natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sag T-23/00 A / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case C-404/99 17 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic
Sag C-319/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser
Case C-319/99 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Freedom to provide services
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 95I47IEF« (Tredje Afdeling) formodning om, at den ikke havde truffet de nødvendige bestemmelser til gennemførelse af direktivet i national ret.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations (Third Chamber) presumed to be the lack of provisions necessary to transpose that directive into domestic law.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 26. august 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag i medfør af artikel 226 EF med pastand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentet og Rådets direktiv 95/47/EF af 24. oktober 1995, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har givet meddelelse om de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet, eller ikke har truffet de hertil nødvendige foranstaltninger.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 26 August 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by not communicating within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, or by not taking the necessary measures to comply therewith, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Da Kommissionen stadig ikke havde modtaget nogen meddelelse fra den franske regering om direktivets gennemførelse, tilsendte den den 14. oktober 1998 Den Franske Republik en begrundet udtalelse, hvori den fastslog, at denne havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til direktiv 95/47, idet den ikke havde truffet eller givet meddelelse om de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet. Kommissionen opfordrede Den Franske Republik til at efterkomme udtalelsen inden to måneder efter dens meddelelse.
On 14 October 1998 the Commission, which had still received no information from the French Government concerning the transposition of the directive, sent a reasoned opinion to the French Republic stating that, by not taking, or by not communicating, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 95/47, it had failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and calling on it to comply with that opinion within two months of its notification.
Ved skrivelse af 15. december 1998 meddelte den franske regering Kommissionen, at forsinkelsen med gennemførelsen af direktiv 95/47 skyldtes et regeringsskifte.
By letter of 15 December 1998 the French Government informed the Commission that the delay in transposing Directive 95/47 was due to a change of government
Artikel 8 i direktiv 95/47 bestemmer, at medlemsstaterne skal sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet inden for en frist på ni måneder fra dets ikrafttræden, og at de straks skal underrette Kommissionen herom.
Under Article 8 of Directive 95/47, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive within nine months of its entry into force and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.
Da direktivet trådte i kraft den 23. november 1995, udløb medlemsstaternes gennemførelsesfrist således den 23. august 1996.
As the directive entered into force on 23 November 1995, the period for transposition allowed to the Member States expired on 23 August 1996.
Den 8. juni 1999 meddelte den franske regering Kommissionen, at Nationalforsamlingen den 26. maj 1999 under førstebehandlingen af et lovforslag om audiovisuel kommunikation havde vedtaget et ændringsforslag med henblik på gennemførelse af direktiv 95/47.
On 8 June 1999 the French Government informed the Commission that an amendment transposing Directive 95/47 had been adopted by the National Assembly on 26 May 1999 in the debate following the first reading of a bill on radio and television matters.
Den tilføjede, at behandlingen af lovforslaget ville blive fortsat i Senatet i efteråret 1999.
It stated that the bill would be examined in the Senate in autumn 1999.
Da Kommissionen ikke modtog meddelelse om, at Den Franske Republik havde truffet foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af direktiv 95/47, tilsendte Kommissionen den en åbningsskrivelse den 16. januar 1997 med opfordring til inden to måneder at fremsende dens bemærkninger vedrørende Kommissionens
Since the French Republic had not informed it of any measure relating to the transposition of Directive 95/47, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the French Republic on 16 January 1997, calling on it to submit its observations within a period of two months on what, in the absence of information, was
Den franske regering har i svarskriftet ikke bestridt, at der ikke er vedtaget de nødvendige nationale bestemmelser til gennemførelse af direktiv 95/47.
communicated by the French authorities, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Den 23. august 1999 besluttede Kommissionen at anlægge det foreliggende søgsmål, da den ikke havde modtaget meddelelse fra de franske myndigheder om, at der var truffet foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af direktiv 95/47.
deny that the domestic provisions necessary for the implementation of Directive 95/47 have not been adopted.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
In its defence, the French Government does not
Generaladvokat A. Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 20. juni 2000.
Advocate General A. Saggio delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 20 June 2000.
Sag C-320/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne
Case C-320/99 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Approximation of laws
»Traktatbrud - direktiv 97/68/EF forurenende luftarter og partikler* (Tredje Afdeling) har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet, eller i hvert fald ikke har givet Kommissionen meddelelse om disse bestemmelser.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 97/68/EC — Non-road mobile machinery — Emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants) (Third Chamber)
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 26. august 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/68/EF af 16. december 1997, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist
Under Article 17(1) of Directive 97/68, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive not later than 30 June 1998 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.
Artikel 17, stk. 1, i direktiv 97/68 bestemmer, at medlemsstaterne skal sætte de nødvendige love
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 26 August 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1997, or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the French
Også denne skrivelse forblev ubesvaret.
That letter also went unanswered.
Da Kommissionen således ikke havde modtaget nogen som helst officiel og endelig meddelelse fra den franske regering om direktivets gennemførelse, besluttede den at anlægge nærværende sag.
It was in those circumstances that the Commission, having obtained no other official and definitive information from the French Government, decided to bring the present action.
Da Kommissionen ikke modtog meddelelse fra den franske regering om, at der var truffet foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af direktiv 97/68, og da den endvidere ikke rådede over nogen oplysninger, som gav den grundlag for at antage, at Den Franske Republik havde vedtaget de nødvendige bestemmelser til at efterkomme direktivet, tilsendte Kommissionen den 25. august 1998 den franske regering en åbningsskrivelse, hvori den opfordrede den til at fremsende sine bemærkninger vedrørende dette spørgsmål inden to måneder.
On 25 August 1998, since it had not received any communication from the French Government of the measures implementing Directive 97/68 and had no information at its disposal suggesting that the French Republic had adopted the provisions necessary to comply with that directive, the Commission gave formal notice to the French Government to submit its observations on the subject within two months.
Den franske regering har i svarskriftet ikke bestridt, at direktiv 97/68 ikke er gennemført til national ret inden for den fastsatte frist, men har opfordret Domstolen til at fastslå, at proceduren til direktivets gennemførelse er ved at være afsluttet.
In its defence, the French Government does not deny that Directive 97/68 was not transposed into domestic law within the prescribed period. However, it asks the Court to take note of the fact that the procedure for the transposition of that directive is in the course of completion.
Da denne skrivelse forblev ubesvaret, antog Kommissionen, at Den Franske Republik endnu ikke havde truffet de nødvendige foranstaltninger
As that letter went unanswered, the Commission considered that the French Republic had not yet adopted the measures necessary to meet its obligations under Directive 97/68 and sent a reasoned opinion to that Member State on 17 December 1998 calling on it to comply with that
Generaladvokat A Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 11. juli 2000.
Advocate General A Saggio delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 11 July 2000.
Sag C-421/98 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Spanien Fri bevægelighed for personer
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 2 and 10 of Directive 85I384IEEC — Restrictions on the exercise of activities as an architect according to the definition of the profession in the Member State in which the relevant qualification was obtained) (Fifth Chamber) calling on it to take the measures necessary for compliance within two months of its notification.
Kommissionen fandt ikke, at den spanske regerings argumentation var egnet til at ændre dens stilling på området, og fremsendte derfor den 21. april 1992 en begrundet udtalelse til Kongeriget Spanien, hvorved den opfordrede dette til at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at efterkomme udtalelsen inden for en frist på to måneder fra meddelelsen af udtalelsen.
In those circumstances, the Commission took the view that the Kingdom of Spain had not complied with the reasoned opinion and decided for that reason to bring the present action.
Den spanske regering meddelte i sit svar af 16. december 1992, at den havde til hensigt at ophæve artikel 10, stk. 2, i det kongelige dekret.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 24 November 1998, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action seeking a declaration that, by providing, in Article 10(2) of Real Decreto (Royal Decree) 1081/1989 of 28 August 1989 (Boletín Oficial del Estado No 214 of 7 September 1989, p.
Selv om det kongelige dekret blev ændret ved kongeligt dekret 314/1996 af 23. februar 1996 (BOE nr. 64 af 14.3.1996, s. 10140), blev artikel 10, stk. 2, imidlertid opretholdt.
28449) (hereinafter the Royal Decree'), that holders of qualifications in architecture awarded by another Member State and recognised under Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 *may not pursue in Spain activities other than those which they are authorised to pursue in their country of origin on the basis of the qualifications awarded by the latter, unless they collaborate with another member of the profession who is authorised to pursue those activities and who holds a qualification which is likewise recognised under Spanish law*, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of that directive.
Under disse omstændigheder antog Kommissionen, at Kongeriget Spanien ikke havde efterkommet den begrundede udtalelse, og anlagde derfor nærværende søgsmål.
By letter of 19 July 1990, the Commission put the Kingdom of Spain on formal notice to submit its observations as to whether Article 10(2) of the Royal Decree was compatible with Articles 2 and 10 of the directive.
Ved åbningsskrivelse af 19. juli 1990 opfordrede Kommissionen Kongeriget Spanien til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger vedrørende det kongelige dekrets artikel 10, stk. 2's forenelighed med direktivets artikel 2 og 10.
First of all, it is common ground that, under Article 10(2) of the Royal Decree, where the work consists in drawing up construction projects or optionally assuming control ofworks, persons holding a qualification in architecture awarded by a Member State other than the Kingdom of Spain and recognised by the latter Member State cannot pursue, within Spanish territory, activities differing from those which they could pursue in their Member State of origin or in the Member State from which they have come on the basis of the qualification awarded to them.
Den spanske regering bestred ved skrivelse af 30. oktober 1990 dette klagepunkt for det første på grundlag af EF-traktatens artikel 56 (efter ændring nu artikel 46 EF), og for det andet under henvisning til de særlige forhold, der
By letter of 30 October 1990, the Spanish Government challenged that complaint, relying on Article 56 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 46 EC) and on the specific respects in which the directive differs from other sectoral directives which provide for mutual recognition of qualifications and involve full harmonisation of the minimum training requirements so as to allow for automatic mutual recognition.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at det i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 2, i det kongelige dekret ligger fast, at når arbejdsopgaverne består i udarbejdelse af gennemførelsesprojekter eller i påtagelse af den fakultative ledelse af
According to the second recital in the preamble, the directive is designed to ensure mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other formal qualifications in respect of activities in the field of architecture in order to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services within that field.
byggearbejder, må indehavere af et eksamensbevis som arkitekt, der er udstedt af en anden medlemsstat, men anerkendt i Spanien, ikke i Spanien udøve anden virksomhed end den, de ville kunne udøve i deres hjemland eller seneste opholdsland på grundlag af det af det pågældende land udstedte kvalifikationsbevis.
So far as application of Article 56 of the Treaty to the present situation is concerned, it should be borne in mind that that provision is not designed to reserve certain matters to the exclusive jurisdiction of Member States but permits national laws to derogate from the principle of free movement to the extent to which such derogation is and continues to be justified for the attainment of the objectives referred to in that article (see to this effe«, with reference to Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC), Case 5/77 Tedeschi ν Denkavit).
Selv om det, som anført af den spanske regering, er korrekt, at det er værtsmedlemsstaten, der i den nationale lovgivning skal definere området for den virksomhed, der omfattes af arkitekterhvervet, når den finder, at en bestemt form for virksomhed falder inden for dette område, er kravet om gensidig anerkendelse ensbetydende med, at vandrende arkitekter ligeledes skal have adgang til denne virksomhed.
The essential point of this mutual recognition in expressed in Article 2 of the directive, which requires Member States to recognise the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications acquired as a result of education and training fulfilling the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of that directive and awarded to nationals of Member States by other Member States and to give them, as regards access to the activities usually pursued under the professional title of architect, the same effect in their territory as those diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which they themselves award.
Det følger af den nævnte bestemmelse, at indehavere af et eksamensbevis som arkitekt, som er udstedt af en anden medlemsstat end Spanien, ikke kan udøve deres funktioner inden for det samme virksomhedsområde, som indehavere af et eksamensbevis, der er opnået i Spanien.
Article 10 of the directive extends mutual recognition to certain other qualifications which do not meet the requirements set out in Chapter II of the directive, including those specified in Articles 3 and 4.
Ifølge anden betragtning til direktivet har dette til formål at sikre den gensidige anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser for at lette den faktiske udøvelse af retten til etablering og fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser i forbindelse med virksomhed, der falder inden for arkitekturområdet.
Where Community directives provide for harmonisation of the measures necessary to ensure the protection of a specific objective, recourse to Article 56 of the Treaty is no longer justified and the appropriate checks must be carried out and the measures of protection adopted within the framework outlined by the harmonising directive.
Der er for så vidt angår anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 56 i denne sag grund til at bemærke, at formålet med denne bestemmelse ikke er at forbeholde medlemsstaterne en enekompetence på visse områder, men at give medlemsstaterne mulighed for i deres nationale lovgivninger at gøre undtagelser fra princippet om fri bevægelighed, for så vidt som dette fortsat er begrundet for at nå de i denne artikel omhandlede mål (jf. i denne retning vedrørende EF-traktatens artikel 36 (efter ændring nu artikel 30 EF) dom af 5.10.1977, sag 5/77, Tedeschi).
In this case, the directive provides for measures to be taken where there is no substantive equivalence between, on the one hand, the training received in the Member State of origin or from which the person concerned comes and, on the other, that provided in the host Member State.
Når fællesskabsdirektiver foreskriver harmonisering af foranstaltninger, som er nødvendige for at sikre beskyttelsen af et bestemt formål, er der ikke længere nogen begrundelse for at anvende traktatens artikel 56, og det er inden for de rammer, som harmoniseringsdirektivet angiver, at der må træffes egnede kontrol- og beskyttelsesforanstaltninger.
It follows from Articles 2 and 10 of the directive that, when an activity is usually pursued by architects holding a qualification awarded by the host Member State, a migrant architect holding a diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications coming within the scope of the directive must also be able to pursue such an activity, even if his diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications is not necessarily substantively equivalent in terms of the training received.
Det afgørende punkt i denne gensidige anerkendelse findes udtrykt i direktivets artikel 2, som bestemmer, at hver medlemsstat er forpligtet til at anerkender de eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser, der er erhvervet ved en uddannelse, som opfylder de krav, der er præciseret i direktivets artikel 3 og 4, og som er udstedt til medlemsstaternes statsborgere af de øvrige medlemsstater, ved at tildele dem den samme virkning på sit område for så vidt angår adgang til den virksomhed, der sædvanligvis udøves under stillingsbetegnelsen arkitekt, som de eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser, den selv udsteder.
While it is true, as the Spanish Government submits, that it is for the national legislation of the host Member State to define the field of activities covered by the profession of architect, once an activity is considered by a Member State as coming within that field, the requirement of mutual recognition means that migrant architects must also be able to pursue that activity.
Direktivet foreskriver de foranstaltninger, der skal træffes, når der ikke består en indholdsmæssig overensstemmelse mellem de uddannelser, der modtages i den medlemsstat, der er hjemland eller seneste opholdsland, og de uddannelser, der gives i værtsmedlemsstaten.
According to Article 16(2) of the directive, if the academic title used in the Member State of origin, or in the Member State from which a foreign national comes, can be confused in the host Member State with a title requiring, in that State, additional education or training which the person concerned has not undergone, the host Member State may require such a person to use the title employed in the Member State of origin or the Member State from which he comes in a suitable form to be specified by the host Member State.
Det følger af direktivets artikel 2 og 10, at når en virksomhed sædvanligvis udøves af arkitekter, som har et eksamensbevis udstedt af værtsmedlemsstaten, skal en vandrende arkitekt, som er indehaver af et eksamensbevis, certifikat eller andet kvalifikationsbevis, som omfattes af direktivets anvendelsesområde, også have adgang til en sådan virksomhed, selv om hans eksamensbeviser, certifikater eller andre kvalifikationsbeviser ikke nødvendigvis
Declares that, by providing, in Article 10(2) of Real Decreto 1081/1989 of 28 August 1989, that persons holding qualifications in architecture awarded by another Member State and recognised under Council Directive 851384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
»1) Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpagteiser i henhold til artikel 2 og 10 i Rådets direktiv 85/384/EØF af 10. juni 1985 om gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser inden for arkitekturområdet, herunder om foranstaltninger, som skal lette den faktiske udøvelse af retten til etablering og fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, idet det i artikel 10, stk 2, i kongeligt dekret 1081/1989 af 28. august 1989 er fastsat, at indehavere af et eksamensbevis inden for arkitekturområdet, der er udstedt af en anden medlemsstat, og som er anerkendt i henhold til direktivet, ikke i Spanien må udøve anden virksomhed end den, de ville kunne udøve i deres oprindelsesland på grundlag af det af det pågældende land udstedte kvalifikationsbevis, medmindre de udøver virksomheden i samarbejde med en fagfælle, som må udøve denne virksomhed, og hvis kvalifikationsbevis også er anerkendt i henhold tü spansk lovgivning.
establishment and freedom to provide services, may not pursue in Spain activities other than those which they are authorised to pursue in their country of origin on the basis of the qualifications awarded by the latter, unless they coüaborate with another member of the prof ession who is authorised to pursue those activities and who holds a qualification which is likewise recognised under Spanish law, the Kingdom of Spam has failed ta fidfl its obligations under Articles 2 and 10 ofthat directive;
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs'
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling') den 11. maj 2000.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 11 May 2000.
Sag C-135/99
Case C-135/99 Ursula Elsen ν Bundesversicherungsanstalt fur Angestellte Freedom of movement for persons