 85 og 86 (EFT 1959-1962, s. 81), en meddelelse om, at den påtænkte at meddele fritagelse i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
By judgment of 7 May 1999, the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) and Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59).
IEL pålagde sine forpagtere en standardforpagtningsaftale.
At the beginning of his fourth and final year of study, he applied to the CPAS for payment of the minimex.
Mens størrelsen af forpagtningsafgiften kunne være genstand for forhandling med den potentielle forpagter, var den eksklusive købsforpligtelse og de øvrige kontraktbestemmelser ikke til forhandling.
For those reasons, by decision of 16 October 1998, the CPAS granted Mr Grzelczyk the minimex, calculated at the 'single' rate, for the period from 5 October 1998 to 30 June 1999.
Anmeldelsen blev tilbagekaldt i oktober 1997, efter at IEL var begyndt at anvende en ny standardforpagtningsaftale, der ligeledes blev anmeldt til Kommissionen.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Mr Rudy Grzelczyk and the Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (Public Social Assistance Centre for Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, hereinafter 'the CPAS') concerning the CPAS's decision to stop payment of the 'minimex', the minimum subsistence allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'the minimex').
Ifølge den forelæggende ret er det efter engelsk ret ikke muligt for en part i en ulovlig aftale at kræve erstatning af den anden part.
The CPAS applied to the Belgian State authorities for reimbursement of the minimex paid to Mr Grzelczyk.
Det følger heraf, at selv om B. Crehan måtte få medhold i sit anbringende om, at den af ham indgåede aftale er i strid med traktatens artikel 85, vil hans erstatningssøgsmål ifølge engelsk ret blive afvist.
The competent federal minister, however, refused to reimburse the CPAS on the ground that the legal requirements for the grant of the minimex, and in particular the nationality requirement, had not been satisfied, whereupon the CPAS withdrew the minimex from Mr Grzelczyk with effect from 1 January 1999, for the stated reason that the person concerned is an EEC national enrolled as a student'.
B. Crehan og IEL indgik i 1991 to 20-årige forpagtningsaftaler indeholdende en købsforpligtelse til fordel for Courage.
In 1995 Mr Grzelczyk, a French national, began a course of university studies in physical education at the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve and for that purpose took up residence in Belgium.
kan støtte ret på egne ulovlige handlinger med henblik på at opnå erstatning.
Belgian legislation with Community law, and in particular with Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the Treaty.
For det tilfælde, at fællesskabsretten er til hinder for en sådan national regel, ønsker den forelæggende ret med sit fjerde spørgsmål oplyst, hvilke omstændigheder, der skal tages i betragtning ved efterprøvelsen af grundlaget for et sådant erstatningskrav.
That being so, the Court must answer its questions as they have been framed and within the limits set by the national court.
Court of Appeal har i øvrigt i en dom, der er afsagt forud for beslutningen om forelæggelse, og uden at have fundet det nødvendigt at forelægge dette spørgsmål for Domstolen, fastslået, at traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, har til formål at beskytte tredjemænd, konkurrenter og forbrugere, men ikke parterne i en ulovlig aftale, da disse ikke er ofre for, men ophavsmænd til konkurrencebegrænsningen.
It is for the national court to determine, in the light, in particular, of the Opinion of the Advocate General, whether or not the facts and circumstances of the case are such as to permit Mr Grzelczyk to be regarded as a worker for the purposes of Community law.
Court of Appeal er desuden i tvivl om, hvorvidt det er i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten, at de af B. Crehan rejste krav vil blive afvist efter engelsk ret.
Mr Grzelczyk challenged that decision before the Labour Tribunal, Nivelles.
Det bemærkes for det første, at der ved traktaten er indført en særlig retsorden, som er integreret i medlemsstaternes retssystemer, og som skal anvendes af deres domstole.
The tribunal observed that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the minimex is a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community and that, under Belgian law, entitlement to the minimex had been extended to persons to whom Regulation No 1612/68 applies.
Retssubjekterne herfor er ikke blot medlemsstaterne, men også disses statsborgere. Fællesskabsretten pålægger således ikke blot borgerne forpligtelser, men giver dem også rettigheder, som dermed bliver en del af de rettigheder, der som helhed tilkommer borgerne.
It pointed out, however, that Mr Grzelczyk did not, in the CPAS's view, satisfy all the requirements for claiming the minimex under its extended scope since his student status prevented him from being regarded as a worker and his residence in Belgium was not attributable to operation of the principle of free movement of workers.
Disse rettigheder består ikke blot, når de udtrykkeligt er indrømmet i traktaten, men også, når traktaten pålægger private, medlemsstaterne eller Fællesskabets institutioner entydige forpligtelser.
The Labour Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-85/96 Martinez Sala and queried whether the principles of European citizenship and nondiscrimination precluded application of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.
For det andet bemærkes, at traktatens artikel 85 efter EF-traktatens artikel 3, litra g) (efter ændring nu artikel 3, stk. 1, litra g), EF) udgør en grundlæggende bestemmelse, der er nødvendig for udførelsen af de opgaver, som er blevet overdraget til Fællesskabet, og navnlig for det indre markeds funktion.
By its first question, the Belgian court asks essentially whether Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of Regulation No 1612/68 when no such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State.
Court of Appeal har anført, at hvis det antages, at fællesskabsretten indrømmer en part i en aftale, der kan begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen, en retslig beskyttelse, der svarer til beskyttelsen efter amerikansk ret, medfører dette en mulig konflikt mellem princippet om medlemsstaternes frie adgang til at fastsætte de processuelle bestemmelser, der skal gælde i deres retsorden, og princippet om fællesskabsrettens ensartede anvendelse.
In those circumstances, the Labour Tribunal, Nivelles, recognising the urgency of Mr Grzelczyk's situation, granted him a flat-rate allowance of BEF 20 000 per month for the period from 1 January 1999 to 30 June 1999 and stayed the proceedings in order to refer certain questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Under disse omstændigheder har Court of Appeal besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål.
In order to place the legal problem raised by this case in its context, it should be recalled that, in Case 249/83 Hoeckx, concerning an unemployed Dutch national returning to Belgium where she made a fresh application for the minimex, the Court held that a social benefit providing a general guarantee of a minimum subsistence allowance, such as that provided for by the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974, constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Regulation No 1612/68.