natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det første spørgsmål skal derfor besvares med, at ordet »arbejde« i artikel 14a, nr. 1, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71 omfatter enhver arbejdsydelse, hvad enten der er tale om lønnet eller selvstændigt arbejde.
If that provision were to refer only to work as a selfemployed person, the national court is uncertain whether determination of the nature of the work concerned is a matter for the social security legislation of the Member State in which the person is normally selfemployed or for the corresponding legislation of the Member State in which the work is done.
Det må først og fremmest konstateres, at artikel lia i forordning nr. 574/72 ikke fastsætter nogen frist for udstedelsen af den i bestemmelsen omhandlede blanket.
The interpretation of the term "work' put forward by the plaintiffs in the main proceedings,
Under hensyntagen til besvarelsen af det første spørgsmål er det derfor ufornødent at besvare det andet spørgsmål.
Furthermore, application of Article 14a(l)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 assumes that the person who is selfemployed in the territory of a
nævnte institution skal udlevere en attest om den lovgivning, der skal finde anvendelse (blanket E 101), selv om der anmodes om udlevering af denne attest efter, at arbejdstageren eller den selvstændige erhvervsdrivende har påbegyndt sin beskæftigelse i en anden medlemsstat end den kompetente stat.
Member State carries out a work assignment ('un travail') in the territory of another Member State, that is to say a defined task, the content and duration of which are determined in advance, and the genuineness of which must be capable of proof by production of the relevant contracts.
Desuden erklærer den kompetente institution i en medlemsstat ved at udstede blanket E 101 i medfør af artikel 11a blot, at den pågældende selvstændige erhvervsdrivende fortsat er omfattet af lovgivningen i denne medlemsstat i en given periode, hvor han udfører et arbejde på en anden medlemsstats område.
In the second part of its third question, the national court asks whether an E 101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 11a of Regulation No 574/72, may have retroactive effect where it relates to a period which has wholly or partially elapsed at the time of its issue.
Selv om det må foretrækkes, at en sådan erklæring afgives før begyndelsen af den pågældende periode, kan den også udstedes i løbet af perioden, endog efter dens udløb.
The answer to the first question must therefore be that the term \vork' in Article 14a(l)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 covers any performance of work, whether in an employed or selfemployed capacity.
Der er under disse omstændigheder intet til hinder for, at en blanket E 101 i givet fald har tilbagevirkende kraft.
Having regard to the reply given to the first question, there is therefore no need to reply to the second question.
I øvrigt anerkendte Domstolen nødvendigvis, at blanket E 101 kan have tilbagevirkende kraft, da den fastslog, at medlemsstaternes mulighed for i henhold til artikel 17 i forordning nr. 1408/71 at aftale, at en anden lovgivning end den i artikel 13-16 angivne kan anvendes til fordel for en arbejdstager, også dækker allerede forløbne perioder.
Moreover, when issuing the E 101 certificate pursuant to Article 11a, the competent institution of a Member State does no more than stale that the selfemployed person concerned remains subject to the legislation of that Member State throughout a given period in the course of which he carries out a work assignment in the territory of another Member State.
Det bestemmes således i Den Administrative Kommissions afgørelse nr. 126 af 17. oktober 1985 om anvendelse af artikel 14, stk. 1, litra a), artikel 14a, stk. 1, litra a), og artikel 14b, stk. 1 og 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, at den i artikel 11 og artikel lia i forordning nr. 574/72
In the first part of the third question, the national court is essentially asking whether the E 101 certificate, issued in accordance with Articles 11a and 12a(7) of Regulation No 574/72, binds both the competent institution of the Member State in which the work assignment is carried out and the person who calls upon the services of selfemployed persons holding that certificate.
Det tredje spørgsmåls andet led skal derfor besvares med, at en blanket E 101, som er udstedt i henhold til artikel lia i forordning nr. 574/72, kan have tilbagevirkende kraft.
There is therefore nothing to prevent the E 101 certificate from producing retroactive effects, according to the circumstances.
•1) Ordet 'arbejde' i artikel 14a, nr. 1, litra a), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408171 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af Ζ juni 1983 og dernæst ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3811/86 af 11. december 1986, omfatter enhver arbejdsydelse, hvad enten der er tale om lønnet eller selvstændigt arbejde.
Thus, Decision No 126 of the Administrative Commission of 17 October 1985 concerning the application of Articles 14(l)(a), 14a(l)(a), 14b(l) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71 provides that the institution referred to in Articles 11 and 11a of Regulation No 574/72 is required to issue a certificate concerning the applicable legislation (the E 101 certificate), even if issue of that certificate is requested after the beginning of the activity carried out in the territory of the State other than the competent State by the worker concerned.
2) Så længe en blanket E101, som er udstedt i henhold til artikel lia i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72 af 21. marts 1972 om regler til gennemførelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, som ændret og ajourført vedfowrdning nr. 2001/83 og dernæst ved forordning nr. 3811/86, ikke er trukket tilbage eller erklæret ugyldig, er den bindende for den kompetente institution i den medlemsstat, som den selvstændige erhvervsdrivende begiver sig til for at udføre et arbejde, og for den person, som anmoder den selvstændige erhvervsdrivende om tjenesteydelser.
Since, moreover, the E 101 certificate is binding on that competent institution, there can be no justification for the person who calls on that worker's services not to act upon that certificate. If he has doubts as to the validity of the certificate, that person must however inform the institution in question.
3) En blanket E101, som er udstedt i henhold til artikel lia i forordning nr. 574/72, kan have tilbagevirkende kraft.«
Moreover, the Court implicitly acknowledged that the E 101 certificate may produce retroactive effects when it held that the option which Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71 confers on Member States to agree, in the interest of a worker, to apply a legislation different from that designated by Articles 13 to 16 also applies in respect of periods that have already expired.
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 26. november 1998.
The answer to the first part of the third question must therefore be that, so long as it has not been withdrawn or declared invalid, an E 101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 1 la of Regulation No 574/72, is binding both on the competent institution of the Member State to which a selfemployed person goes in order to carry out a work assignment and the person who calls upon the services of that worker.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
of Regulation No 574/72, may have retroactive effect,
30. marts 2000
The Court ruled:
»Appel — konkurrence — beslutning om afvisning af en klage —forenelighed med artikel 2 i forordning nr. 26 af et gebyr opkrævet hos eteterne leverandører på blomsterprodukter leveret til grossister, der er etableret på det område, hvor en kooperativ forening afholder auktioner — begrundelse* (Femte Afdeling) af bestemmelserne i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 234/68 af 27. februar 1968 om oprettelse af en fælles markedsordning for levende planter og blomsterdyrkningens produkter.
The term "work* in Article 14a(l)(a) of CouncU Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, and subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/86 of 11 December 1986, covers any performance of work, whether in an employed or selfemployed capacity.
VGB er en forening af et stort antal nederlandske engroshandlere i blomsterprodukter, herunder Florimex, og af engroshandlere, der er etableret på VBA's område.
So long as it has not been withdrawn or declared invalid, an E101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article Ha of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972, fixing the procedure f or implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83 and subsequently by Regulation No 3811/86, is binding both upon the competent institution of the Member State to which a selfemployed person goes in order to carry out a work assignment and the person who calls upon the services ofthat worker.
VBA er en kooperativ forening af blomster- og prydplanteproducenter.
The E 101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 11a of Regulation No 574/72, may have retroactive effect.'
Ved den appellerede dom gav Retten sagsøgerne medhold og annullerede den omtvistede beslutning.
Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 26 November 1998.
VBA har til støtte for appellen påberåbt sig otte anbringender.
The fact that the social security legislation of the Member State in which the work is performed regards it as an activity pursued by an employed or selfemployed person has no bearing on the application of that provision.
Det andet og det tredje anbringende drejer sig om Rettens afgrænsning af sagens genstand.
The person who has procured the worker's services may be bound by that form only if his national social security legislation designates him as the competent institution for the purposes of that particular case.
Det syvende og det ottende anbringende vedrører andre præcise kritikpunkter, som Retten har fremført i relation til den omtvistede beslutning.
As the provisions examined do not impose any timelimit on the issue of Form E 101, or indicate for how long it is to be effective, there is no reason to limit its period of validity or to deny it its retroactive effect.'
Kommissionen havde pligt til at begrunde sin beslutning ved at påvise, hvorledes de aftaler, der var indgået inden for rammerne af VBA, var nødvendige med henblik på at opfylde hver enkelt af målsætningerne i traktatens artikel 39, eller i det mindste hvorledes disse målsætninger kunne forenes.
Case C-265/97 Ρ Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) ν Florimex BV et Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
Appellantens første, fjerde, femte og sjette anbringende kan herefter ikke tiltrædes.
(Appeal — Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint — Compatibility with Article 2 of Regidation No 26 of a fee charged to external suppliers on floricultural products supplied to wholesalers established on the premises of a cooperative society of auctioneers — Statement of reasons) (Fifth Chamber)
Det nærmere indhold af begrundelseskravet skal fastlægges i lyset af den konkrete sags omstændigheder, navnlig indholdet af den pågældende retsakt, karakteren af de anførte grunde samt den interesse, som retsaktens adressater samt andre, der må anses for umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af retsakten, kan have i begrundelsen.
Those products are covered by Regulation (EEC) No 234/68 of the Council of 27 February 1968 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage.
Det skal endvidere bemærkes, at Retten med rette under henvisning til dommene i sagerne Frubo mod Kommissionen og Oude Luttikhuis m.fl. krævede, at det skulle fremgå af begrundelsen for beslutningen, hvorledes aftalen mellem medlemmerne af en kooperativ forening opfyldte hver enkelt af målsætningerne i traktatens artikel 39, eller hvorledes Kommissionen havde kunnet forene disse målsætninger, således at den nævnte undtagelsesbestemmelse, som skal fortolkes indskrænkende, kunne finde anvendelse.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 July 1997, the Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (hereinafter 'the VBA') brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1997 in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 Florimex and VGB ν Commission [1997] ECR 11-693 ('the contested judgment"), by which it annulled the Commission Decision (ÍV/32.751 - Florimex/Aalsmeer II and IV/32.990 — VGB/Aalsmeer, 'the contested decision') rejecting the complaints lodged by Florimex BV (hereinafter 'Florimex') and Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten (hereinafter 'the VGB') concerning the levying of fees for the use of the VBA's premises which it charges in respect of the supply of products by suppliers who are not members of the VBA.
I øvrigt kan den forrang, landbrugspolitikken ifølge appellanten har i forhold til traktatens målsætninger på konkurrenceområdet, ikke fritage Kommissionen for at foretage en undersøgelse med henblik på at godtgøre, at de i traktatens artikel 39 angivne mål faktisk nås gennem den pågældende aftale.
The VGB is an association comprising numerous Netherlands wholesalers of floricultural products, including Florimex and a number of wholesalers established on the VBA's premises.
Retten undlod derfor med rette at tage stilling til de af VBA fremførte argumenter om, at traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, ikke fandt anvendelse, og om en eventuel anvendelse af artikel 2, stk. 1, andet punktum, i forordning nr. 26.
The VBA is a cooperative society constituted under Netherlands law, whose members are growers of flowers and ornamental plants.
Appellantens andet og tredje anbringende kan derfor ikke tiltrædes.
By the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance allowed the application and annulled the contested decision.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
In support of its appeal, the VBA puts forward eight grounds of appeal.
Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) bærer sine egne omkostninger og betaler de af Florimex BVog Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (VGB) afholdte omkostninger i forbindelse med sagen for Domstolen.
The Commission was required to state reasons for its decision by showing how the agreements concluded within the VBA were necessary for the attainment of each of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty or, in any event, how those objectives could be reconciled.
3) Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber bærer sine egne omkostninger.«
The Court of First Instance was right in holding that the statement of the reasons for the contested decision, in so far as it relates to the VBA's survival, was inadequate for the purpose of establishing that the user fee was necessary for the attainment of the objectives mentioned in Article 39 of the Treaty.
Generaladvokat A Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet CFemte Afdeling) den 8. juli 1999.
It follows that the first, fourth, fifth and sixth grounds of appeal must be dismissed.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
The second and third grounds of appeal
»Appel — konkurrence — henlæggelse af en klage på grund af manglende svar fra Magerne inden for den fastsatte frist — forenelighed med EF­traktatens artikel 85, stk 1, af et gebyr opkrævet hos leverandører, som har indgået aftaler om levering af blomsterprodukter til virksomheder, der er etableret på det område, hvor en kooperativ forening afholder auktioner — forenelighed med traktatens artikel 85, stk 1, af en eksklusiv købsforpligtelse indgået af bestemte grossister, der sælger sådanne produkter til detailhandlere i et særligt forretningscenterpå samme område —forskelsbehandling —påvirkning afhandelen mellem medlemsstater — samlet vurdering af en helhed af regler — ingen mærkbar påvirkning* (Femte Afdeling)
It must next be observed that the Court of First Instance was right to require, on the strength of the judgments in Frubo ν Commission and Oude Luttikhuis, cited above, that the statement of reasons on which the decision is based must show how the agreement between the members of a cooperative satisfies each of the objectives of Article 39 or how the Commission was able to reconcile those objectives so as to enable that derogating provision, which must be interpreted strictly, to be applied.
VBA har til støtte for appellen påberåbt sig fem anbringender.
The second and third grounds of appeal must therefore be dismissed.
Ved processkrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 30. oktober 1997 har VGB, Florimex, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer og Verhaar iværksat kontraappel til prøvelse af den appellerede dom, for så vidt som Retten heri forkastede deres anbringender og argumenter vedrørende Kommissionens afvisning af deres klager over de aftaler vedrørende grossistcentret Cultra, som VBA indgik med visse grossister (herefter »Cultra-aftalerne«).
Orders Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) to bear its own costs and to pay those of Florimex BVand Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten (VGB) relating to the proceedings before the Court of Justice;
Faktiske omstændigheder i sagen for Retten
Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.'
VBA er en kooperativ forening af blomster- og prydplanteproducenter, som på sin ejendom i Aalsmeer (Nederlandene) afholder auktioner over blomsterprodukter.
Advocate General A. Saggio delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 8 July 1999.
Florimex er en blomsterhandelsvirksomhed med hjemsted i Aalsmeer i nærheden af VBA's bygninger. Den importerer blomsterprodukter fra Fællesskabets medlemsstater og tredjelande og videresælger i det væsentlige produkterne til grossister i Nederlandene (præmis 3).
(Appeal — Competition — Closure of procedure on a complaint in the absence of a response by the complainants within the time­limit notified to them — Compatibility with Article 85(1) of the Treaty of a fee levied on suppliers who have concluded agreements relating to the delivery of floricultural products to undertakings established on the premises of a cooperative
Det andet, tredje, fjerde og femte anbringende stilling til, om der fandtes en aftale mellem virksomheder.
auction society — Compatibility with Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty of an exclusive purchase obligation accepted by certain wholesalers reselling such products to retailers in a specific trading area forming part of the same premises — Discrimination — Effect on trade between Member States — Assessment by reference to a body of rides taken as a whole — Lack of appreciable effect) (Fifth Chamber)
Såfremt der gives en part adgang til at fremføre et anbringende for første gang under sagen ved Domstolen, som ikke er blevet fremført for Retten, vil det være ensbetydende med at give denne part mulighed for at forelægge Domstolen
It imports floricultural products from Member States of the European Community and from third countries, mainly for resale to wholesalers established in the Netherlands (paragraph 3).
— der har en begrænset kompetence i appelsager - en mere omfattende tvist end den, der er blevet forelagt Retten.
Verhaar is a wholesaler of floricultural products established on the premises of the VBA complex.
Under en appelsag har Domstolen således kun kompetence til at tage stilling til den retlige afgørelse, der er truffet vedrørende de anbringender, der er blevet behandlet i første instans.
Inkoop Service Aalsmeer is a subsidiary of Verhaar established in the Cultra commercial centre, on the VBA's premises (paragraph 4).
Det bemærkes, at Retten alene undersøgte Kommissionens to argumenter til støtte for at afvise klagerne over handelsaftalerne, nemlig at VBA ikke anvendte ulige vilkår for ydelser af samme værdi over for sine handelspartnere, som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, litra d), og at der ikke var noget afgørende bevis for, at handelen mellem medlemsstater blev påvirket mærkbart. Retten skulle derimod ikke tage
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 19 July 1997, Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (hereinafter 'the VBA') brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1997 in Case T-77/94 VGB and Others ν Commission [1997] ECR II-759 (hereinafter 'the contested judgment') by which it annulled the decision of the Commission contained in a letter of 20 December 1993 (hereinafter 'the contested decision'), refusing to act on the complaints lodged by the Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (hereinafter 'the VGB'), Florimex BV (hereinafter 'Florimex'), Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV (hereinafter 'Inkoop Service Aalsmeer') and M. Verhaar BV (hereinafter 'Verhaar') concerning the trade agreements concluded by the VBA with a number of its suppliers.
Det følger heraf, at det andet anbringende må afvises.
In support of its appeal, the VBA puts forward five grounds of appeal.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The first ground of appeal
Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (VGB), Florimex BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV og M. Verhaar BV bærer deres egne omkostninger og betaler de af Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) afholdte omkostninger i forbindelse med kontraappellen.
In particular, it erred in law in finding that the right to a fair hearing precludes the closure of the procedure on complaints where the complainants do not respond to a letter pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 within the timelimit set for that purpose if special circumstances legitimately account for the failure to observe such a timelimit.
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber bærer sine egne omkostninger.*
Next, in finding that special circumstances could preclude the Commission from closing the
Generaladvokat A Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 8. juli 1999.
A part of its premises is reserved for the renting-out, in particular to wholesalers of and dealers in indoor plants, of 'processing rooms' for the purposes of wholesale trade in floricultural products (paragraph 1).
30. marts 2000
vis the VBA.
Præjudiciel »Socialpolitik — mandlige og kvindelige arbejdstagere — lige løn for arbejde af samme værdi — EF-traktatens artikel 119 (EF-traktatens artikel 117-120 er erstattet af artikel 136 EF —143 EF) — direktiv 751117/EØF — sammenligning mellem lønnen for en jordemor og for en klinikingeniør — hensyntagen til et tillæg og en arbejastidsnedsættelse for ubekvemme arbejdstider* (Sjette Afdeling)
procedure on complaints where the complainant has not responded to a letter under Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 within the timelimit set by the Commission, the Court of First Instance correctly balanced the requirements of good administration and legal certainty on the one hand against those of ensuring the procedural safeguards provided for complainants on the other.
Kristina Ellmén's og Kia Wetterberg's månedlige grundløn udgør henholdsvis 17 400 SEK og 16 600 SEK, mens Lennart Persson's udgør 19 650 SEK
On the other hand, the Court of First Instance was not called upon to rule on whether or not there existed an agreement between undertakings.
Ved beslutning af 2. juli 1998, har Arbetsdomstolen i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 177 (nu artikel 234 EF) forelagt fem præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 119 (EF-traktatens artikel 117-120 er erstattet af artikel 136 EF -143 EF) og af Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF af 10. februar 1975.
Finally, the Court of First Instance was right in finding that circumstances such as those obtaining in the present case were special circumstances which could legitimately account for the failure to observe a timelimit laid down in the letter under Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63.