natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten fandt i den forbindelse, at den omstandighed, at de kamptyre, eksportorerne opdrrettede, skulle anvendes til at kempe underkulrurelle eller sportslige begivenheder,at forsendelsenog transporten afdyrene var underlagt sarlige bestemmelser, der sikrede en streng kontrol afalle de udfsrte dyr, og at de var registreret i stambsgerfor kamptyre, ikkeskabte en sädan serlig situation, at sagsogerne i forhold til den anfagtedebeslutning adskilte sig fra enhver andenkvregopdretter eller -eksportor, dervar bersrt af beslutningens afsendelsesforbud.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance heldthat the fact that the bulls bred by the exporters were intended to fight atcultural and sporting events, that the expofi andtransportation of those animalswere subject to specific rules which ensure strict control of all the animalsexported and that those exporters were entered in herd books of fighting bullsdid not constitute a particular situation differentiating the applicants, in respectof the contested decision, from any other breederor exporterof bovineanimals affected by the prohibition on dispatch laid down by that decision.
Retten fastslog endvidere, at denanfegtede beslutning kun bersrte dem pä grund af det objektive forhold, at devar eksportsrer af kvreg pä linje med enhver anden erhvervsdrivende, derudovede samme eksportvirksomhed fra den pägaldende medlemsstats omräde.Endvidere kan det forhold, at en person pä den ene eller anden mäde harmedvirket i den proces, der har farttilvedtagelse af en fellesskabsretsakt, kunfffie til, at denne person kan betragtes som individuelt berart af denpägeldende retsakt, när de geldende frellesskabsretlige bestemmelser giverham visse processuelle garantier.Dette fandtes imidlertid ikke at vaere tilfeldetfor bestemmelserne i direktiv 891662 og 901425 om veterinrerkontrol ogzooteknisk kontrol i samhandelen inden for Fellesskabet 6.
Italso held that the decision concerned them only by reason of their objectivestatus as exporters of bovine animals, by the same token as all other operatorsexercising the same activity of dispatching from the Member State concerned.Moreover, the fact that a personintervenes, in one way or another,in theprocedure leading to the adoption of a Community measure is not such as todifferentiate him from any other person in respect of the measure in questionexcept where the Community legislation applicablegrants him certainprocedural safeguards.However, that is not the case with the provisions of Directives891662 and 9A/425 concerning veterinaryand zootechnical checksapplicablein intraCommunity trade.6 6
Kommissionens beslutning 98/653/EFaf 18.11.1998 om hasteforanstaltninger som folgeaf forekomsten af bovin spongiform encephalopati i Portugal (EFT L 3lI, s. 23).
Commission Decision 98/653/EC of 18 Novemher 1998 concerning emergency meäsures made necessary by the occurrence of bovine spüngiformencephalopathy tn Portugal (OJ1998L 311,p.23),
Rädets direktiv 90/425lEgF af 26.6.1990om veterinarkontrol og zootekniskkontrol isamhandelen med visse levende dyr og produkter inden for Frellesskabet med henblik pä gennemforelse af det indre marked (EFT L 224, s. 29) og Rädets direktiv89/662/E@F af 11.12.L989 om veterinarkontrol i samhandelen i Frellesskabet medhenblik pä gennemforelse af det indre marked (EFT L 395, s. 13).
Council Directive 901425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinaryand zootechnicalchecks applicable in intraCommunity trade in certainlive animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal rnarket {OJ 1990 L 224, p.29), and Council Directive 89/662_BAR_EECof 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-
Republik havde tilladt, at den kvote pä 5 220 tons ansjoser,som sidstnrevntestat havdefäet bevilgetfor ICES-omrädeIX og X samtCECAF 34.I.1, i 2000for 3 000 tons vedkommende kunne fiskes i ICES-omrädeVIII, der henhsrteunder Frankrigs overhojhedeller jurisdiktion 8.
8 8 under under the the sovereignty sovereignty or or jurisdiction jurisdiction within within the the of of the the
Sagsogerne fandtes ikke pägrundaf visse egenskaber, som var srerlige for dem, eller pä grund af enfaktisk situation, der adskilte dem fra alle andre, at vaere bersrt af denanfagtede beslutning, der var almengyldig.
The The applicants were not affected by the contested provision,which is of general application, application, by by reason reason of of certain certain attributes attributes peculiar peculiar to to them them or or by by reason reason of of aa factual situation which differentiated them, as regards that provision, from allother persons.
Serligt havde Rädet vedvedtagelsen af bestemmelsen ingen forpligtelse til at tage hensyn tii sagssgernes serlige situation.
In particular, when it adopted that provision,the Council wasunder no obligation to take account of the particular situation of the applicants.
Selv om annullationssogsmälet skulle afvises, bemarkede Retten, at denanfegtede retsaktaltid kunne anfegtes af de bersrte parter under en sag omerstatningsansvar uden for kontraktforhold i medfsr af artikel235 EF og 288EF i det ornfang, de fandt, at de havde lidt skade umiddelbart som folge afretsakten.
Instance Instance pointed pointed out out that that the the contested contested measure measure could could always always be be called called into into question by the persons concerned if they considered themselves the victimsof damage caused directly by that measure under the procedure for noncontractual liability laid down in Articles 235 EC and 288 EC.
Retten fastslog, at det almindelige frellesskabsretlige princip - derbygger pä artikei 13 i den europeiske konvention til beskyttelse afmenneskerettigheder og grundlaggende frihedsrettigheder ("EMRK") af 4.november 1950 - offi, at enhver, hvis rettigheder og friheder er blevetkrenket, har krav pä en effektiv retsbeskyttelse, var blevetfulgt i den konkretesag.
It concludedthat the general principle of Community law according to which any personwhose rights and freedoms have been infringed has the right to an effectiveremedy, which is inspiredby Article 13 of the European Convention on the
Den sag, hvori der biev afsagt ovenn & vnte dom den 27 " juni 200I, Andres de Dios m.fl. mod Rädet, gav Retten anledning til at gentage, at udtrykket
Others Others v v Council, Council, cited cited above, above, gave gave the the
"beslutning" i artikei 230, stk. 4, EF skal forstäs i den tekniske betydning, derfolger af artikel 249 EF.Idet Rädets beslutning 199913071F.F af 1. maj 1999 om de nrcrmere bestemmelser for integration af Schengensekretariatet i Generalsekretar i at e for t Rädet (EFT LlIg, s.49) fandtanvendelse päobjektivt bestemte situationerog havde retsvirkninger for generelt og abstrakt
Article 23OEC has the technical meaning employed in Article 249 EC. Since it it applies applies to to objectively objectively determined determined situations situations and and produces produces legal legal effects effects withwith respect to categories of persons envisaged generally and in the abstract,Council Decision l999l307lBC of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrangements arrangements for for the the integration integration of of the the
Retten undersogte derefter, om sagsogerne var berettigede til at anlregge sag med pästand om annullation af retsakten - som de ikke varadressater for - og fandt, at de ikke var individuelt bersrt af den.
49), despite being entitled a'decision', is an act of a legislative nature. Turning to the question of the
Medhensyn til argumentet om, at sagsogerne var individuelt bersrt som folge af,at R.ädetikke havde indfsrt en ansettelsesprocedure i overensstemmelse rned de relevante bestemmelser i vedtagten for denestemand ved De Europeiske iCES-omräde t er det statistiske omräde, som Det Internationale Hawndersogelsesräd har er det franske initialord for Komitdenfor Fiskerieti det fastlagt og afgrrnset. "CECAF* Ostlige CentraleAtlanterhav. Atlanterhav.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 thefishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters wherelimitations in catch are required, and amending Regulation (EC) No 66198 (OJ 1999 L
Frellesskaber, som sagsogerne kunne have deltaget i, fastslog Retten, at denneargumentation, hvorved det blev gjort geldende, at institutionen havdefrataget frataget dem proceduremessige rettigheder, var uden betydning for bedsrnmelsen afadgangen til realitetsbehandling af et sogsmäl rettet mod ennormativ retsakt,medmindre det blev bevist, at institutionensvalg udgjorde enprocedurefordrejning. Der var imidlertid ikke blevet fsrt et sädant bevis i denkonkrete sag.
In response to the argument that they were individuallydistinguished as a result of the Council's failure to establish a recruitment procedure consistent with the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations ofofficials of the European Communities, in which they could have taken part,the Court of First Instance held that such an argument, by which the applicantscomplained that the institution deprived them of procedural rights, wasirrelevant for the purpose of assessing the admissibility of an action broughtagainst a legislative measure unless the institution's choice was shown toconstitute an abuse of procedure.
Retten fastslog endvidere, at for, at den omstendighed, at derer tale om en begranset kredsaf borgere, kan have nogen betydning som enfaktor, der kan individualisere de pägeldende borgere i relation til en normativretsakt, skal den institution, som har udstedt den anfegtede retsakt, i forbindelse med retsaktens vedtagelse have veret forpligtet til at tage hensyntil de pägaldende borgeres srerlige situation.
It also pointed out that for the existence of a closed classof individuals to be a relevant factor distinguishing the persons in questionindividually in relation to a legislative act, the institution adopting thecontested act must have been under an obligation to take account, at the timeof adoption of the act, of the particular circumstances of those individuals.
Da det imidlertid ikke foreläbevist, at sagssgerne var individuelt berart, blev sagen afuist.
Asno evidence was adduced which would support a finding that the applicantswere individually concerned, their action was dismissed as inadmissible.
Pä statsstotteomrädet fremgär det af ovennrevnte dom af 21. marts 2001,Hamburger Hafen- und Lagerhaus m.fl. mod Kommissionen, at man skal vrereen konkurrenttil en modtager af statsststte for at anses for at v & re eninteresseret part i artikel 88, stk. 2, EF's forstand.
Others Others v v Commission, Commission, cited cited above, above, that that a a party party must be a competitor of the beneficiary of State aid to have standing as a partyconcerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC.
Da sagsogeren ikke stod idirekte konkurrence medstottemodtageren, kunne sagsogeren ikke anerkendesat vere en interesseret part, og sagen, hvorunder der var nedlagt pästand omannullation af Kommissionens beslutning om at godkende statsststte uden atindlede den formelle undersogelsesprocedure, der var foreskrevet i ovennavnte bestemmelse, blev afuist.
As it was not in directcompetition with the beneficiary of the aid, the applicant company was notdeemed to have standing as a party concerned and its action for annulment ofthe Commission decision approving State aid without initiating the formalassessment procedure provided for by that provision was declared inadmissible.
Derimod antog Retten et annullationssogsmäl til realitetsbehandling, der varanlagt af en af modtagerne af stotte i henhold til den pägaldende generelleststteordning med pästand om annullation af en beslutning truffet af Kommissionen om at erklrereen bestemmelse i en skattelov uforenelig medfrellesmarkedet og om at pälegge tilbagesogning fra de virksomheder, derhavde modtaget stotte i medfsr af bestemmelsen.I ovennavnte dom af 22.november 7001, Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Rffinerie mod Kommissionen, blevsagssgeren anset for at v & re individuelt bersrt af den anfagtede beslutning.Retten fastslog, at en rrekke forhold, der godtgjorde,at sagsogerensinvesteringsprojekt serligt var blevet taget i betragtning, havde bragt den i enfaktisk situation, der adskilte den fra enhver anden erhvervsdrivende.
However, the Court of First Instance ruled admissible an action for annulment,brought by one of the beneficiaries of a general aid scheme, of a Commissiondecision declaring a provision of a finance law incompatible with the commonmarket and ordering recovery from undertakings in receipt of aid grantedunder thatprovision. In the judgment in Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Rffinerie vCommission, cited above, the applicant was held to be individually concernedby the contested decision.
Endvidere havde Retten i en rekke sager anledning til at gentage, under hvilkebetingelser en erhvervssammenslutning kan anses for at v & resogsmälsberettiget i henhold til artikel 230 EF (ovennevnte kendelser i sagenI b er o t a m m.fl. mod Kommissionen og Federaciön de Cofradias de Pescadoresde Guiptizcoa m.fl. mod Rädet, og ovennrevnte dom i sagen Hamburger Hafen-
The Court of First Instance observed that severalfactors, demonstrating that account was specifically taken of the applicant'sinvestment project, placed it in a situation which differentiated it from all other operators.
Ingen af de sagsogendesarrmenslutninger kunne anses for gyldigt at optrede pä et eller flere af deresmedlemmers vegne (i overensstemmelse med den i Rettens dom af 6,7.1995,forenede sager T-447193, T-448193 og T-449193, AITEC m.fl. modKommissionen, Sml,II,s. 1971,valgtelosning)ellerforatv & re forhandlingsleder i betydningen i Domstolens dom af 2. februar 1988 , Van der Kooy m.fl. mod Kommissionen (forenede sager 67185,68/85 og 70185, Sml.s.
None of the applicantassociations could be considered to represent one or several of its members(following the solution devised in the judgment in Joined Cases T-447193,T-448193 andT-449193 AITECand Others v Commissiontl995l ECR II-1971)or to have the capacity of negotiator within the meaning of the judgments ofthe Court of Justice in Joined Cases 67185, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and
219), og af 24. marts 1993, CIRFS m.fl. mod Kommissionen (sag C-313190,Snrl. I,s. 1125).
Others v Commission [1988] ECR 219 and CaseC-313190 CIRFS and Othersv Commission 11993) ECR I-1125.
I kendelse af 14. februar 2001 , Pitsiorlas mod Rädet og DEC (sag T-3/00(appelsag C-L93l0l P), Srnl. II, s. 777), gentog Retten, at en undskyldelig vildfarelseunder ekstraordinrre omstendigheder kan indebere, at et for sentanlagt sogsmäl kan realitetsbehandles.
In its order of 14 February 2001 in Case T-3/00 Pitsiorlasv Council and ECB t200U ECR II-717 (under appeal, Case C-193/01 P), the Court again made thepoint that an excusable error may, in exceptional circumstances, have the effect of not making the applicant out of time.
Den anfsrte, at dette navnlig ertilfrldet, när den pägreldende institution har udvist en adferd, der i sig selveller i afgarendeomfang har veret egnet til at fremkalde en undskyldeligvildfarelse hos en borger, der har handleti god tro og med den omhu, somkreves af en normalt päpasseligperson.
It pointed out that this is so,in particular, when the conduct of the institution concerned has been, eitheralone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to pardonable confusion inthe mind of a party acting in good faith and exercising all the diligence required of a normally experienced person.
Da de omstendigheder, somsagssgeren havdepäberäbt sig, imidlertid i den pägaldende sag ikke kunneanses for at vöre ekstraordinere omstendigheder, der kunne have foranledigeten undskyldelig vildfarelse, blev annullationssogsmälet afuist, for sä vidt detvar rettet mod Rädetsafgorelse. afgorelse.
However, in this case, since thecircumstances put forward by the applicant were not regarded as exceptionalcircumstances giving rise to an excusable error, the action for annulment, tothe extent that it impugnedthe Council's decision, was dismissed asinadmissible.
Konkurrenceregler for virksomheder
Competition rules applicable to undertakings
Ret s p raks i s o m konkurr enc e r e g I e r for vi rks o mhe d e r blev udbyg get med dommeafsagt pä grundlag af reglerne i EF-traktaten og EKSF-traktaten.
The The caselaw caselaw on on competition competition rules rules applicable applicable to to undertakingJ undertakingJ was was developeddeveloped by judgments concerning the rules of the EC Treaty and the ECSC Treaty.
Der er igennemretspraksis i Isbet af 2001 sket en afklaringaf sporgsmäl indenfor meget forskelligeomräder: anvendelsesomrädet for de fellesskabsretligekonkurrenceregler, aftaler i strid med artikel 81 EF og 65 KS, misbrug afdominerende stilling i strid med artikel 82 EF, overholdelse af retten tilkontradiktion, behandling af klager, der pätaler overtredelse afkonkurrencereglerne, og fastsettelse af sanktioner.
The lessons to be drawn from the caselaw in 2001 cover a wide variety ofissues: the scope of the Community competition rules; agreements andconcerted practices prohibited by Article 81 EC and Article 65 CS; abuses of
Er erhvervsetiske bestemmelser, som regulerer udsvelsen af et erhverv,omfattet af anvendelsesomrädet for artikel 81 EF?
Do the rules which organise the exercise of a liberal profession fall within thescope ratione nwteriae of Article 81 EC?
Det er i det vesentlige dette sporgsmäI, som Retten tog stitlingtil i dom af 28. marts 200L, Institut desmandataires agröös mod Kommissionen (sag T-144199, Srnl.
That is, in essence, the question onwhich the Court of First Instance ruled in its judgment in CaseT-l44lgg T-l44lgg
"erhvervsetiske", stk. 1, EF. Med denne afgorelsetilträdte Retten det udgangspunkt, e,
Institut des mnndataires agröösv Commission l2A0\ ECR II-1087, holdingthat rules which organise the exercise of a profession cannot be considered to fall as a matter of principleoutside the scope of Article S1(1)EC merely
Kommissionen havde anvendt i den beslutning sagen vedrorte.Det folger heraf, at en konkret bedsmmelse af hvert enkelt tilfalde er nsdvendig for atkunne tage stilling til, om sädanne bestemmelser er gyldigei forhold til denn & vnte bestemmelse i traktaten, navnlig under hensyn til, hvilken indvirkningbestemmelserne har pä handlefrihedenfor denne erhvervsgruppe, päorganisationen af dette erhverv samt pä modtagerne af de omhandlede denesteydelser.
'rules because they are classified as of professional conduct'by the competent bodies.In so holding it endorses the approach taken by the commission in thedecision e which promptedthe action. It follows that an examination on acase-by-case basis is essential in order to assess the validity ofsuch rules underthat provision of the Treaty, in particular by taking account of their impact onthe freedom of action of the members of the profession and on its organisationand also on the recipients of the services in question.
Dette bevirkedebl.a., ät hver anerkendt fuldmegtigskundekreds blev fastnet inden for det enkelte nationale marked.
This has theconsequence, inter alia, that the clienteleof each professional representativeis crystallised within a national market.
I en sag angäende pästand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning af 3.marts 1999 r0 gjorde sagssgerne (Mdtropole Tdldvision (M6), France T d l6 c om, Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux og Töldvision Frangaise 1 SA (TFl)) gaeldende, at hvis Kommissionen havde anvendt et "rimelighedsprincip", ville
Decision19991267 19991267 lEC of 7 April 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articlet81l of the EC Treaty(IV136.147 EPI code of conducr) (OJ 1999 L 106,p. 14).
den have kunnet näfremtil,at artikel81,stk.1, EFikkeskulle findeanvendelse pä en eksklusivitetsklausul og en klausul angäende emnekanaler,der var blevet aftalt ved stiftelsen af selskabet Töldvision par satellite (TPS),säledes at disse to klausuler ikke skulte have vreret undersogt i medfsr afartikel 81, stk. 3, EF - og derfor heller ikke fritaget - som de var blevet detaf Kommissionen.
In an action for annulment of a Commission decision of 3 March 1999 t0 theapplicant companies (M6tropole t6l6vision (M6), France Töl6com, Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux and Töldvisionfrangaise I SA (TFl)) submitted that theapplication of a 'ruleof reason' would have shown that Article 81(1) EC didnot apply to the exclusivity clause and to the clause relating to the special-interest channels agreed on when T6l6vision par satellite (TPS) was set up,with the result that those two clauses should not have been examined underArticle S1(3) EC - and still less exempted- as they were by theCommission.
Ifolge Retten (ovennrevnte dom af 18.9.2001, M6 m.fl. mod Kommissionen)kan det ikke tiltrcdes, at der grelderet rimelighedsprincip i forbindelse medanvendelseaf artikel 81, stk. 1, EF.
Commission, cited above),the existence of a rule of reason in the applicationof Article S1(l) EC cannot be upheld.
Den fandt, at det ville v & re vanskeligt atforene med opbygningenaf artikel 81 EF, hvis artikel 81, stk. 1, EF skullefortolkes säledes, at der - ifolge et rimelighedsprincip - skulle foretages enafu ej ning af de konkurrencefremmende og konkurrencebe g r rensende virkningeraf enaftaleforat afgarc,omdeneromfattetafforbuddetiartikel81, stk. 1,EF.
It took the view that an interpretationof Article 81(1) EC requiring - in accordance with a rule of reason - thepro and anti-competitive effects of an agreement to be weighedin order todetermine whether it is caughtby the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1)EC is difficult to reconcilewith the rules prescribed by Article 81 EC.
Denne bestemmelses stk. 3 indeholder udtrykkeligt en mulighed for atfritage konkurrencebegransende aftaler, när de opfylder en rnkke betingelser,navnlig när de er nadvendige for at opfflde visse mäl og ikke givervirksomheder mulighed for at udelukke konkurrencen for en vresentlig del afde pägreldendevarer.
Thatarticle expresslyprovides, in its third paragraph, for the possibility ofexempting agreements that restrict competition where they satisff a number ofconditions, in particular where they are indispensable to the attainment ofcertain objectives and do not afford undertakings the possibility of eliminatingcompetition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
Det er kun inden for de prrecise rarrmer af dennebestemmelse, at der kan foretages en afuejning af dekonkurrencefremmendeog konkurrencebegrrensende virkninger af en begrensning, idet en stor del afden effektive virkning af artikel 81, stk. 3, EF ellersvil gä tabt.
It isonly in the precise framework of that provision that the pro and anti-competitive aspects of a restriction may be weighed. Otherwise Article 81(3)EC would lose much of its effectiveness.
Under henvisning til en rekke domme, hvori Domstolen og Retten havdeudtalt sig for en mere fleksibel forstäelse af forbuddet i artikel 81, stk. 1, EF,fandt Retten, at disse domme imidlertid ikke kunne fortolkes säledes, at detderi blev fastsläet, at der gjaldtet rimelighedsprincip.
Instance Instance favoured favoured a a more more flexible flexible interpretation interpretation of of the the prohibition prohibition laid laid down down in Article 81(1) EC, the Court of First Instance none the less took the viewthat those judgments could not be interpreted as establishing the existence ofa rule of reason in Community competition law.
Dommene indgik snaterei en brederestrsmning i retspraksis mod ikke fuldstendig abstrakt og vagt atantage, at enhver aftale, der begrenser parternes eller en af parterneshandlefrihed, nsdvendigvis er omfattet af forbuddet i artikel 81, stk. 1, EF.Ved undersogelsen af, om denne bestemmelse kan anvendes pä en aftale, skalder tages hensyn til, i hvilken konkret sammenhreng den fär virkninger, ogsrerligt til, i hvilken skonomisk og juridisk sammenhreng de pägaldende virksomheder indgär, arten af de produkter og/eller denesteydelser, aftalenvedrsrer, og de faktiske vilkär for markedets funktion og strukfur.
They are, rather,part of abroader trendin the caselaw according to which it is not necessary to hold,wholly abstractlyand without drawing any distinction,that any agreementrestricting the freedom of action of one or more of the parties is necessarily the caughtby the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC. In assessing