natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvad angår garantibetaling for krav, der er omfattet af artikel 4, stk 2, i direktiv 80/987, kan medlemsstaten ikke med føje antage, at en arbejdstager, der ikke er selskabsdeltager, almindeligvis afdennegrund vUTe have opsagt sin stilling, før den tilgodehavende løn vedrører en periode på tre måneder.*
By decision of 5 August 1999, the Bundesamt rejected that application essentially on the ground that claims to salary which minority shareholders fail to assert for more than 60 days must be regarded as shareholder loans made in lieu of capital contributions and that the failure to claim outstanding salary amounts to an
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 3. oktober 2002.
unreasonable burden, contrary to bonos mores, on the Insolvenz-Ausfallgeld-Fonds (Insolvency Compensation Fund) and such claims are thus void.
Præjudiciel »Konkurrence — dominerende stilling — levering af elektricitet — opkrævning af en sovrapprezzo* (Sjette Afdeling)
That court essentially held that where an employee, who also holds shares in the company that employs him, fails to recover amounts due to him under his employment contract, those amounts must be treated as a capital contribution if — as is the case in the main proceedings — the employee holds 25% of the share capital and could have known that the company was unable to meet its liabilities.
Hovedsagen og det præjudicielle spørgsmål
In those circumstances, the Oberster Gerichtshof referred the following questions to the court for a preliminary ruling:
Denne aktivitet udgør ifølge den nationale ret en industriel aktivitet med et højt energiforbrug, hvori elektricitet anvendes som »procesenergi« og udgør en egentlig råvare, som er integreret i produktionsprocessen, for så vidt som den indgår i det endelige produkt uden at kunne adskilles herfra.
Is it contrary to the objectives of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer if, by operation of the principles relating to loans in lieu of capital contributions applied by the Austrian courts, a shareholder who has no dominant influence on the company loses his entitlement to the guarantee in respect of claims for outstanding salary resulting from insolvency where, in his capacity as an employee of the company, he fails, within 60 days from the time he is first in a position to know that the company is no longer creditworthy, to make any genuine demand for payment of salary in arrears and/or does not resign early on the ground of nonpayment of his salary?
Altair nægtede først at indbetale tillæggene svarende til virksomhedens elforbrug i februar og marts 1997.
Does this loss of entitlement extend to all unpaid claims under the employment relationship or only to those which arise after the time at which an employee who was not a shareholder would be deemed to have resigned on the ground of nonpayment of his salary?'
Som følge heraf anmodede ENEL ved begæring af 27. juni 1997 præsidenten for Tribunale di Firenze om at pålægge Altair at betale de omhandlede beløb.
It must be found that continuation of the employment relationship after the time when an employee could have become aware of the company's critical situation constitutes an abusive practice adversely affecting the guarantee institution since it artificially establishes the necessary conditions for obtaining the protection accorded to victims of an employer's insolvency under Directive 80/987.
Efter at Altair ved flere retssager var blevet pålagt at betale de anfægtede beløb, indbragte virksomheden sagen for Corto d'appello di Firenze.
The very fact that a shareholder-employee remains in the employment relationship beyond the date on which an employee who is not a shareholder would, in the same circumstances, have resigned on the ground of nonpayment of his salary is circumstantial evidence of abusive intentions.
Virksomheden har ved denne ret gjort gældende, at de retsforskrifter, som indførte tillæggene, er uforenelige med fællesskabsretten og navnlig med artikel 81 EF, 82 EF og 85 EF, samt med direktiv 92/12 og henstilling 81/924.
Therefore, a measure taken by a Member State to prevent abuse, which denies the shareholder-employee an entitlement to a guarantee in respect of claims for outstanding pay arising after that date, does indeed constitute a measure adopted to avoid abuses within the meaning of Article 10(a) of Directive 80/987.
Da Corte d'appello di Firenze fandt at sagens afgørelse nødvendiggjorde fortolkning af forskellige fællesskabsbestemmelser, besluttede den at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål.
However, the fact that the shareholder-employee remained in the employment relationship beyond the date on which an employee who is not a shareholder would, in the same circumstances, have resigned on the ground of nonpayment of his salary, does not automatically mean that there was an abuse.
Ved det præjudicielle spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om artikel 81 EF, 82 EF og 85 EF, direktiv 92/12 eller henstilling 81/924 skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for bestemmelser, der fastsætter opkrævning af sådanne tillæg til elprisen, som omhandlet i hovedsagen, når elektriciteten anvendes i en elektrokemisk proces.
Moreover, it is clear from the first and second indents of Article 4(2) of Directive 80/987 that the Community legislature considered that it is not unusual for an employee to continue to perform his duties where the unpaid salary relates to a period of less than three months. Therefore, it would not be compatible with the purpose of Directive 80/987 to assume that, as a general rule, an employee who is not a shareholder would have resigned on the ground of nonpayment of his salary before the expiry of that period.
Vedrørende for det andet de i hovedsagen omhandlede tillægs forenelighed med direktiv 92/12 bemærkes, at direktivet i artikel 3, stk. 1, opregner de produkter, på hvilke direktivet finder anvendelse.
Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded precludes a rule that an employee with a significant shareholding in the private limited company that employs him, but who does not exercise a dominant influence over that company, loses, pursuant to the Austrian case-law relating to shareholder loans in lieu of capital contributions, fus entitlement to the guarantee in respect of claims for outstanding pay which result from the employer's insolvency and are covered by Article 4(2) of that directive if, in the 60 days from the time he first could have become aware that the company was no longer creditworthy, he f atis to make any genuine demand for payment of salary owed to him.
Det fremgår af såvel overskriften som af principperne i henstilling 81/924, at denne alene finder anvendelse på eltarifstrukturen. Henstillingen tilsigter således at standardisere principperne på baggrund af tarifstrukturerne i de forskellige medlemslande og at øge gennemsigtigheden og offentligheden af elpriserne.
To avoid abuses a Member State is, in principle, entitled to take measures that deny such an employee an entitlement to a guarantee in respect of claims for outstanding salary arising after the date on which an employee who is not a shareholder would have resigned on the ground of nonpayment of Ms salary, unless it is established that there has been no abusive conduct.
Den angiver, hvilke omkostninger priserne bør dække, men indeholder derimod intet, der kan føre til den konklusion, at den kan fortolkes som gældende ved indførelse af en afgift på elforbruget.
As regards the guarantee to pay claims covered by Article 4(2) of Directive 80/987, as amended, the Member State is not entitled to assume that, as a general rule, an employee who is not a shareholder would have resigned on the ground of nonpayment of his salary before his salary had been in arrears for a period of three monthsJ* J*
Herefter må det konstateres, at henstilling 81/924 ikke kan forhindre en medlemsstat i at opkræve tillæg som de i hovedsagen omhandlede.
Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 3 October 2002.
»Artikel 81 EF, 82 EF og 85 EF samt Rådets direktiv 92/12/EØF af 25. februar 1992 om den generelle ordning for punktafgiftspligtige varer, om oplægning og omsætning heraf samt om kontrol hermed, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 96/99/EF af 30. december 1996, skal fortolkes således, at de ikke er til hinder for en national lovgivning, der fastsætter opkrævning af sådanne tillæg til elprisen som omhandlet i hovedsagen, når elektriciteten anvendes i en elektrokemisk proces, samt at Rådets henstilling 81/924/EF af 27. oktober 1981 om eltarifstrukturer inden for Fællesskabet ikke kan forhindre en medlemsstat i at opkræve sådanne tillæg.*
Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation under which, on account of the principles on loans made in substitution for share capital, the right of a shareholder with no controlling influence on the company to have recourse to the guarantee relating to salary which has not been paid on account of insolvency is limited where, in his capacity as an employee of the company, he does not, after the onset of the company's creditunworthiness which has become apparent to him, claim the regular pay which has stopped being paid to him for more than sixty days or resign early on the ground that his pay has been withheld.
Præjudiciel »Socialpolitik — ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — aldersbetinget deltidsordning—direktiv 76/207/EØF — indirekte forskelsbehandling — objektiv begrundelse*
Preliminary ruling (Competition — Dominant position — Supply of electricity — Imposition of a (Sixth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 10. december 2001 har Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 141 EF, af Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF af 10. februar 1975, af Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976, samt af Rådets direktiv 97/81/EF af 15. december 1997.
By order of 23 January 2001 the Corte d'appello di Firenze (Court of Appeal, Florence) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Articles 81, 82 and 85 EC, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992, and Council Recommendation 81/924/EEC of 27 October 1981 on electricity tariff structures in the Community.
Sagsøgeren har kun månedsvis, og såfremt arbejdsbyrden samt budgetmæssige bestemmelser gjorde det muligt, efter ansøgning kunnet opnå fuldtidsansættelse.
Altair initially refused to pay the surcharges on its electricity consumption for the months of February and March 1997.
Det var heller ikke muligt at tilbyde sagsøgeren midlertidig fuldtidsbeskæftigelse, da der ikke var nogen ledig stilling.
As a consequence, by application of 27 June 1997 ENEL asked the President of the Tribunale (District Court) di Firenze to order Altair to pay the amounts in question.
Sagsøgeren meddelte endvidere, at hun havde til hensigt at gå på pension den 1. oktober 2007.
Having been ordered to pay the disputed sums following several sets of proceedings, Altair brought an action before the Corte d'appello di Firenze.
Ved Arbeitsamt Reutlingens afgørelse af 12. juli 1999 blev ansøgningen afvist under henvisning til, at Erika Steinicke ikke opfyldte betingelsen i den anfægtede bestemmelse om inden for de sidste fem år forud for den aldersbetingede deltidsordning sammenlagt at have været fuldtidsbeskæftiget i tre år.
Before that court it argued that the legislative provisions introducing the surcharges were incompatible with Community law and, in particular, with Articles 81, 82 and 85 EC, Directive 92/12 and Recommendation 81/924.
»Er artikel 141 EF, direktiv 75/117/EØF, direktiv 76/207/EØF og/eller direktiv 97/81/EF til hinder for bestemmelsen i Bundesbeamtengesetz' § 72 b, stk. 1, første punktum, nr. 2, i den affattelse af 31. marts 1999, der var gældende indtil den 30. juni 2000, hvorefter den aldersbetingede deltidsordning kun kan tildeles en tjenestemand, der i de sidste fem år før påbegyndelsen af deltidsbeskæftigelsen sammenlagt har været fuldtidsbeskæftiget i mindst tre år, når væsentligt flere kvinder end mænd er deltidsbeskæftigede og således udelukket fra at blive omfattet af aldersbetinget deltidsordning i henhold til denne bestemmelse?«
By its question the national court asks, essentially, whether Articles 81, 82 and 85 EC, Directive 92/12 or Recommendation 81/924 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a measure providing for the levy of surcharges on the price of electricity such as those at issue in the main proceedings when electricity is used in an electro-chemical process.
Det må fastslås, at en bestemmelse som den i hovedsagen omhandlede faktisk fører til forskelsbehandling af kvindelige arbejdstagere i forhold til mandlige arbejdstagere, og er i princippet i strid med artikel 2, stk. 1, og artikel 5, stk. 1, i direktiv 76/207.
As regards, second, the compatibility of the surcharges with Directive 92/12, it must be recalled that the Directive sets out in Article 3(1) the products to which it applies.
Det vil kun forholde sig anderledes, såfremt forskelsbehandlingen af de to grupper af arbejdstagere er begrundet i objektive forhold, som intet har at gøre med forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
It is clear from a reading of that provision together with Article 2 of Directive 92/81 and Article 2 of Directive 92/82 that electricity does not fall within the scope ratione materiae of Directive 92/12.
Det påhviler Bundesanstalt für Arbeit for den nationale ret at godtgøre, at den forskelsbehandling, der følger af den aldersbetingede deltidsordning, er berettiget ud fra objektive grunde, som intet har at gøre med forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
It is clear, both from its title and from the principles that it lays down, that Recommendation 81/924 applies only to the structure of the electricity tariff.
Såfremt der føres bevis herfor, kan den omstændighed, at ordningens bestemmelser begrænser adgangen hertil til arbejdstagere, der i de sidste fem år før påbegyndelsen af deltidsbeskæftigelsen har været fuldtidsbeskæftiget i mindst tre år, ikke i sig selv betragtes som en tilsidesættelse af artikel 2, stk. 1, og artikel 5, stk. 1, i direktiv 76/207.
It seeks to harmonise the principles forming the basis of the tariff structures in the different Member States and to improve transparency and public knowledge of electricity prices. Whilst the recommendation gives indications as to the different costs that the prices may include there is nothing in it to suggest that it can be interpreted as applying to the introduction of a tax on electricity consumption.
De nationale domstole er i tilfælde af, at lovbestemmelser tilsidesætter direktiv 76/207, fordi de indfører en forskelsbehandling, der er i strid med direktivet, forpligtet til i videst muligt omfang at se bort fra denne forskelsbehandling, bl.a. ved at anvende de pågældende bestemmelser til fordel for den forfordelte gruppe, uden at de behøver at anmode om eller afvente, at bestemmelserne forinden ophæves af lovgiver, ved kollektiv forhandling eller på anden vis.
In those circumstances it must be held that Recommendation 81/924 does not prevent a Member State from levying surcharges such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
»Artikel 2, stk 1, og artikel 5, stk 1, i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af m til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår skal fortolkes således, at disse er til hinder for en bestemmelse som § 72 b, säe 1, første punktum, nr. 2, i Bundesbeamtengesetz (tysk lov omforbundsti'enestemænd), i den affattelse af31. marts 1999, der var gældende indtil den 30. juni 2000, hvorefter aldersbetinget deltidsbeskæftigelse kun kan tildeles en tjenestemand, der i de sidste fem år før påbegyndelsen af deltidsbeskæftigelsen sammenlagt har været fiddtidsbeskæftiget i mindst tre år, når væsendigt flere kvinder end mænd er deltidsbeskæftigede og således udelukket fra aldersbetinget deltidsbeskæftigelse i henhold til denne bestemmelse, medmindre bestemmelsen er begrundet ud fru objektive kriterier, som intet har at gøre med forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.*
'Articles 81, 82 and 85 EC and Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 96/99/EC of 30 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national rule providing for the levy of surcharges on the price of electricity such as those at issue in the main proceedings when the electricity is used in an electro-chemical process and that Council Recommendation 81/924/EEC of 27 October 1981 on electricity tariff structures in the Community is not capable of preventing a Member State from levying such surcharges.'
Generaladvokat A. Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 3. april 2003.
Advocate General F. G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 13 March 2003.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 4. december 2000 har Republikken Østrig anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2012/2000 af 21. september 2000 om ændring af bilag 4 til protokol nr. 9 til tiltrædelsesakten af 1994 og forordning (EF) nr. 3298/94 for så vidt angår økopointsystemet angående transitkørsel gennem østrigsk territorium (herefter »den anfægtede forordning«).
By order of 10 December 2001 the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 141 EC and of Council Directives 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975, 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 and 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997.
Sagens faktiske omstændigheder og retsforskrifter
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
Denne ordning udspringer af aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Republikken Østrig om godstransport i transit med jernbane og ad landevej, der blev undertegnet i Porto den 2. maj 1992, og godkendt på Fællesskabets vegne ved Rådets afgørelse 92/577/EØF af 27. november 1992.
After the birth of her baby, her working hours were reduced, at her request, to half normal working hours from 19 November 1976.
Ordningens væsentligste elementer er fastsat i protokollens artikel 11, stk. 2, der har følgende ordlyd:
In the period 1 February 1985 to 13 April 1986 the normal weekly working hours were reduced to 30 hours.
»Indtil den 1. januar 1998 gælder følgende bestemmelser: a)
Since 14 April 1986, Ms Steinicke has as a general rule worked part-time.
Det samlede NOx-emissionsniveau fra lastvogne, der kører i transit gennem Østrig, nedbringes med 60% mellem den 1. januar 1992 og den 31. december 2003 efter tabellen i bilag 4.
She has been able to work full-time, at her own request, only on a monthly basis and because the workload and budgetary provisions have so permitted.
Nedbringelserne af det samlede NOx-emissionsniveau fra lastvogne forvaltes ved hjælp af et økopointsystem. Som led i dette system behøver hver lastvogn, som kører gennem Østrig i transit, et økopointantal, som svarer til talværdien af dens NOx-emissioner (den godkendte værdi i forbindelse med produktionens overensstemmelse med (COP-værdien) eller typegodkendelsesværdien). Tildeling og forvaltning af disse point beskrives i bilag 5.
Her request of 1 December 1998 for a permanent increase in her normal working hours on account of the growth in the workload and in order subsequently to work part time on grounds of age was rejected for budgetary reasons by the Arbeitsamt Reutlingen (Reutlingen Employment Office, Germany) by letter of 27 July 1999.
Hvis antallet af transitture i et givet år overstiger referencetallet for 1991 med mere end 8%, skal Kommissionen efter proceduren i artikel 16 vedtage passende foranstaltninger i overensstemmelse med punkt 3 i bilag 5.
On 30 June 1999 Ms Steinicke made an application to the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit to work part-time on grounds of age under the provision at issue for the period 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2007, on the basis of the block model, that is to say, a period from 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2003 of work equal to that normally done before then, followed by a period of free time from 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2007. In addition, she declared her intention of retiring on 1 October 2007.
Økopoint fordeles af Kommissionen på medlemsstaterne i henhold til bestemmelser, der indføres efter stk. 6.«
(e) The ecopoints shall be distributed by the Commission among Member States in accordance with provisions to be established in accordance with paragraph 6.'
Forordning nr. 3298/94 ændrer bilag 4 til protokollen og fastsætter antallet af økopoint således:
Regulation No 3298/94 amends Annex 4 to the Protocol and fixes the total number of ecopoints as follows:
Forordningen fastsætter også i bilag D fordelingsnøglen for økopoint mellem medlemsstaterne.
Regulation No 3298/94 also fixes, in Annex D, the distribution scale of ecopoints between Member States.
Antallet af transitture gennem Østrig var i 1991 1 490 900, mens den tærskel, der henvises til i protokollens artikel 11, stk. 2, litra c), udgjorde 1 610 172 transitture.
The number of transit journeys made through Austria in 1991 was 1 490 900, and the threshold to which Article ll(2)(c) of the Protocol refers is equivalent to 1 610 172 transit journeys.
Statistikkerne over økopoint viser en trafik på 1 706 436 transitture i 1999, hvilket svarer til en overskridelse af tærsklen for 1991 med 14,57%.
The ecopoint statistics showed 1 706 436 journeys during 1999, which represented a 14.57% increase over the figure for 1991.
Kommissionen forelagde den 20. maj 2000 i overensstemmelse med proceduren i protokollens artikel 16 et forslag til kommissionsforordning for det i protokollens artikel 16 omhandlede udvalg (herefter »økopointudvalget«).
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 16 of the Protocol, the Commission, on 20 May 2000, submitted a proposal for a Commission Regulation to the committee provided for in Article 16 of the Protocol ('the Ecopoints Committee').
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at antallet af økopoint for 2000 skulle reduceres med cirka 20% (eller en reduktion på 2 184 552 økopoint) i henhold til den beregningsmetode, der er indeholdt i protokollens bilag 5, punkt 3.
The Commission pointed out that, according to the calculation method laid down in point 3 of Annex 5 to the Protocol, the number of ecopoints for the year 2000 was to be reduced by about 20% (that is, 2 184 552 ecopoints).
Ifølge Kommissionen ville denne reduktion medføre, at der reelt ikke ville være flere økopoint til rådighed i sidste kvartal 2000, således at enhver transitkørsel med lastvogne gennem Østrig ville være forbudt.
It stated that the consequence of that reduction would be that, during the last quarter of the year 2000, there would be practically no ecopoints available, so that all transit of lorries through Austria would be prohibited.