natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Betydningen af denne bestemmelse har i øvrigt foranlediget traktatens ophavsmænd til udtrykkeligt i artikel 85, stk. 2, at fastsætte, at de aftaler eller vedtagelser, som er forbudt i medfør af denne artikel, er uden retsvirkning.
The parties to the main proceedings, the Member States which have submitted observations and the Commission have all devoted a substantial part of their observations, both written and oral, to the question whether the fact that during the first three years of his studies Mr Grzelczyk took various paid jobs brings him within the scope of the Royal Decree of 27 March 1987 as a worker within the meaning of Community law.
De præjudicielle spørgsmål
Against that factual and legal background the national court raises the question of the compatibility of the relevant
Denne ugyldighedsvirkning, der kan påberåbes af alle, skal håndhæves af domstolene, såfremt betingelserne for anvendelse af artikel 85, stk. 1, er opfyldt, og den omhandlede aftale ikke kan begrunde meddelelse af en fritagelse i medfør af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3 (jf., for så vidt angår det sidstnævnte, navnlig dom af 9.7.1969, sag 10/69, Portelange, Sml. 1969, s. 77, org. réf.: Ree. s. 309, præmis 10).
At the time of the facts giving rise to Hoeckx, all Community nationals were entitled to the minimex, although nationals of Member States other than Belgium had to satisfy the additional requirement of having actually resided in Belgium for at least five years immediately preceding the date on which the minimex was granted (see Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 8 January 1976, Moniteur belge of 13 January 1976, p. 311).
Da ugyldigheden efter artikel 85, stk. 2, er absolut, kan en aftale, som ifølge denne bestemmelse er uden gyldighed, hverken have virkning i retsforholdene mellem kontrahenterne eller gøres gældende over for tredjemand.
Within the sphere of application of the Treaty, such discrimination is, in principle, prohibited by Article 6. In the present case, Article 6 must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Treaty concerning citizenship of the Union in order to determine its sphere of application.
Ugyldigheden kan i øvrigt berøre
for students who benefit from the right of residence.
Med det første, andet og tredje spørgsmål, der behandles samlet, spørger den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt, om en part i en aftale, der kan begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen, jf. traktatens artikel 85, kan påberåbe sig overtrædelsen af denne bestemmelse for en national domstol med henblik på at opnå en retslig beskyttelse (»relief«) over for sin medkontrahent, og navnlig opnå erstatning for skade, som angiveligt er lidt som følge af, at parten har været bundet af en kontraktklausul, der er i strid med artikel 85, samt om fællesskabsretten som følge herafer til hinder for en national retsregel, hvorefter en person ikke
As regards more specifically the question of resources, Article 1 of Directive 93/96 does not require resources of any specific amount, nor that they be evidenced by specific documents. The article refers merely to a declaration, or such alternative means as are at least equivalent, which enables the student to satisfy the national authority concerned that he has, for himself and, in relevant cases, for his spouse and dependent children, sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their stay.
Det følger af det ovenfor anførte, at enhver borger kan støtte ret på overtrædelsen af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, også selv om han er part i en aftale, der kan begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen i denne bestemmelses forstand.
goods must be regarded as intrinsically incapable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of another, even if the ground for refusal obtains only in part of the Community.
Domstolen har i denne henseende allerede fastslået, at fællesskabsretten ikke er til hinder for, at de nationale domstole påser, at beskyttelsen af de rettigheder, som Fællesskabets retsorden tilsikrer, ikke indebærer en ugrundet berigelse.
Since the purpose of nappies is to be absorbent, in order to keep babies dry, it concluded that the term 'BABY-DRY' merely conveyed to consumers the intended purpose of the goods but exhibited no additional feature to render the sign distinctive.
Den fulde virkning af traktatens artikel 85, og navnlig den effektive virkning af forbuddet i stk. 1, ville blive bragt i fare, hvis det ikke var muligt for nogen at kræve erstatning for skade påført dem som følge af en aftale eller en adfærd, der kan begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen.
1999 in Case Τ-163/98 Procter & Gamble ν OHIM ('BABY-DRY), in which the Court of First Instance, on the basis of a single plea of infringement of Article 62(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (hereinafter 'the OHIM') of 31 July 1998 (Case R 35/1998-1), dismissing the appeal lodged by Procter & Gamble against the refusal to register 'BABY-DRY ' as a Community trade mark in respect of disposable diapers made out of paper or cellulose and diapers made out of textile. Facts of the case
På den betingelse, at principperne om ækvivalens og effektivitet overholdes, er fællesskabsretten heller ikke til hinder for, at national ret nægter en part, der findes at bære en betydelig del af ansvaret for konkurrenceforstyrrelsen, retten til at opnå erstatning fra sin medkontrahent. I overensstemmelse med et princip, der anerkendes i de fleste medlemsstaters retsorden, og som Domstolen allerede har anvendt, kan en borger ikke drage fordel af sin egen ulovlige adfærd, når denne er kommet for dagen.
By letter of 3 April 1996, Procter & Gamble filed an application with the OHIM for registration of 'BABY-DRY' as a Community trade mark in respect of disposable diapers made out of paper or cellulose and diapers made out of textile. Secondly, the Court of First Instance examined the appellant's alternative submission that the contested decision was wrong in finding that Proctor & Gamble's offer to adduce evidence that 'BABY-DRY' had acquired distinctive character through use, within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, was inadmissible on the ground that it had not been made earlier to the examiner. It held that, in making that finding of inadmissibility, the Board of Appeal had infringed Article 62 of Regulation No 40/94, which, when viewed against the scheme of the regulation presupposing continuity, within the OHIM, between acts of the examiners and acts of the boards of appeal, did not entitle a board to reject a submission solely on the ground that it had not been raised before the examiner. The Court of First Instance therefore concluded that the contested decision should be annulled and that the OHIM's Board of Appeal had been wrong to refuse to entertain Procter & Gamble's arguments relating to Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94. It dismissed Procter & Gamble's other pleas and annulled the contested decision. Admissibility of the appeal
Set i dette perspektiv kan erstatningssøgsmål for de nationale domstole yde et væsentligt bidrag til opretholdelsen af en effektiv konkurrence inden for Fællesskabet.
The OHIM's examiner refused that application on 29 January 1998.
Under disse omstændigheder kan det ikke på forhånd udelukkes, at et sådant søgsmål anlægges af en part i en aftale, der findes at være i strid med konkurrencereglerne.
In the contested decision, the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM dismissed the appeal brought by Procter & Gamble against the examiner's decision. The Board found that 'BABY-DRY' consisted exclusively of words which may serve, in trade, to designate the intended purpose of the goods, that it was also devoid of distinctive character and that it was therefore not eligible for registration under Article 7(l)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94. The Board furthermore found Procter & Gamble's submission relating to the distinctiveness allegedly acquired by the trade mark following the use made of it, within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, to be inadmissible on the ground that it had not been made before the examiner at the OHIM. The contested judgment
Der påhviler nærmere bestemt den nationale domstol at undersøge, om den part, der hævder at have lidt et tab som følge af indgåelsen af et aftale, der kan begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen, befandt sig i et udpræget underlegenhedsforhold til den anden part, således at partens frihed til at forhandle om bestemmelserne i den nævnte aftale, såvel som dens muligheder for at undgå skaden eller begrænse dens omfang, særligt ved i rette tid at gøre brug af alle de retsmidler, der stod til dens disposition, var begrænset i så væsentlig grad, at de i realiteten var lig nul.
By annulling the contested decision for refusing to consider the arguments relating to Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 and in doing so on that ground alone, the contested judgment allowed that part of the decision relating to the compatibility of 'BABY-DRY' with the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the regulation to stand.
Da der ikke findes fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser på området, tilkommer det imidlertid hver enkelt medlemsstat i sin interne retsorden at udpege de kompetente domstole og fastsætte de processuelle regler for sagsanlæg til
In the contested judgment the Court of First Instance held first of all that 'BABY-DRY' was not capable of constituting a Community trade mark, thus upholding the contested decision's finding on that point.
•1) En part i en aftale, der kan begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen i EF-traktatens artikel 85's forstand (nu artikel 81 EF), kan påberåbe sig overtrædelsen af denne bestemmelse med henblik på at opnå en retslig beskyttelse ('relief) overfor den anden aftalepart.
The annulment by the Court of First Instance of the act submitted to it for judicial review was therefore only partial. In order for the OHIM to take the necessary measures to comply with the
Traktatens artikel 85 er til hinder for en national retsregel, der forbyder en part i en aftale, der kan begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen i denne bestemmelses forstand, at kræve erstatning som kompensation for en skade, der er lidt som følge af opfyldelsen af den nævnte aftale, alene af den grund, at skadelidte er part i denne.
contested judgment, as these are referred to in paragraph 54 thereof, the OHIM could therefore have simply confined itself to considering the trade mark application in the light of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 without altering its interpretation of Article 7(l)(b) and (c) of the regulation, which the Court of First Instance had endorsed.
Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for en national retsregel, hvorefter en part i en aftale, der kan begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen, ikke kan påberåbe sig egne ulovlige handlinger med henblik på at opnå erstatning, når det er fastslået, at denne part bærer en betydelig del af ansvaret for konkurrenceforstyrrehen.·
Procter & Gamble thus has an interest in bringing the appeal against the contested judgment in so far as that judgment dismissed its application for annulment of the decision to refuse to register the trade mark 'BABY-DRY' made on the basis of Article 7(l)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94. The signs and indications referred to in Article 7(l)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 are thus only those which may serve in normal usage from a consumer's point of view to designate, either directly or by reference to one of their essential characteristics, goods or services such as those in respect of which registration is sought.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Merits of the appeal
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 96/49/EF og 96/87/EF« (Første Afdeling)
As regards trade marks composed of words, such as the mark at issue here, descriptiveness must be determined not only in relation to each word taken separately but also in relation to the whole which they form.
I henhold til artikel 10, stk. 1, i direktiv 96/49 og artikel 2, stk.1, i direktiv 96/87 skulle medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme disse direktiver inden den 1. januar 1997 og straks underrette Kommissionen herom.
Under Article 12 of Regulation No 40/94, the rights conferred by the trade mark do not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade, indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of the goods or the time of rendering the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service, provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.
Kommissionen fandt, at direktiv 96/49 og direktiv 96/87 ikke var blevet gennemført i irsk ret inden for den fastsatte frist, og indledte derfor en traktatbrudsprocedure.
It is true that Article 7(2) of Regulation No 40/94 states that Article 7(1) is to apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Community.
Efter at have tilstillet Irland åbningsskrivelser fremsatte Kommissionen den 27. januar og 1. februar 2000 to begrundede udtalelser, hvori den opfordrede Irland til at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at
That provision, which was rightly cited at paragraph 24 of the contested judgment, implies that, if a combination of words is purely descriptive in one of the languages used in trade within the Community, that is sufficient to render it ineligible for registration as a Community trade mark.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 6. oktober 2000 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i henhold til artikel 226 EF nedlagt påstand om, at det fastslås, at Irland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 96/49/EF af 23. juli 1996 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om jernbanebefordring af farligt gods og Kommissionens direktiv 96/87/EF af 13. december 1996 om tilpasning til den tekniske udvikling af direktiv 96/49/EF, idet Irland ikke har vedtaget og/eller underrettet Kommissionen om de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktiverne.
It is clear from those two provisions taken together that the purpose of the prohibition of registration of purely descriptive signs or indications as trade marks is, as both Procter & Gamble and the OHIM acknowledge, to prevent registration as trade marks of signs or indications which, because they are no different from the usual way of designating the relevant goods or services or their characteristics, could not fulfil the function of identifying the undertaking that markets them and are thus devoid of the distinctive character needed for that function. In order to assess whether a word combination such as 'BABY-DRY' is capable of distinctiveness, it is therefore necessary to put oneself in the shoes of an English-speaking consumer.
efterkomme udtalelserne inden for en frist på to måneder fra deres meddelelse.
Whilst each of the two words in the combination may form part of expressions used in everyday speech to designate the function of babies' nappies, their syntactically unusual juxtaposition is not a familiar expression in the English language, either for designating babies' nappies or for describing their essential characteristics.
Da Kommissionen ikke modtog oplysninger om, at direktiverne var blevet gennemført, har den
Word combinations like 'BABY-DRY' cannot therefore be regarded as exhibiting, as a whole, descriptive character; they are lexical inventions bestowing distinctive power on the mark so formed and may not be refused registration under Article 7(l)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.
Irland, der ikke bestrider traktatbruddet, har anført, at gennemførelsen af direktiverne er i gang.
The Court of First Instance therefore erred in law in holding that the OHIM'S First Board of Appeal was right to find that 'BABY-DRY' was not capable of constituting a Community trade mark on the basis of that provision.
»1) Irland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 96/49/EF af 23. juli 1996 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om jernbanebefordring af farligt gods og Kommissionens direktiv 96/87/EF af 13. december 1996 om tilpasning til den tekniske udvikling af direktiv 96/49/EF, idet Irland ikke har vedtaget og/eUer underrettet Kommissionen om de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktiverne.
Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-163/98 Procter & Gamble ν OHIM ("BABY-DRY*), in so far as it found that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not infringe Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark in adopting its decision of 31 July 1998 (Case R 35/1998-1); 2.
2) pålægge Irland at betale sagens omkostninger.«
*(1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-163/98;
»Traktatbrud - direktiv 96/50IEF - gods- og persontransport i Fællesskabet - harmonisering af betingelserne for erhvervelse af nationale bådførercertifikater — manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist« (Tredje Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Beer tie — Leasing of public houses -Restrictive agreement — Right to damages of a party to the contract) (Full Court)
Efter at have givet Den Franske Republik adgang til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger, fremsatte Kommissionen den 31. januar 2000 en begrundet udtalelse, hvori den opfordrede denne medlemsstat til at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at efterkomme udtalelsen inden for en frist på to måneder fra dens meddelelse.
By order of 16 July 1999, received at the Court on 30 November 1999, the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling four questions on the interpretation of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and other provisions of Community law.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 22. december 2000 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 96/50/EF af 23. juli 1996 om harmonisering af betingelserne for erhvervelse af nationale bådførercertifikater for gods- og persontransport ad indre vandveje i Fællesskabet, idet den ikke har vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme direktivet, eller i alt fald ikke har underrettet Kommissionen om disse bestemmelser.
their respective pubs were transferred to Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd (hereinafter 'IEL'), a company owned in equal shares by Courage and Grand Met. An agreement concluded between IEL and Courage provided that all IEL tenants had to buy their beer exclusively from Courage.
Ifølge de oplysninger, som Kommissionen modtog fra de franske myndigheder efter den begrundede udtalelse, skulle de nødvendige bestemmelser for at efterkomme direktivet vedtages inden udgangen af første halvår 2000.
Courage was to supply the quantities of beer ordered at the prices specified in the price lists applicable to the pubs leased by IEL.
Da Kommissionen ikke har modtaget andre oplysninger fra den franske regering, har den besluttet at anlægge denne sag.
The four questions have been raised in proceedings between Courage Ltd and Bernard Crehan, a publican, concerning unpaid supplies of beer.
Det bemærkes, at Den Franske Regering ikke har bestridt, at den ikke har truffet de nødvendige gennemførelsesforanstaltninger med henblik på at efterkomme direktivet.
While the level of rent could be the subject of negotiation with a prospective tenant, the exclusive purchase obligation ("beer tie') and the other clauses of the contract were not negotiable.
I overensstemmelse med direktivets artikel 14 er dette trådt i kraft den tyvende dag efter dets offentliggørelse i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende den 17. september 1996.
In 1990, Courage, a brewery holding a 19% share of the United Kingdom market in sales of beer, and Grand Metropolitan pic (hereinafter 'Grand Met'), a company with a range of catering and hotel interests, agreed to merge their leased public houses (hereinafter *pubs').
bådførercertifikater for gods- og persontransport ad indre vandveje i Fællesskabet, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme direktivet.
that Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty was intended to protect third parties, whether competitors or consumers, and not parties to the prohibited agreement. It was held that they were the cause, not the victims, of the restriction of competition.
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslap til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling
In 1993, Courage, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, brought an action for the recovery from Mr Crehan of the sum of GBP 15 266 for unpaid deliveries of beer.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
He contended that this price difference reduced the profitability of tied tenants, driving them out of business.
Sag C-263/98 Kongeriget Belgien / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
In those circumstances, it decided to stay proceedings and refer four questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
»EUGFL - regnskabsafslutning — regnskabsåret 1994 - korn og oksekød« (Sjette Afdeling)
The new lease is, however, not at issue in the main proceedings, as the actions brought concern the operation of the beer tie under the old lease.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
According to the referring court, English law does not allow a party to an illegal agreement to claim damages from the other party.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling') den 15. marts 2001.
In particular, it asks whether that party can obtain compensation for loss which he alleges to result from his being subject to a contractual clause contrary to Article 85 and whether, therefore, Community law precludes a rule of national law which denies a person the right to rely on his own illegal actions to obtain damages.
Retten
Page 23
»Annullationssøgsmål - konkurrence - betalings-tv -joint-venture - EF-traktatens artikel 85 (nu artikel 81 EF) - traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1 - negativattest - accessorisk begrænsning -rimelighedskriterium - traktatens artikel 85, stk 3 - beslutning om fritagelse - varighed« (Tredje Afdeling)
The full effectiveness of Article 85 of the Treaty and, in particular, the practical effect of the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) would be put at risk if it were not open to any individual to claim damages for loss caused to him by a contract or by conduct liable to restrict or distort competition.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
The subjects of that legal order are not only the Member States but also their nationals.
»Antisubsidieprocedurer - forordning (EF) nr. 2450/98 - stænger af blankt rustfrit stål -skade — årsagssammenhæng« (Første Udvidede Afdeling)
There should not therefore be any absolute bar to such an action being brought by a party to a contract which would be held to violate the competition rules.
Sagsøgerne producerer og eksporterer stænger af blankt rustfrit stål (herefter »stålstænger«) til Fællesskabet.
However, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness).