natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
transaktioner, der vil være til fare for den offentlige orden eller den offentlige sikkerhed.
Such a provision remains a restriction even if, as in the present case, authorisation is deemed to have been obtained one month after receipt of the request where the competent authority does not declare a deferment of the transaction in question within the same period.
Heraf følger, at bestemmelser om forudgående anmeldelse i tilfælde, hvor de direkte, udenlandske investeringer udgør en virkelig og tilstrækkelig alvorlig trussel mod den offentlige orden eller den offentlige sikkerhed, kan vise sig utilstrækkelige til at afværge en sådan trussel.
Similarly, it is irrelevant that failure to comply with the obligation to request prior authorisation attracts no penalty.
I hovedsagen er bestemmelserne imidlertid karakteriseret ved, at der kræves en forudgående tilladelse til enhver direkte, udenlandsk investering, der »kan udgøre en fare for den offentlige sundhed og den offentlige orden« uden nærmere præsicering.
In the case of direct foreign investments, the difficulty in identifying and blocking capital once it has entered a Member State may make it necessary to prevent, at the outset, transactions which would adversely affect public policy or public security.
De pågældende investorer får således ingen oplysning om, under hvilke nærmere omstændigheder det er nødvendigt at indhente en forudgående tilladelse.
It follows that, in the case of direct foreign investments which constitute a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public policy and public security, a system of prior declaration may prove to be inadequate to counter such a threat.
Domstolen fandt, at bestemmelserne om forudgående tilladelse i visse tilfælde ikke var nødvendige for at give de nationale myndigheder mulighed for at foretage en kontrol med henblik på hindre overtrædelser af deres love og administrative bestemmelser, og at de derfor udgjorde restriktioner, der var i strid med traktatens artikel 73 B, men den har dog ikke dermed fastslået, at bestemmelser om forudgående tilladelse aldrig kan være berettigede, herunder såfremt en sådan tilladelse virkelig er nødvendig til beskyttelse af den offentlige orden eller den offentlige sikkerhed.
The question which arises is therefore whether Article 73d(l)(b) of the Treaty, which provides that Article 73b thereof is without prejudice to the right of Member States to take any measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or public security, permits national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which merely requires prior authorisation for direct foreign investments which are such as to represent a threat to public policy or public security.
En sådan ubestemthed giver ikke borgerne mulighed for at kende omfanget af deres rettigheder og pligter i henhold til traktatens artikel 73 B. Under disse omstændigheder er de indførte bestemmelser i strid med retssikkerhedsprincippet.
In the present case, however, the essence of the system in question is that prior authorisation is required for every direct foreign investment which is 'such as to represent a threat to public policy public security', without any more detailed definition.
For så vidt angår direkte, udenlandske investeringer kan det være vanskeligt at identificere og blokere for kapital, når den først er kommet ind i en medlemsstat, og dette kan gøre det nødvendigt fra begyndelsen at hindre
Thus, the investors concerned are given no indication whatever as to the specific circumstances in which prior authorisation is required.
•EF-traktatens artikel 73 D, stk. 1, lura b) [nu artikel 58, stk. 1, litra b), EF], skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for bestemmelser om forudgående tilladelse til direkte, udenlandske investeringer, hvorefter de investeringer, bestemmelserne gælder for, kun i generelle vendinger defineres som investeringer, der kan udgøre en fare for den offentage orden og den offentlige sikkerhed, således at de berørte ikke kan have kendskab til, under hvilke nærmere omstændigheder det er nødvendigt at indhente en forudgående tilladelse.«
In that respect, it should be observed, first, that while Member States are still, in principle, free to determine the requirements of public policy and public security in the light of their national needs, those grounds must, in the Community context and, in particular, as derogations from the fundamental principle of free movement of capital, be interpreted strictly, so that their scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the Community institutions. Thus, public policy and public security may be relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society.
Generaladvokat A. Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 21. oktober 1999.
Moreover, those derogations must not be misapplied so as, in fact, to serve purely economic ends.
16. marts 2000
The Court ruled:
»Appel — tjenestemænd—tjenestefrihed af personlige årsager -genindtrædelse—Fællesskabets ansvar uden for kontraktforhold —fastsættelse af den relevante periode for beregningen af den lidte skade« (Anden Afdeling)
'Article 73d(l)(b) of the EC Treaty (now Article 58(1)(b) EC) must be interpreted as precluding a system of prior authorisation f or direct foreign investments which confines itself to defining in general terms the affected investments as being investments that are such as to represent a threat to public policy and public security, with the result that the persons concerned are unable to ascertain the specific circumstances in which prior authorisation is required.'
Sag C-439/98 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik Socialpolitik
Advocate General A. Saggio delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 21 October 1999.
Da direktiv 95/30 ikke er gennemført inden for den i artikel 2, stk. 1, første afsnit, indeholdte frist, bør Kommissionen gives medhold i sagen.
(Appeal — Officials — Leave onpersonal grounds — Reinstatement — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Determination of the period to be taken into account for calculating the damage suffered) (Second Chamber)
Den Italienske Republik har erkendt, at den ikke
Case C-439/98 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Social policy
»1) Den Italienske Republik har ikke overholdt sineJorpligtelseri henhold til Kommissionens direktiv 95/30/EF af 30. juni 1995 om tilpasning til den tekniske udvikling af Rådets direktiv 90/679/EØF om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne mod farerne ved at være udsat for biologiske agenser under arbejdet (syvende særdirektiv i henhold til artikel 16, stk 1, i direktiv 89/391/EØF), idet den ikke har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work) (Third Chamber)
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 16. december 1999.
The Italian Republic acknowledges that it has failed to transpose into the Directive into national law within the period prescribed, but points out that, in the interests of the economy of procedure, it considered it appropriate to enact a single decree transposing into national law not only Directive 95/30 but also Directives 97/59 and 97/65, which also concern the adaptation to technical progress of Directive 90/679.
Forenede sager C-395/96 Ρ og C-396/96 Ρ Compagnie maritime belge transports SA, Compagnie maritime belge SA og Dafra-Lines A/S / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
Consequently, since Directive 95/30 has not been transposed into national law within the period prescribed in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) thereof, the action brought by the Commission must be held to be well-founded.
16. marts 2000
The Court held:
Aktiviteterne med linjetransport og kombineret transport blev udskilt i en særskilt juridisk enhed, CMBT.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 16 December 1999.
Appellanterne har bestridt rigtigheden af de tre konklusioner, Retten har draget med henblik på at fastslå et misbrug af dominerende stilling, vedrørende aftalen med det zairiske Office de gestion de fret maritime (herefter »Ogefrem«), vedrørende »fighting ships« og vedrørende loyalitetsaftaler.
(Competition — International maritime transport — Liner conferences — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Collective dominant position — Exclusivity agreement between national authorities and liner conferences — Liner conference insisting on application of the agreement — Fighting ships — Loyalty rebates -Rights of defence — Fines — Assessment criteria) (Fifth Chamber) managing and operating shipping operations.
Appellanterne har anfægtet de fastsatte bøder.
Its liner and intermodal services were established as a separate legal entity, CMBT.
Anbringendet vedrørende spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der forelå en kollektiv dominerende stilling
CMB is a member of the liner conference Associated Central West Africa Lines ('Cewal').
Der er ikke herved taget stilling til, om en linjekonference i en given situation har en dominerende stilling på et bestemt marked, og så meget mindre, om den har misbrugt en sådan stilling.
The conference is made up of shipping companies operating a regular liner service between the ports of Zaire (now Congo) and Angola and those of the North Sea, with the exception of the United Kingdom.
Det første argument beror på en fejlagtig fortolkning af præmis 64-67 i den appellerede dom og bør derfor forkastes.
Dafra is a member of Cewal and has also been a member of the CMB group.
Det andet og det tredje argument vedrører spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Kommissionen med henblik på at fastslå et misbrug af en dominerende stilling alene kan henvise til faktiske forhold eller situationer, som eventuelt
Although the Court of First Instance reduced the fines imposed by the Commission, it dismissed the applications for annulment of the contested decision.
Det følger af det anførte, at Retten ikke begik nogen retlig fejl ved at fastslå, at Kommissionen havde ført tilstrækkeligt bevis for, at det på grundlag af Cewal-aftalen, således som denne var blevet gennemført, var muligt at foretage en samlet vurdering af den adfærd, den herved oprettede linjekonferences medlemmer havde udvis
In the present appeal, Dafra, CMB and CMBT rely on three pleas to challenge the contested judgment: agreement or arrangement, whatever its nature, within the framework of which they operate under uniform or common freight rates and any other agreed conditions with respect to the provision of liner services'.
Anbringendet vedrørende et påstået misbrug af Cewal's dominerende stilling samarbejdsaftalen
they deny the collective dominant position which Cewal members are presumed to hold;
Misbruget vedrørende (»Ogefrem-aftalen«)
Such conferences 'have a stabilising effect, assuring shippers of reliable services'.
Det anbringende, som appellanterne fremførte, kunne kun have været antaget til realitetsbehandling ved Retten, såfremt den påståede forskel mellem meddelelsen af klagepunkter og den anfægtede beslutning havde vist sig under sagens behandling ved denne retsinstans.
they dispute each of the three findings of the Court of First Instance as to abuse of a dominant position, concerning respectively the agreement with the [Zairean] Office de Gestion du Fret Maritime ('Ogefrem'), 'fighting ships' and loyalty contracts;
Det fremgår af den anfægtede beslutning, at Kommissionen fandt, at de virksomheder, som var medlemmer af linjekonferencen Cewal, havde misbrugt deres kollektive dominerende stilling ved at have deltaget i iværksættelsen af Ogefremaftalen og konsekvent at have krævet denne aftale nøje overholdt.
By its very nature and in the light of its objectives a liner conference, can be characterised as a collective entity which presents itself as such on the market vis-à-vis both users and competitors.
Der er en forskel mellem definitionen af misbrug, således som den er beskrevet i meddelelsen af klagepunkter, og den definition, der er indeholdt i den anfægtede beslutning.
That in no way prejudges the question whether, in a given situation, a liner conference holds a dominant position on a particular market or, a fortiori, has abused that position.
Retten udtalte, at Kommissionen med føje havde lagt til grund, at Cewal's medlemmer havde tilsidesat traktatens artikel 86 .
The plea relating to the existence of a collective dominant position
Retten og Kommissionen fandt, at misbruget bestod i, at Cewal vedholdende over for de zairiske myndigheder havde krævet konferencens eneret nøje overholdt.
The first ground of appeal: the Court of First Instance based its reasoning on grounds not included in the contested decision
Denne forskel fremgår imidlertid ved en umiddelbar sammenligning af ordvalget i de to dokumenter og må have været åbenbar allerede ved fremsendelsen af den anfægtede beslutning.
It is true that the Court of First Instance referred to a number of factors which, although appearing in the contested decision, were not expressly mentioned in points 49 and 50 of the contested decision.
Det kan ikke gøres gældende, at der er tale om retlige eller faktiske omstændigheder, som er kommet frem under retsforhandlingerne ved Retten.
This ground proceeds on a misinterpretation of paragraphs 64 to 67 of the contested judgment and must be dismissed as unfounded.
Der må derfor tages stilling til, om Retten var forpligtet til at tage stilling til dette anbringende, som for første gang blev fremført i replikken.
However, the soundness of a legal assessment by the Commission such as that contained in points 49 and 50 of the contested decision is to be assessed in the light not only of the facts and circumstances expressly mentioned in the part of the decision devoted to that assessment, but also of any other undisputed factor referred to in the same decision.
Der henvises i denne forbindelse til, at den omstændighed, at der findes en dominerende stilling, betyder, at den eller de dominerende virksomhed(er) uafhængigt af årsagerne til denne stilling, er særlig forpligtet til ikke ved deres adfærd at skade en effektiv og ufordrejet konkurrence på fællesmarkedet.
The second and third grounds of appeal relate to the issue whether the Commission is entitled to base a finding that there is abuse of a dominant position solely on circumstances or facts which would constitute an agreement, decision or concerted practice under Article 85(1) of the Treaty, and therefore be automatically void unless exempted under Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
Det kan ikke kræves, at Retten, hver gang en part under behandlingen af en sag fremfører et nyt anbringende, enten i dommen forklarer, hvorfor anbringendet må afvises, eller foretager en realitetsbehandling heraf.
It follows that the Court of First Instance did not err in law in stating that, in this case, the Commission had shown to the requisite legal standard that the Cewal agreement, as it had been implemented, enabled the conduct of the members of the conference thus constituted to be assessed collectively.
Det er ubestridt, at Cewal forsøgte at gøre en kontraktmæssig eneret, der fremgår af Ogefremaftalen, gældende med henblik på at fjerne den eneste konkurrent fra markedet.
The same practice may give rise to an infringement of both provisions.
Misbruget vedrørende den påståede praksis med såkaldte »aktionsskibe« (»fighting ships«: ændring af takster til at afvigefra gældende takster for fragt med henblik på at tilbyde takster, der var identiske med eller lavere end taksterne fra den
Under Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport, a liner conference is 'a group of two or more vessel-operating carriers which provides international liner services for the carriage of cargo on a particular route or routes within specified geographical limits and which has an
Appellanternes tredje argument vedrører spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den adfærd, som i overensstemmelse med definitionen i den anfægtede beslutning og svarskriftet er anset for at udgøre misbrug, kan anses herfor.
It is clear from the contested decision that the Commission considered that the member undertakings of Cewal had abused their joint dominant position by participating in implementation of the Ogefrem Agreement and
over for G & C, udgjorde misbrug af dominerende stilling — var begrundede. Misbruget vedrørende loyalitetsaftaler
by repeatedly requesting by a variety of means that it be strictly complied with.
Efter fast retspraksis angiver opregningen af forskellige former for misbrug i traktatens artikel 86 ikke udtømmende de former for udnyttelse af en dominerende stilling, der er forbudt i henhold til traktaten.
There is, prima facie, a difference between the definition of the abuse in the statement of objections and that used in the contested decision.
I øvrigt gælder, at det forhold, at en virksomhed med en dominerende stilling styrker sin stilling således, at den dominerende indflydelse, der herved opnås, i væsentlig grad hindrer konkurrencen, under visse omstændigheder kan udgøre et misbrug.
The Court of First Instance found that the Commission was entitled to take the view that the members of Cewal had infringed Article 86 of the Treaty.
Det er over for Cewal gjort gældende, at linjekonferencen udarbejdede loyalitetsaftaler, som blev gennemtvunget 100%, og som var mere vidtgående end tilladt efter artikel 5, nr. 2, i forordning nr. 4056/86, med anvendelse af »sortlistning« af illoyale afskibere.
However, that difference is clear from a mere comparison of the terms of the two documents and should have been obvious when the contested decision was communicated.
Appellanterne har i denne forbindelse fremført fire argumenter.
It cannot be claimed that this is a matter of law or of fact which came to light in the course of the procedure before the Court of First Instance.
Endvidere bemærkes, at det materielle anvendelsesområde for de særlige forpligtelser, der påhviler en virksomhed i en dominerende stilling, skal vurderes under hensyn til de særlige omstændigheder i den enkelte sag, der kunne vise en svækkelse af konkurrencen.
The Court of First Instance and the Commission considered that the abuse consisted in the fact that Cewal had repeatedly insisted that the Zairean authorities strictly observe its exclusive right.
Appellanterne gør gældende, at der ikke kan fastslås en overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 86 på grundlag af en praksis, som er omfattet af en specifik fritagelse.
It is therefore necessary to determine whether the Court of First Instance was required to rule on that plea, which was raised for the first time in the reply.
Endvidere må Kommissionen under alle omstændigheder tilbagekalde gruppefritagelsen over for de berørte virksomheder, før den kan fastslå en overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 86.
It should be remembered that the existence of a dominant position means that, irrespective of the reasons which have led to such a position, the dominant undertaking or undertakings have a special responsibility not to allow their conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition on the common market.
Denne argumentation beror på en urigtig læsning af bestemmelserne og en urigtig opfattelse af den måde, hvorpå de er opbygget.
The Court of First Instance cannot be required, every time that a party raises, in the course of the procedure, a new plea in law, either to explain in its judgment the reasons for which that plea is inadmissible, or to examine it in detail.
Indrømmelsen af en fritagelse i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, er ikke til hinder for anvendelsen af artikel 86.
In any event, the fact that the Court of First Instance did not expressly rule on the admissibility of that plea did not affect the appellants' situation, since the plea was clearly inadmissible.
Søtransportmarkedet er en meget specialiseret branche. På grund af markedets særlige karakter har Rådet ved forordning nr. 4056/86 fastsat en konkurrenceordning, der er forskellig fra den, der gælder for andre brancher.
It is established, in the present case, that Cewal sought to rely on the contractual exclusivity provided for in the Ogefrem Agreement in order to remove its only competitor from the market.
Den tilladelse, der er givet linjekonferencerne til i en ubegrænset periode at samordne prisfastsættelsen for den del af transporten, der foregår med skib, udgør således en undtagelse fra de gældende regler og konkurrencepolitikken.
Such conduct was in no way required by that agreement, since express provision is made for possible derogations, so that the requirements of Article 86 of the Treaty could be met.
Det forhold, at virksomheder, som befinder sig i en reel konkurrencesituation, følger en tilladt praksis, indebærer derfor ikke, at der aldrig kan være tale om misbrug af en dominerende stilling, såfremt en virksomhed, der har en sådan stilling, anvender samme praksis.
The third ground of appeal concerns the question whether the alleged abuse, as defined in the contested decision and the defence, can properly be so characterised.
Når en linjekonference, der har en dominerende stilling, foretager en selektiv prisnedsættelse med henblik på målrettet at tilpasse priserne til en konkurrents, opnår den en dobbelt fordel. For det første fjerner linjekonferencen den væsentligste eller eneste konkurrencemulighed, den konkurrerende virksomhed har.
The abuse concerning the practice known as 'fighting ships': amendment of freight rates in derogation from the rates in order to offer rates identical to or lower than those of the main independent competitor for ships leaving on the same date or a date close to it
For det andet kan linjekonferencen fortsat af brugerne kræve højere priser for de tjenesteydelser, der ikke er truet af konkurrence.
It is settled case-law that the list of abusive practices contained in Article 86 of the Treaty is not an exhaustive enumeration of the abuses of a dominant position prohibited by the Treaty.
Såfremt en virksomhed har en meget stor markedsandel, giver det den i en vis periode en magtposition, som gør virksomheden til en uomgængelig forretningsforbindelse for virksomhedens forretningsforbindelser.
Moreover, in certain circumstances, abuse may occur if an undertaking in a dominant position strengthens that position in such a way that the degree of dominance reached substantially fetters competition.
Der er i nærværende tilfælde tale om en adfærd udvist af en linjekonference, der har en andel af det relevante marked på mere end 90% og kun har én konkurrent.
As to the ground of appeal alleging that the Court of First Instance failed to respond to the plea raised in the reply, no new plea in law may be introduced in the course of the proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.
Appellanterne har i øvrigt aldrig reelt bestridt, men derimod erkendt i retsmødet, at formålet med den anfægtede adfærd var at fortrænge G & C fra markedet. Hvad angår spørgsmålet om »påtvingeise« af loyalitetsaftaler kan en dominerende virksomhed i praksis »påtvinge« brugeren af virksomhedens tjenesteydelser en loyalitetsaftale, og det er ikke i denne forbindelse nødvendigt, at virksomheden udtrykkeligt kræver, at der indgås en sådan aftale som betingelse for at få dens tjenesteydelser.
Furthermore, the actual scope of the special responsibility imposed on a dominant undertaking must be considered in the light of the specific circumstances of each case which show that competition has been weakened.
Det var derfor ikke relevant at tage stilling til, hvilke betingelser der skulle være opfyldt for, at en loyalitetsaftale for så vidt angår en
The plea raised by the appellants was admissible before the Court of First Instance only if the alleged difference between the statement of objections and the contested decision had appeared in the course of the procedure initiated before that court.