natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Et sädant bevis anses for fart, säfremt detunder hensyn til de okonomiske betingelser, hvorunder denne opgave afalmindelig akonomisk interesse hidtil er blevetudfort, er godtgjort, at den
In accordance with these principles, the suspension requestedwould be justified if it appeared that, without such a measure, the applicantwould be in a situation which might jeopardise its very existence.However, However,
Bl,a. kendelse afsagt af Rettens president den 15.1,2001 , Stauner m.fl. mod Parlamentetog Kommissionen (nevnt ovenfor), og kendelser afsagt af Rettens prasident den5.t2.2001, sag T-216101 R (appelsag C477l0l P(R)),Reisebank mod Kommissionen,og sag T-2I9l0l R (appelsag C480/01 P(R)),Commercbank mod Kommissionen, endnuikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser.
Orders of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 Januaryz0/0^l in Case T2 36 / 00 R Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR tr-15, andof 26 January 2001 in Case T-353/00 R Le Pen v Parliament [2001] ECR lI-125.
2001/176lEF af 21.12.2000 om en procedure i henhold til
September 2001 in Case T-L32_BAR_0L R Euroalliages and Others v Commission and of 8October 2001 in Case T-236/00 RII Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission,not yet published in the ECR.
EF-traktatens artikel 86 vedrsrende en rakke nye posttjenester i Italien i form afgaranteret levering pä bestemte dage eller tidspunkter (EFT 2001 L 63, s. 59).
Commission Decision 200LlL76lEC of 2I December 2000 concerning proceedingspursuant to Article 86 of the EC Treaty in relation to the provision of certain new postal services with a guaranteed day- or time-certain delivery in Italy (OJ200LL63, p. 59).
pägeldende eneret er fuldstandig uundvrerlig for eneretsindehaverens udfsrelseaf en sädan opgave.Da sagsogeren ikke havdefsrt et sädant bevis, og dainteresseafuejningen faldt ud til fordel for en opretholdelse af den omtvistedebeslutning, kunne den omhandlede begaring ikke imsdekommes.
The case leading to the order in Duales system Deutschland v commission, dismissing the application for suspension of operation, raised a problem of a st different nature. By decision of 20 April 200l, the commission found that
Den sag, der gav anledning til kendelsen i ovenn & vnte sag Duales System Deutschland mod Kommissionen, som forkastede begaringen om udsrettelse afgennemforelsen, rejste et problemaf en anden type.
Duales System Deutschland (DSD), the only company
Ved beslutning af 20.april 2001 5r fastslog Kommissionen, at selskabet Der Grüne Punkt - DualesSystem Deutschland (DSD), der var det eneste selskab, der pä heledet tyske territorium drev en ordning, der kaldtes "kollektiy", til indsamling af brugtsalgsemballage hos den endelige forbruger eller nrerved sidstnevntes boprel, havde tilsidesat sin dominerende stilling som omhandlet i artikel 82 EF, idetden pälagde de virksomheder, der var tilsluttet dens ordning, urimelige priser og forretningsbetingelser, när anvendelsen af meerket "Der Grüne Punkt", somskulle fremtrede pä enhver emballage fra de tilmeldte virksomheder, ikke havde sammenhreng med den faktiske brug af DSD's fritagelsesydelse.
'collective' operating throughout Germany a system for the recovery of used sales packaging from the final consumer or from near the consumer's home,abused its dominant position within the meaning of Article 82EC by imposingon undertakings participating in its system unfair prices and contractualconditions where the use of the 'Der Grüne Punkt' logo, which should appearon all the packaging of the participating undertaking, did not signiff that DSDin fact discharged the obligation to dispose of waste.
Det skal understreges, at m & rket "Der Grüne Punkt" er et frellesmarke, der erlovligt registreret hos de tyske myndigheder,
It should be pointed outthat the 'Der Grüne Punkt' trade mark is a collective trade mark dulyregistered with the German authorities.
I sin kendelse afgrrensede Rettens prresident fsrst det vesentligste problem iden for Retten anlagte sag.
In its order, the judge hearing the application for interim relief first outlinedthe essential issue in the case before him.
Han fandt, at sagen fsrst og fremmest rejstesporgsmälet offi, hvorvidt den af indehaveren af varemeerket indfsrteafgiftsordning var begrundet i nsdvendigheden af at bevare denne rets srerligegenstand, eller formuleret anderledes, sporgsmälet om hvorvidtvarem & rkeretten under de i sagen foreliggende omstendigheder blev anvendtaf DSD som et instrument til at udnytteselskabets dominerende stilling pä enurimelig mäde.Den grundige undersogelse, som afgorelsen af de sporgsmäI,der var forbundet med denne problematik, forudsatte, kunne imidlertid ikkeforetage af Rettens prresident inden for rammerne af en forelobig undersogelsezf, om de fremfsrte retlige anbringender forekom begrundede.
He took the view, in that regard,that the principal question it raised was whether the licensingscheme imposedby the owner of the trade mark was justified by the need to preservethe the specific subject-matter of that right or, to put it anotherway, whether, in thecircumstances of the present case, the trade mark was used by DSD as a means of abusing its dominantposition.
Herefterundersogte Retten, om en umiddelbar gennemforelse af den omtvistedebeslutning ville medfsre en alvorlig og uoprettelig skade for sagsogeren, ogfastslog, at beviset for, at denumiddelbare gennemfsrelse ville bringe DSD'sordning i fare, ikke var blevet fsrt.
The indepth study needed to resolve thosequestions could not, however, be carried out by the judge hearing theapplication for interim measures in an examination of the merits, primafacie,
Kommissionens beslutning 2001/463lEF af 20.4.2001 om en procedure i henhold til EF+raktatens artikel 82 (sagCOMP D3/34493 - DSD) (EFT L 166,s. 1).
Commission Decision 200I1463/EC of 20 April 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuantto Article 82 of the EC Treaty (CaseCOMP D3134493DSD) (OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1).
forbundet med gennemfarelsen af en kommissionsbeslutning vedtaget medhjemmel i artikel 82 EF, og interesserne for de i sagen intervenerende parter,der ville blive umiddelbart berort af en eventuel udsettelse af den omtvistedebeslutning, under alle omstendigheder fsrte til, at begaringen skulle afsläs.Rettens president vurderede pä dettepunkt, at under de i sagen foreliggendehelt srerlige omstandigheder var den offentlige interesse, der knyttede sig tilrespekten for ejendomsretten i almindelighed og de industrielleejendomsrettigheder i srerdeleshed, som den er kommettil udtryk i artikel 30EF og 295 EF, ikke kunne gä forud for den interesse, som Kommissionenhavde i straksat fä afsluttet den overtredelse af artikel 82 EF, som den fandtat have fastsläet, og som falge heraf indfsre gunstige vilkär for at give DSD'skonkurrenter adgang til det bersrte marked.
In any event, thejudge stressed that the balancingof the applicant's interest in obtaining theinterim measure sought,the public interest in the operation of a Commissiondecision adopted under Article 82 EC and the interests of the interveningparties in the interim proceedings, which would be directly affected by thepossible suspension of the contested decision, called for the dismissal of thisapplication. He took the view, on that point, that in those very particularcircumstances, the public interest in compliance with property rights in generaland intellectual property rights in particular, as expressed in Articles 30 ECand 295 EC, cannotprevail over the Commission's interest in bringing animmediate end to the infringement of Article 82 EC which it considers it hasestablished and, accordingly, in introducing favourable conditions for the entryof DSD's competitors into the market concerned.
Dervar blevet truffet afgorelse om udsrettelse af gennemfsrelsen tre gange i
Three orders for suspension of operation of measures were made in
(f. de ovenncvnte kendelserne i Le Pen mod Parlamentet, Euroalliages m.fi.mod Kommissionen og IMS Health mod Kommissionen).
Health Health v v Commission, Commission, cited cited above).above).
Ved den ovennrevnte kendelse i sagen Le Pen mod Parlamentet gennemfarelsen af den beslutning, der blev truffet i form af en erklering fra Europa-Parlamentets formand den 23. oktober 2000, udsat, for sä vidt denneerklaring udgjorde en beslutning truffet af Europa-Parlamentet om at tagebortfaldet af Le Pen's mandat som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet tilefterretning.
Pen Pen v v Parliamenl, Parliamenl, operation operation of of the the decision decision taken taken by by the the
I forbindelse med vurderingen af betingelsen vedrorende fumusbonijuris fandt Rettens prasident, at et af de fremfffite argumenter - ifolgehvilket Parlamentets rolle inden for rammerne af en procedure, der drejer sigom bortfald af et af densmedlemmers mandat, og som er baseret pä artikel 12,stk. 2, i akten af !976, ikke er begrenset til et tilfelde af en rent bundetkompetence - var v€sentligt, hvorfor det ikke umiddelbart kunneforkastes. forkastes.
Parliament Parliament took took formal formal note note of of the the termination termination of of the the term term of of office office of of
I den ovenn & vnte kendelse i sagen Euroalliages m.fl. mod Kommissionenbestemte Rettens prresident, at indfsrslerne af ferrosilicium med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina, Kasakhstan, Ruslandog Ukraine skulle pälregges enregistrering uden garantistillelse fra importsrerne.
European Parliament. In his assessment of the condition that there must be a primn primn judge judge took took the the case, case, the the hearing hearing the the application application for for interim interim relief relief facie facie view view that that one one of of the the arguments arguments put put forward forward
Grundlaget for sagen var Kommissionens afgorelse 200t1230/EF af 21. februar 2001 om afslutning afantidumpingproceduren vedrsrende importen af ferrosilicium med oprindelsei flere lande 52,hvis gennemforelse sagssgerne principalt begarede udsat for
Parliament Parliament in in a a procedure procedure terminating terminating the the term term of of office office of of one one of of itsits
Kommissionens afgorelse af 21.2.2001om afslutning af antidumpingprocedurenvedrsrende importen af ferrosilicium med oprindelse i Brasilien, Folkerepublikken Kina,
Members on the basis of Article I2Q) of the 1976 Act, cited above, is not a matter matter of of a a merely merely dependent dependent power power
sä vidt angik indforelserne med oprindelse i visse af de omhandlede lande.
originating in several countries, 52 suspension of the operation of which theapplicants sought,primarily, as regards imports from certain of the countriesin question.
Idet Kommissionen ikke havde rejst tvivl offi, at der forelä fumus boni juris,vedrsrte vurderingen i det vresentligste overholdelsen af betingelsen omuopsettelighed. Rettens prresident bemrerkede i den forbindelse, at enskonomisk skade ikke, bortset fra ganske usedvanlige tilfalde, kan betragtessom uoprettelig eller blot vanskeligt oprettelig, hvis der senere kan betalesskonomisk erstatning herfor.
As the Commission did not question that there was a primafaciecase, it was the condition relating to urgency which essentially fell to beconsidered.
Et skonomisk tab, der ikke bortfalder, hvis blotden bersrte institution gennemfsrerden dom, der afsigesi hovedsagen, udgaret skonomisk tab, der kan erstattes ved hjelp af de retsmidler,som er fastsati traktaten, navnlig i artikel 235 EF og 288 EF. Ved anvendelse af disseprincipper er en forelobig forholdsregel, der er fremsat begrering offi,berettiget, säfremt det mä antages, at sagssgeren,hvis der ikke treffes ensädan forholdsregel, befinder sig i en situation, der kan true selvevirksomhedens eksistens,inden den dom, der afslutter hovedsagen, afsiges.
Damage of apecuniary nature, which would not disappear simply as a result of complianceby the institution concerned with the judgment in the main proceedings,constitutes economic loss which could be made good by the means of redressprovided for in the Treaty, in particular in Articles 235 EC and 288 EC, Onapplication of those principles, an interim measure is justified if it appears that,without that measure, the applicant would be in a situation that could imperilits existence before final judgment in the main action.
Ien sädan situation vil spgsogerens forsvinden, inden der bliver truffet afgorelsei realiteten, gffie det umuligt for sidstnevnte at anlegge nogen som helstretssag med krav om erstatning.
In such a case thedisappearance of the applicant before the decision on the substance of the casewould make it impossible for that party to institute any judicial proceedings forcompensation.
I sagen fastslog Retten, at det ikke varlykkedes for sagsogerne at fsre bevis for, at skaden pä deres skonomiskeoverlevelsesevne var af en sädan karakter, at rationaliseringsforanstaltningerikke ville vcre tilstrekkelige til at gsre det muligt for dem at fortsrette deresvirksomhed med produktion af ferrosilicium indtil afsigelsen af den dom, derville afsluttehovedsagen. Under hensyntagen til de omstrendigheder, der varserlige for sagen,fremhrevede Retten imidlertid navnlig, at den af sagsogernelidte skademuligvis ikke ville ophore som folge af den blotte omstrendighed,at Kommissionen gennemforte en dom, der annullerede den omtvistedebeslutning, og i den forbindelse, at den senere erstatning for den lidte skadei henhold til artikel 235 EF og artikel 288, stk. 2, EF i det mindste forekomusikker, när henses til vanskeligheden ved at godtgore, at Kommissionenäbenbart og groft havde overskredet grenserne for de skonsbefojelser, institutionen räder over ved vurderingen af Faellesskabets interesser.
In the present case the applicants had not succeeded in showingthat the impairmentof their economic viability was such that rationalisationmeasures would not be sufficient to enable them to continue producing ferro-silicon until final judgment in the main action, However, taking account of allthe circumstances of the case, he observed inter alia that the injury sufferedby the applicants would not disappear simply as a result of the Commission'scompliance with a judgmentannulling the contested decision and that, in thatregard, reparation, at alater stage, of the damage sustained under Article 235EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, would,at the very least, beuncertain, given the difficulty of showing that the Commission had manffestlyand gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion in assessing the Communityinterest.
Underdisse omstrendigheder fandtes uopsettelighedsbetingelsen at vrere opfyldt.
In the circumstances, the condition relating to urgency was held tobe fulfilled.
Endelig afuejede Retten de interesser, der gjorde sig greldende i sagen, navnligimportorernes, eksportorernes og brugernes interesser, og begrensedevirkningerne af de forelobige forholdsregler til det, der forekom strengtnodvendigt for beskyttelsen af sagssgernes interesser indtil dommen i hovedsagen.
Finally, having balanced the interests involved, inter alia thoseof the importers, exporters and users, he limited the effects of the interimmeasure to the absolute minimum necessary to preservethe interests of theapplicants until judgment in the main action.
Ved ovennrevnte kendelse af 14. december 2001 i sagen Kommissionen mod Euroalliages m.fl. stadfestede Domstolens prasident imidlertid ikke den af
However, by order of 14 December 2001 in Case C-404/01P(R) Commissionv Euroalliages and Others, cited above, the President of the Court of Justice
uopretteligekarakter af den lidte skade ikke kunne godtgares underhensyntagen til denusikkerhed, der var forbundet med, om der evenfuelt villeblive givet medhold i et erstatningssogsmäI.
did did not not uphold uphold the the finding finding of of urgency urgency made made by by the the
Sagen blevhjemvist til behandling ved Retten.
President President of of the the
Ved denne beslutning havde Kommissionen pälagt selskabet IMS, der er aktivt inden for sektoren for indsamling af salgsdata og recepterfor farmaceutiske produkter, at udstede en licens til at benytteselskabets selskabets
He took the view that the irreparable nature of the damagecould not be established given the uncertainty over the possibility of successof an action for damages.The case was referred back to the Court of First
Kommissionens beslutning af 3 .7 .200I vedrsrende en procedure for anvendelse af artikel82 EF (COMPD3ß8.A44 - NDC Health/IMS Health:Forelobige forholdsregler).
Health Health v v Commission, Commission, cited cited above, above, which which suspended suspended the the operation operation of of
Domstolens dom af 6.4.1995, forenede sager C-241l91 P og C-242/9tP, RTE og ITPmod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 743.
Commission Commission decision decision imposing imposing interin interin measures measures oz oz
Bronner-dommen '5, ikke kunne foretages inden for rammerne af en sag omforelobige forholdsregler, fastslog han, at betingelsen om fumus boni juris varopfyldt.
By that decision, the Commission had instructed IMS, a company activein the field of compilationof data on sales and prescriptionsof pharmaceuticalproducts, to grant a licence for use of its '1 860 brick structure', ageographical analysis of the German market, which, according to theCommission, was a de facto industry standard on the relevant market.
Rettens praesident fastslog ogsä, at betingelsen vedrsrende uopsrettelighed varopfyldt af ophavsretten, i det omfang udstedelsen af licenser til brug kunneskade indehaveren af denne ret varigt og alvorligt, og den udvikling afmarkedsbetingelserne, der ville forärsages af udstedelsen af disse licenser, ikkelengere kunne endres ved en eventuel dom om annullation af den omhandledebeslutning.
Having expressed the view that the extent of its review of the condition relating relating to to the the need need for for a a prima prima case case did did not not vary vary according according to to whetherwhether facie facie the decision suspension of the operation of which was sought imposed interim measures measures or or concluded concluded an an administrative administrative procedure, procedure, judge judge the the hearing hearing the the application for interim relief found that the case essentially raised the questionwhether the Commission was entitled to hold that IMS, the holder of acopyright on the I 860 brick structure, abused its dominant position, within themeaning of Article 82 EC, where it invokedthat copyright in refusing tolicense use by its competitors and whether the Commission could impose, byway of an interim measure, the issue of licences for use of copyright.
Domstolens dom af 26.1 I . 1998, sag C-7 /97 , Bronner, Sml. I, s. 7791.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-24ll9L P and C-242191 P RTEand ITP v Commission [1995]ECR I-743.
Forste Forste rekke, rekke, venstre venstre mod mod hojre:hojre: fra fra
First row, from Ieftto rigltt ^'Judge R. Garcfa-Valdecasas y Fernändez;Judge M.
Anden Anden rekke, rekke, venstre venstre nnd nnd hajre'hajre' fra fra
Second Second row, row,
Dommerne H. Legal, A.W.H. tvtel, f. Pirrung,P. Lindh,V. Tiili, !. Azu_BAR_ P. Mengozziog
Judge H. Legal;Judge A.W.H. Meij; Judge J. Pirrung;Judge P. Lindh; Judge V. Tiili; JudgeJ.
Retten i Fsrste Instans' medlemmer(efter tiltredelsestidspunkt) sestidspunkt)
The Members of the Court of First Instance(in order of their entry into office)
Fsdt i 1945; juristlingvist ved EF-Domstolen; fuldmegtig i Justis-ministeriet; dommerfuldmagtig; juridisk attach6 ved DanmarksFaste Faste
Born 1945; Lawyer-linguist at the Court of Justice; Administrator inthe Ministry of Justice; Examining Magistrate; Legal Attachd in the Permanent Representation of Denmark to the European Communities;Temporary Judge at the 6stre Landsret; Head of the Administrative Law Division in the Ministry of Justice; Head of Division in theMinistry of Justice; University Lecturer; Mernber of the Steering Committee on Human Rights at the Council of Europe (CDDH), andsubsequently Member of the Bureau of the CDDH; Judge at the Courtof First Instance since 25 September 1989; President of the Court of
Fsdt i 1946;statens advokat (i Ja6nog Granada); justissekreter ved Renen for Okonomiske og Administrative Sager i Jaön,derefter i Cördoba; medlem af Advokatsamfundet (Ja6n, Granada); chef for Udenrigsministeriets Sarlige JuridiskeKontor for EF-sporgsmäl; chef for den spanske delegation i den af Rädet nedsatte arbejdsgruppevedrsrende oprettelsen af Retten i Fsrstelnstans; dommer ved Retteni Fsrste Instans siden den 25. september 1989.
Born 1946; Abogado del Estado (at Ja6n and Granada); Registrar tothe Economic and Administrative Court of Ja6n, and subsequently of
Fsdt i 1942: juridisk dohorgrad fra Helsinkis universitet;undervisningsassistent i borgerligret og handelsret ved Helsinkisuniversitet; direktsr for Juridisk og Handelspolitisk Afdeling ved Finlands centrale handelskarnmer; generaldirektsr for Finlands Konsumentverk (Forbrugerstyrelsen); dommer ved Renen i Fsrstelnstans siden den 18. januar 1995.
Born 19421; Doctor of Laws of the University of Helsinki; assistantlecturer in civil and commercial law at the University of Helsinki;Director of Legal Affairs and Commercial Policy at the Central Chamber of Commerceof Finland;Director General of the Office for Consumer Protection, Finland; Judge at the Court of First Instancesince 18 January 1995.
Fsdt i 1945; cand.jur. fra Lunds universitet; dommer ved Svea Hovrätt; juridisk medarbejder,derefter kontorchef i Udenrigsministeriets Handelsafdeling; dommer ved Retten i Fsrste Instanssidenden 18. januar 1995.
Born 1945; Law graduate of the University of Lund; Judge (assessor),Court of Appeal, Stockholm;Legal Adviser and Director General atthe Legal Service of the Trade Department at the Ministry of ForeignAffairs; Judge at the Court of First Instance since 18 January 1995.
Fsdt i 1948;juridisk doklorgradsamt samfundsfaglig og erhvervs-akonomisk kandidateksamen fra Wiens universitet; forsknings- ogundervisningsassistent ved Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien og ved det retsvidenskabelige fakultet ved Wiens universitet; kontorchef ogafdelingschef i Forbundskancelliet; dommer ved Retten i Fsrste Instanssidenden 18. januar 1995.
Born L948; Doctor of Laws and Bachelor of Sociology and Economicsof the University of Vienna; Lecturer and senior lecturer at the Vienna School of Economics and the Faculty of Law of the University of Vienna; Ministerialrat and Head of Department at the Federal Ch an c el le ry ; Judge at the Court of First Instance since 18 January1995.
Fsdt i 1950; dommer ved Cour d'Appel de Paris og lektor ved Universit6 de Paris X-Nanterre (1994); leder af Afdelingen for EF-sporgsmäl og internationale anliggender, Justitsministeriet (1991);vicepresident ved Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (1990);generalsekretar for retsprasidenten,Cour de cassation (1988);dommer ved Retten i Fsrste Insuns fra den 18. september 1995 til den19. september 2001.
Born 1950; Judge, Court of Appeal, Paris, and Associate Professor at Paris X Nanterre University (199a); Head of European and International Affairs of the Ministry of Justice (1991); Vice-Presidentof the Tribunal de GrandeInstance, Paris (1990); Secretary-General to the First President of the Cour de cassation (1988); Judge at the Courtof First Instance from 18 September 1995 to 20 September 2001.