natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
»1) Irland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 92/43/EØF af 21. maj 1992 om bevaring af naturtyper samt vilde dyr og planter, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har tilstillet Kommissionen den liste over lokaliteter, der er nævnt i
Following notification of the directive on 10 June 1992, the Member States were aware which types of information they would be required to collate for purposes of transmission within three years of that notification, that is to say, by 11 June 1995. They also knew that this information had to be provided on the basis of the format once it had
direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, første afsnit, samt oplysningerne om disse lokaliteter i henhold til samme direktivs artikel 4, stk 1, andet afsnit.
Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within the period prescribed, the list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling") den 3. maj 2001.
Advocate General P. Léeer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 3 May 2001.
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 92/43/EØF — bevaring af naturtyper — bevaring af vilde dyr og planter - artikel 4, stk. 1 — liste over lokaliteter — oplysninger vedrørende lokaliteterne« (Sjette Afdeling) eller oplysninger om disse lokaliteter, og som ikke rådede over andre oplysninger, på grundlag af hvilke den kunne fastslå, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde truffet de foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at efterkomme forpligtelserne i henhold til direktivets artikel 4 - inden for rammerne af den i traktatens artikel 169 fastlagte procedure den tyske regering til inden to måneder at fremsætte sine bemærkninger i den anledning.
(1) rule that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the complete list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on each site required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Den 4. marts 1996 opfordrede Kommissionen -der ikke mente fra de tyske myndigheder at have modtaget hverken den fuldstændige liste over lokaliteter med oplysning om, hvilke naturtyper efter bilag I og hvilke naturligt hjemmehørende arter efter bilag II der findes på disse lokaliteter
(1) rule that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the complete list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on each site required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Ved skrivelser af 30. september 1996, 24. og 28. januar 1997 og 11. juni 1997 fremsendte de tyske myndigheder til Kommissionen flere lister over lokaliteter, der lå i delstaten Bayern og delstaten Sachsen-Anhalt.
By letters of 30 September 1996, 24 January 1997, 28 January 1997 and 11 June 1997, the German authorities sent to the Commission a number of lists of sites in the Länder of Bayern and Sachsen­Anhalt.
efter direktivets bilag I og hvilke naturligt hjemmehørende arter efter bilag II, der findes på disse lokaliteter samt oplysninger om disse lokaliteter, og tilstillede derfor den 19. december 1997 denne medlemsstat en begrundet udtalelse, hvori den opfordrede den til at efterkomme udtalelsen inden to måneder efter dennes meddelelse.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 1 March 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on each site required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Den 3. juli 1997 tilstillede Kommissionen, i erkendelse af, at formularen først havde foreligget den 19. december 1996, den tyske regering en supplerende åbningsskrivelse, hvori den atter kritiserede, at denne ikke havde fremsendt den fuldstændige liste over lokaliteter med oplysninger om disse lokaliteter, og opfordrede den til inden én måned at fremsætte sine bemærkninger vedrørende denne overtrædelse af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1.
Bearing in mind the fact that the format had not been available until 19 December 1996, the Commission sent to the German Government on 3 July 1997 an additional letter of formal notice in which it reiterated its criticism of that Government for having failed to send to it the full list of the sites and site information and called on it to submit, within one month, its observations on that infringement of Article 4(1) of the directive.
Ved skrivelser af 28. januar, 13. og 19. marts, 10. og 22. september, 14., 20. og 27. oktober 1998 fremsendte de tyske myndigheder andre lister over lokaliteter.
By letter of 21 October 1997, the German authorities sent a list of sites in the Land of Schleswig­Holstein.
De tilstillede ved skrivelser af 14. og 15. april 1998 Kommissionen en oversigt med en tidsplan for de foranstaltninger, de enkelte delstater agtede at træffe for at opfylde forpligtelserne i henhold til direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1.
Forming the view that its correspondence with the German authorities did not allow it to conclude that the Federal Republic of Germany had forwarded a complete list of sites hosting the natural habitat types and native species referred to respectively in Annexes I and II to the directive, together with the information relating to those sites, the Commission, sent to that Member State on 19 December 1997 a reasoned opinion calling on it to comply therewith within two months of its notification.
Ved skrivelse af 21. oktober 1997 fremsendte de tyske myndigheder en liste over lokaliteter i delstaten Schleswig-Holstein.
The German authorities informed the Commission on 8 August 1996 that, under German law, the power to select sites eligible for designation as SACs is vested in the Länder.
Kommissionen mente ikke, at den på grundlag heraf var i stand til at fastslå, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde bragt den omhandlede overtrædelse til ophør, og besluttede derfor at anlægge denne sag.
Since it formed the view that the material thus forwarded did not allow it to conclude that the Federal Republic of Germany had brought an end to the infringement in question, the Commission decided to bring the present action before the Court.
Kommissionen mente ikke, at den på grundlag af korrespondancen med de tyske myndigheder kunne fastslå, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde fremsendt en fuldstændig liste over lokaliteter med oplysninger om, hvilke naturtyper
By letters of 14 and 15 April 1998, they sent to the Commission a schedule proposing a timetable for the measures envisaged by each Land for compliance with the obligations arising under Article 4(1) of the directive.
(Jf. Domstolens bemærkninger - se sag C-67/99).
(For findings of the court, see Case C-67/99)
Forbundsrepublikken
Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear the costs.'
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 3 Mav 2001.
Se sag C-67/99.
See Case C-67/99.
Sag C-220/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
Case C-220/99 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Environment and consumers
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 92/43/EØF — bevaring af naturtyper — bevaring af vilde dyr og planter — artikel 4, stk 1 — liste over lokaliteter — oplysninger vedrørende lokaliteterne« (Sjette Afdeling) sine bemærkninger vedrørende denne overtrædelse af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Conservation of wild fauna and flora —Article 4(1) — List of sites — Site information) (Sixth Chamber)
(Jf. Domstolens bemærkninger - se sag C-67/99).
Partial information on those sites was submitted only in respect of 25 of them.
Kommissionen mente ikke, at den på grundlag heraf var i stand til at fastslå, at Den Franske Republik havde bragt den omhandlede overtrædelse til ophør, og besluttede derfor at anlægge denne sag.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 9 June 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on each site required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the French Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Pre-litigation procedure
»1) Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 92/43/EØF af 21. ma) 1992 om bevaring af naturtyper samt vilde dyr og planter, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har tilstillet Kommissionen den liste over lokaliteter, der er nævnt i direktivets artikel 4, stk 1, første afsnit, samt oplysningerne om disse lokaliteter i henhold til samme direktivs artikel 4, stk 1, andet afsnit.
Since its correspondence with the French authorities did not allow it to conclude that the French Republic had forwarded a full list of the sites hosting the natural habitat types and native species listed in Annexes I and II to the directive respectively or the information relating to those sites, the Commission, on 6 November 1997, issued a reasoned opinion to that Member State requesting compliance within two months of notification.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fSiette Afdeling') den 3. maj 2001.
Taking the view that those communications did not allow it to conclude that the French Republic had put an end to the infringement in question, the Commission decided to bring the present action before the Court.
Se sag C-67/99.
Substance
Sag C-89/99 Schieving-Nijstad vof m.fl. / Robert Groeneveld Forbindelserne udadtil
The Commission stressed, in particular, the need to use the format for transmission of the relevant data.
Ved dom af 5. marts 1999, indgået til Domstolen den 15. marts 1999, har Hoge Raad der Nederlanden forelagt seks præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af artikel 50, stk. 6, i aftalen om handelsrelaterede intellektuelle
Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within the period prescribed, the list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
angår de områder, der hører under dets kompetence, ved Rådets afgørelse 94/800/EF af 22. december 1994.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 3 May 2001.
Disse spørgsmål er blevet rejst i forbindelse med en sag mellem på den ene side interessentskabet Schieving-Nijstad vof og dets ejere og på den anden side Robert Groeneveld vedrørende en begæring om foreløbige foranstaltninger, der er indgivet af sidstnævnte, med henblik på at få bragt en hævdet krænkelse af et varemærke, som han er indehaver af, til ophør.
Case C-89/99 Schieving-Nijstad vof and Others ν Robert Groeneveld External relations
Efter at Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden (Nederlandene) havde stadfæstet denne dom indbragte Schieving-Nijstad m.fl. en kassationsankesag for Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred
R. Groeneveld ansøgte mellem den 21. juni 1979 og den 23. februar 1995 seks gange om registrering af figurmærket Route 66 for forskellige klasser varer og tjenesteydelser.
On six occasions between 21 June 1979 and 23 February 1995, Mr Groeneveld filed 'Route 66' figurative marks in respect of various classes of goods and services.
Disse registreringer vedrørte mere præcist klasserne 32, 33 og 42, som omfatter henholdsvis alkoholholdige drikkevarer og læskedrikke, restaurationsvirksomhed samt hotel- og cateringvirksomhed.
Those registrations covered, in particular, classes 32, 33 and 42, respectively covering alcoholic beverages and soft drinks, restaurant services and hotel/catering services.
R. Groeneveld har udstedt ca. 20 licenser til producenter med henblik på markedsføring af varer solgt under mærket Route 66, navnlig for klæbemærker og plakater, neonarmaturer og alkoholholdige drikkevarer.
By order of 5 March 1999, received at the Court on 15 March 1999, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling six questions concerning the interpretation of Article 50(6) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs'), as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation ('the WTO Agreement'), approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994.
»Route 66« er navnet på en gammel hovedlandevej i USA Gengivelsen af det nævnte figurmærke er afledt af den form, som det vejskilt havde, der angav vejen, da den endnu var i brug i sin helhed.
Mr Groeneveld has granted some 20 licences to manufacturers for the marketing of products sold under the mark 'Route 66', in particular stickers and posters, neon light fittings and alcoholic beverages.
Schieving-Nijstad m.fl. har anmodet den forelæggende ret om at fastslå, at hvis og for så vidt de af præsidenten for Rechtbank te Assen trufne foreløbige forholdsregler kunne stadfæstes, eller der kunne gives R. Groeneveld medhold, kunne de ikke forblive i kraft i længere end en periode på 20 arbejdsdage eller mere end 31 kalenderdage, alt efter hvilken frist der er den længste, efter forkyndelsen.
Those questions have been raised in proceedings between, on the one hand, the commercial partnership Schieving-Nijstad vof and its owners and, on the other, Mr Robert Groeneveld, concerning an application brought by Mr Groeneveld for provisional measures to restrain an alleged infringement of a trade mark held by him.
Indenfor i caféen hænger der mange forskellige færdelsskilte, plakater og plader, derunder også nogle skilte med »Route 66«.
'Route 66' is the name of an old expressway in the United States.
Schieving-Nijstad m.fl. har ikke opnået licens fra R. Groeneveld. Skiltene indenfor og det udvendige skilt er ikke blevet bragt i omsætning
The representation of the figurative mark in question is based on the road sign for that route in the days when it was still in use over its entire length.
ejendomsrettigheder på verdensplan (jf. i den forbindelse udtalelse 1/94 af 15.11.1994).
In order to bring the case to a satisfactory conclusion, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden has decided to stay proceedings and to refer six questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
De samme formål er også udtrykt i TRIPs-aftalens artikel 41, stk. 1 og 2.
Inside the café are hung all manner of road signs, posters and plates, including various shields reading 'Route 66'.
TRIPs-aftalens artikel 50 indeholder ikke detaljerede bestemmelser med hensyn til den procedure, der skal følges for at sikre håndhævelse af de intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder. endomsrettigheder.
In the field of trade marks, to which TRIPs is applicable and in respect of which the Community has already legislated, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret Article 50 of TRIPs — as, indeed, it has previously had occasion to do (see Case C-53/96 Hermès and Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Dior and Others).
Det påhviler altså de retlige myndigheder at tage hensyn til samtlige omstændigheder i den sag, der er anlagt ved dem, når de anmodes om at anvende deres nationale bestemmelser for at træffe foreløbige foranstaltninger, med henblik på at sikre en ligevægt mellem de konkurrerende rettigheder og forpligtelser for indehaveren af de intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder og for rekvisitus.
First, the Court has held that Article 50(6) of TRIPs is a procedural provision intended to be applied by Community and national courts in accordance with obligations assumed both by the Community and by the Member States.
Derimod bestemmer artikel 1, stk. 1, i TRIPs-aftalen, vedrørende »[forpligtelsernes indhold og dækningsområde«, at »[mjedlemmeme [...] frit [kan] fastlægge den mest hensigtsmæssige metode til gennemførelse af bestemmelserne i denne aftale inden for deres egne retssystemer og deres egen praksis«.
By judgment of 9 January 1996, the President of that court ordered Schieving-Nijstad et al., inter alia, forthwith to desist and to refrain from using the name '(Café) Route 66' and the marks 'Route 66' in relation to the goods and services in respect of which they were registered, in particular restaurant and catering services.
Set fra den side, som indehaveren af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder står på, styrker den i TRIPs-aftalens artikel 50 fastsatte ordning den ret, som han skal garanteres i henhold til TRIPs-aftalens artikel 41, stk. 1, nemlig retten til at opnå hurtige foranstaltninger.
Article 50 of TRIPs does not lay down any detailed rules concerning the procedure to be followed for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Det følger heraf, at hvor der ikke findes fællesskabsbestemmelser på området, tilkommer det den interne retsorden i hver medlemsstat at fastsætte de processuelle regler vedrørende adgang til domstolsprøvelse, der skal sikre beskyttelse af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder.
That judgment was upheld by the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden (Regional Court of Appeal, Leeuwarden), whereupon Schieving-Nijstad et al. lodged an appeal in cassation before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.
Med det formål at forhindre et sådant misbrug bestemmer TRIPs-aftalens artikel 50, stk. 4, at når rekvisitus ikke er blevet hørt, har han ret til at begære en øjeblikkelig fornyet gennemgang af de iværksatte foreløbige foranstaltninger.
It follows that, in the absence of any Community rules in the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules relating to actions for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Det følger ikke desto mindre af Domstolens praksis, at for så vidt angår et område, hvorpå TRIPs-aftalen finder anvendelse, og hvor Fællesskabet allerede har lovgivet, er medlemsstaternes retlige myndigheder i medfør af fællesskabsretten forpligtede til, når de anmodes om at anvende deres nationale regler med henblik på at træffe afgørelse om foreløbige foranstaltninger for at beskytte rettigheder inden for et sådant område, så vidt muligt at gøre dette i lyset af ordlyden af og formålet med TRIPs-aftalens artikel 50.
Before that court, Schieving-Nijstad et al. have pleaded the direct effect of Article 50(6) of TRIPs, which became applicable in the Netherlands, at latest, on the deadline.
Endvidere indfører TRIPs-aftalens artikel 50, stk. 6, en sikkerhedsforanstaltning for rekvisitus, der, uanset om han er blevet hørt eller ej, gælder mod misbrug af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder, idet bestemmelsen opstiller en simpel procedure til at fjerne de ubegrundede foreløbige foranstaltninger, når der ikke er blevet
They have requested the national court to rule that, if and in so far as the provisional measures ordered by the President of the Rechtbank te Assen were open to be upheld or granted, those measures remained operative for no longer than 20 working days or 31 calendar days after notification, whichever was the longer, after which they must be deemed to have been revoked, since Mr Groeneveld did not institute substantive proceedings against them within that period.
TRIPs-aftalens væsentligste formål er at styrke og harmonisere beskyttelsen af intellektuelle
Nevertheless, it is apparent from the Court's case-law that, in a field to which TRIPs applies and in respect of which the Community has already legislated, the judicial authorities of the Member States are required by virtue of Community law, when called upon to apply national rules with a view to ordering provisional
indledt en procedure om sagens realitet inden for den fastsatte frist.
by laying down a simple procedure for setting aside unjustified provisional measures where no substantive proceedings have been instituted within the time-limit prescribed.
retsforhandlingerne i den af R. Groeneveld for Rechtbank te Assen indledte sag, men inden at denne ret i første instans havde truffet afgørelse.
measures for the protection of rights falling within such a field, to do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of Article 50 of TRIPs.
Ifølge Det Forenede Kongeriges regering følger det af TRIPs-aftalens artikel 70, stk. 1, at det er udelukket at anvende aftalen, idet de faktiske omstændigheder i hovedsagen fandt sted forud for skæringsdagen.
The primary objective of TRIPs is to strengthen and harmonise the protection of intellectual property on a worldwide scale (see in that regard Opinion 1/94 of 15 November 1994).
Denne ordning er så meget desto vigtigere, når rekvisitus anfægter de af de retlige myndigheder iværksatte foreløbige foranstaltninger og vil tvinge rettighedshaveren til at indlede en procedure om sagens realitet, i løbet af hvilken rekvisitus vil være i stand til at gøre alle sine indsigelser gældende.
That mechanism is all the more important where the defendant contests the provisional measures prescribed by the judicial authority concerned and wishes to compel the right holder to bring substantive proceedings in the course of which the defendant will be in a position to put forward his full defence.
Det bemærkes i den forbindelse, at WTO-overenskomsten blev indgået på fransk, engelsk og spansk, og at kun disse tre versioner er gyldige (jf. WTO-overenskomstens afsluttende bestemmelse).
It should be noted in that regard that the WTO Agreement was concluded in the English, French and Spanish languages and that those three versions alone are authentic (see the closing wording of the WTO Agreement).
Den direkte virkning af TRIPs-aftalens artikel 50, stk 6 (første spørgsmål)
Those objectives are also set out in Article 41(1) and (2) of TRIPs.
TRIPs-aftalens artikel 50, stk. 6 bestemmer i sin franske version, at de foreløbige foranstaltninger »seront abrogées ou cesseront de produire leurs effects« (»skal [...] kendes ugyldige eller [...] ophøre med at have virkning«, hvis en procedure om sagens realitet ikke er indledt inden for den tildelte frist.
As it is, the French version of Article 50(6) of TRIPs provides that the provisional measures 'seront abrogées' or 'cesseront de produire leurs effets' if proceedings on the merits of the case are not initiated within the period prescribed.
Den spanske version bestemmer på tilsvarende måde, at de nævnte foranstaltninger »se revocarán o quedarán de otro modo sin efecto«.
Similarly, the Spanish version provides that the measures in question 'se revocarán o quedarán de otro modo sin effecto'.
I den engelske version er ordet »shall« anvendt i stedet for »may«.
The English version uses the term 'shall' rather than 'may*.