natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
»Artikel 5 i Rådets direktiv 90/314/EØF af 13. juni 1990 om pakkerejser, herunder pakkeferier og pakketure, skal fortolkes således, at den principielt giver forbrugeren et krav på godtgørelse for ikkeøkonomisk skade som følge af manglende euer mangelfuld opfyldelse af aftalen om præstation af de tjenesteydelser, der indgår i en pakkerejse.*
'Article 5 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours is to be interpreted as conferring, in principle, on consumers a right to compensation for nonmaterial damage resulting from the non-performance or improper performance of the services constituting a package holiday.'
Generaladvokat A. Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 20. september 2001.
Advocate General A. Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 20 September 2001.
Sag C-132/99 Kongeriget Nederlandene / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Landbrug
Case C-132/99 Kingdom of the Netherlands ν Commission of the European Communities Agriculture
— regnskabsåret 1995 — støtte til hampproduktion*
(EAGGF - Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Aid to hemp production) (Fifth Chamber)
»EUGFL — regnskabsafslutning (Femte Afdeling) støtte til hampproduktion, dvs. en korrektion på 117 277 NLG.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 April 1999, the Kingdom of the Netherlands brought an action under the first subparagraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first subparagraph of Article 230 EC) for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
I september 1995 gennemførte EUGFL's tjenestegrene et kontrolbesøg i Nederlandene for at efterprøve overholdelsen af retsforskrifterne om EF-støtteordningerne for hør og hamp. De kom frem til det resultat, at hampopdyrkede arealer i Nederlandene ikke var berettigede til den ydede støtte, da planterne i strid med artikel 4, litra a), i forordning nr. 1164/89, som ændret
Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (hereinafter 'the contested decision'), in so far as it requires a correction of 50% of the expenditure declared by the Kingdom of the Netherlands in respect of hemp production aid, namely a correction of NLG 117 277.
Kommissionen har anlagt en urigtig fortolkning af forordning nr. 1308/70.
By the first part of its first plea in law, the Netherlands Government submits that the Commission has misinterpreted Regulation No 1308/70.
Denne bestemmelse kræver på ingen måde, at fibrene og frøene skal høstes af den samme plante, og bestemmelsen indeholder ingen særskilt henvisning til hampefrøproduktion.
The regulation lays down no requirement that the fibre and the seed should be harvested from the same plant nor does it make any separate reference to the production of hemp seed.
Kommissionen har derfor indført et krav, der ikke er fastsat i den pågældende forordning, og har således tilsidesat fællesskabsretten.
The Commission therefore introduced a requirement which was not laid down in that regulation and thus infringed Community law.
ved forordning nr. 1469/94 (herefter »den ændrede forordning nr. 1164/98«), var blevet høstet inden frødannelsen.
They arrived at the conclusion that the areas on which hemp was grown in the Netherlands were not eligible for the aid granted on the ground that the crop had been harvested before seed formation, contrary to Article 4(a) of Regulation No 1164/89, as amended by Regulation No 1469/94 (hereinafter 'Regulation No 1164/89 as amended').
Planterne var blevet høstet under blomstringen eller lige efter blomstringen, mens frøene stadig var i en mælkeagtig tilstand.
The crop had been harvested during flowering or shortly afterwards, when the seeds were still in their milky state.
I betragtning af risikoen for, at en hampafgrøde bliver misbrugt og anvendt til narkotikaproduktion, skal kravene i de gældende retsforskrifter imidlertid nøje overholdes.
However, in view of the risk that harvested hemp may be misused for the production of drugs, the requirements laid down in the legislation in force must be scrupulously observed.
Desuden antog EUFGL's tjenestegrene, at de nederlandske myndigheder havde tilsidesat deres forpligtelser til at kontrollere indførslen af hampfrø, der hidrørte fra tredjelande.
Furthermore, the EAGGF officials took the view that the Netherlands authorities had failed to fulfil their obligations as regards monitoring the importation of hemp seeds from third countries.
I denne forbindelse er det tilstrækkelig at fastslå, at Kommissionen hverken i den anfægtede beslutning eller i den sammenfattende rapport har gjort gældende, at de omtvistede retsforskrifter kræver, at fibrene og frøene høstes fra den samme plante.
In that regard, it is sufficient to find that neither in the contested decision nor in the summary report has the Commission claimed that the regulation in question requires that fibre and seeds be harvested from the same plant.
Da Kommissionen har antaget, at den kunne anvende en korrektion svarende til 100% af de anmeldte udgifter, men at en sådan sanktion er overdrevent byrdefuld, har Kommissionen i virkeligheden søgt et kriterium, der gør det muligt at afpasse korrektionen.
Since the Commission took the view that it could apply a correction amounting to 100% of the declared expenditure but that such a sanction was excessively onerous, it looked, in fact, for a criterion enabling it to adjust that correction.
Den nederlandske regerings indsigelse er derfor grundløs.
The complaint of the Netherlands Government is therefore unfounded.
Det første anbringendes andet led: tilsidesættelse af artikel 8 i forordning nr. 1308/70
The second part of the first plea in law: infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1308/70
Herefter fandt der drøftelser sted mellem den nederlandske regering og Kommissionen.
A meeting was subsequently held between the Netherlands Government and the Commission.
Denne regering har ikke bestridt, at hampen blev høstet, inden den fuldstændige frødannelse havde fundet sted, således at frøene stadig befandt sig i en mælkeagtig tilstand.
That Government did not deny that the hemp had been harvested before the seed had fully formed, while it was still in the milky state.
Regeringen har imidlertid gjort gældende, at da de omstridte hampafgrøder udelukkende var bestemt til produktion af fibre, og da fibrenes kvalitet var bedst, når plantens blomstring endnu ikke var afsluttet, var det økonomisk mest fordelagtigt at høste planterne på et tidspunkt, hvor de endnu ikke var fuldt modnet.
It none the less pointed out that, given that the cultivation of the hemp in question was intended exclusively for fibre production and that optimal fibre quality was reached before flowering has ended, it is economically more advantageous to harvest the plant when it has not yet fully matured.
Med det første anbringendes andet led har den nederlandske regering gjort gældende, at Kommissionen i den sammenfattende rapport med urette har fastslået, at indførsler til Nederlandene af hampefrø fra tredjelande ikke var blevet kontrolleret i overensstemmelse med forordning nr. 1308/70.
By the second part of the first plea in law, the Netherlands Government claims that the Commission was wrong in finding, in the summary report, that the importations into the Netherlands of hemp seed from third countries had not been monitored in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 1308/70.
Da Kommissionen ikke var tilfreds med disse forklaringer, meddelte den ved skrivelse af 29. oktober 1997 den nederlandske regering, at den havde til hensigt at anvende en fast korrektion på 50% af de udgifter, der var anmeldt for budgetpost 1402 (hamp) for regnskabsåret 1995, da hampen var blevet høstet inden frødannelsen.
Not satisfied with those explanations, the Commission informed the Netherlands Government, by letter of 29 October 1997, that it intended to apply a correction at a flat rate of 50% of the expenditure declared in respect of budget item 1402 (hemp) for 1995, on the ground that the hemp had been harvested before seed formation.
Den 12. januar 1999 vedtog Kommissionen sin sammenfattende rapport om resultaterne af de kontroller, der var udført i forbindelse med godkendelsen af EUGFL-regnskaber, Garantisektionen, for regnskabsåret 1995 (herefter »den sammenfattende rapport«).
On 12 January 1999, the Commission adopted its summary report on the results of its review of the clearance of EAGGF accounts, Guarantee Section, in respect of the 1995 financial year (the 'summary report').
Første anbringende: tilsidesættelse af forordning nr. 1308/70
In it, it reiterated its view
Det andet anbringendes første led: tilsidesættelse af den nederlandske version af artikel 4, litra a), i den ændrede forordning nr. 1164/89
In that regard, it is sufficient to observe that it follows from the contested decision and from the summary report that the disputed correction was carried out on account of the alleged non compliance with the conditions for granting the aid, namely by harvesting the hemp before seed formation, and not for failing to fulfil obligations relating to the monitoring of imports from third countries.
nr. 1164/89 således, at frødannelsen kun anses for afsluttet, hvis mindst 50% af frøene er modne.
The second plea in law: infringement Regulation No 1164/89 as amended respect by the Spanish Government, submits that the Commission committed an error in law in interpreting Article 4(a) of Regulation No 1164/89, as amended, in such a way that seed formation is not regarded as terminated unless at least 50% of the seeds have matured.
Kommissionens kritik af, at hampen var blevet høstet, inden frøene var tilstrækkelig modnet, skal undersøges i lyset af den nederlandske version af artikel 4, litra a), i den ændrede forordning nr. 1164/89.
The first part of the second plea in law: failure to take account of the Dutch version of Article 4(a) of Regulation No 1164/89, as amended
Kravet om, at høsten skal finde sted efter frødannelsen, var i denne version udelukkende begrænset til hør.
It follows that the requirements laid down in Article 4(a) of Regulation No 1164/89, as amended, must be interpreted with particular rigour.
Kommissionen har således tilsidesat denne bestemmelse ved ligeledes at stille et sådant krav med hensyn til hamp.
As regards the concept of harvest after seed formation, that concept must be construed in such a way as to prevent, as far as possible, the plant from being harvested when its tetrahydrocannabinol content may still pose a danger to public health.
Heraf følger, at de krav, der er fastsat i artikel 4, litra a), i den ændrede forordning nr. 1164/89, skal fortolkes særlig restriktivt.
By the first part of its second plea in law, the Netherlands Government submits that the Commission's complaint that the hemp had been harvested before the seeds had sufficiently matured must be examined in light of the Dutch version of Article 4(a) of Regulation No 1164/89 as amended.
Hvad angår begrebet høst efter frødannelse skal det fortolkes således, at det så vidt muligt undgås, at planten høstes, mens indholdet af tetrahydrocannabinol endnu kan udgøre en risiko for den offentlige sundhed.
The requirement that harvesting should follow seed formation was, in that version, expressly restricted to flax. The Commission thus infringed that provision by imposing that requirement in respect of hemp as well.
tilsidesættelse af
The third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons
Tredje anbringende: begrundelsespligten
By its third plea in law, the Netherlands Government claims that the reasons stated for the contested decision are inadequate.
Det må herved fastslås, at den nederlandske version af artikel 4, litra a), i den ændrede forordning nr. 1164/89 adskiller sig fra andre sprogversioner af denne bestemmelse, for så vidt som den i begyndelsen af den første sætning udelukkende henviser til hør og ikke til hamp, mens de øvrige sprogversioner er generelt formuleret uden udtrykkelig at nævne hverken den ene eller den anden af disse planter.
In that regard, it is to be noted that the Dutch version of Article 4(a) of Regulation No 1164/89, as amended, is different from the other language versions in that it refers, at the beginning of the first sentence, only to flax and not to hemp, whereas the other language versions are worded generally and do not mention expressly either of those plants.
Det skal ligeledes fastslås, at forordning nr. 1164/89 i sin overskrift og i næsten samtlige af sine bestemmelser uden forskel henviser til de to planter og i vidt omfang fastsætter en ensartet behandling af de to planter.
Regulation No 1164/89 also mentions in its title and in almost all of its provisions both plants in the same way and deals with them in largely similar ways.
Fjerde anbringende: ligebehandlingsprincippet
The fourth plea in law: breach of the principle of equal treatment
Under disse omstændigheder er henvisningen alene til hør i den første sætning og i tredje led i artikel 4, litra a), i den nederlandske version af den ændrede forordning nr. 1164/89 en fejl, som let kunne opdages.
In those circumstances the reference to flax only in the first sentence and in the third indent of Article 4(a) of the Dutch version of Regulation No 1164/89 as amended constitutes an easily detectable error.
Den nederlandske regering kan således ikke påberåbe sig en fortolkning, der alene lægger denne version til grund.
The Netherlands Government cannot therefore place reliance on an interpretation based on the Dutch version.
Med sit fjerde anbringende, som ikke er blevet fremført i detaljer, har den nederlandske regering gjort gældende, at Kommissionen har tilsidesat ligebehandlingsprincippet, idet den har fraveget retningslinjerne uden at angive en begrundelse herfor.
By its fourth plea in law, which it does not set out in detail, the Netherlands Government submits that, by departing from the guidelines without giving reasons for doing so, the Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment.
Med det andet anbringendes andet led har den nederlandske regering, støttet af den spanske regering, gjort gældende, at Kommissionen har anlagt en urigtig retlig vurdering ved at fortolke artikel 4, litra a), i den ændrede forordning
The second part of the second plea in law: erroneous interpretation of the concept of seed formation in Article 4(a) of Regulation No 1164/89, as amended
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
By the second part of its second plea in law, the Netherlands Government, supported in that
•1) Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber frifindes.
In that regard, it is sufficient to hold that since the Commission was not required to apply the guidelines to cases which they did not govern, the complaint of unequal treatment is manifestly unfounded.
Sag C-340/98 Den Italienske Republik / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union Landbrug
Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;
1998/1999 — regionalisering — områder, der ikke har - gyldigheden af forordning (EF) nr. 1360/98 og
Advocate General P. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 13 November 2001.
»Sukker —prisordning —produktionsåret underskud - klassificering af Italien nr. 1361/98* (Sjette Afdeling)
Case C-340/98 Italian Republic ν Council of the European Union Agriculture
Søgsmålet
14 March 2002
Det er i denne sammenhæng, at Den Italienske Republik har anlagt nærværende sag med påstand om annullation af artikel 1 i forordning nr. 1361/98, for så vidt som der ikke heri fastsættes en afledt interventionspris for hvidt sukker for alle områder i Italien for produktionsåret 1998/1999, samt, om fornødent, om annullation af artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1360/98, for så vidt denne bestemmelse også fastsætter interventionsprisen for hvidt sukker for Italien.
(Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1998/1999 — Régionalisation — Nondeficit areas -Classification of Italy - Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1360/98 and 1361/98) (Sixth Chamber) white sugar fixed by Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the standard quality of beet, and, if necessary, annulment of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1360/98, in so far as it also fixes the intervention price for white sugar for Italy.
For det andet hævder den italienske regering, at EF-traktatens artikel 190 (nu artikel 253 EF) er tilsidesat. Forordning nr. 1361/98 indeholder
In those circumstances, the Italian Republic brought the present action for annulment of Article 1 of Regulation No 1361/98, in so far as it omits to fix the derived intervention price for white sugar for all areas of Italy for the
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 17. september 1998 har Den Italienske Republik i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 173, stk. 1 (efter ændring nu artikel 230, stk. 1, EF), anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af artikel 1 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1361/98 af 26. juni 1998 om fastsættelse for produktionsåret 1998/1999 af de afledte interventionspriser for hvidt sukker, interventionsprisen for råsukker, minimumspriserne for A-sukkerroer og B-sukkerroer samt refusionsbeløbet til udligning af lageromkostninger, for så vidt som der ikke heri fastsættes en afledt interventionspris for hvidt sukker for alle områder i Italien, hvorved den interventionspris for hvidt sukker, der er fastsat i artikel 1, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1360/98 af 26. juni 1998 om fastsættelse for produktionsåret 1998/1999 af visse sukkerpriser og af standardkvaliteten for sukkerroer, også kommer til at gælde for Italien, samt, om fornødent, om annullation af artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1360/98, for så vidt denne bestemmelse også fastsætter interventionsprisen for hvidt sukker for Italien.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 September 1998, the Italian Republic brought an action under the first paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 230 EC) for annulment of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and Β beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs, in so far as it omits to fix the derived intervention price for white sugar for all areas of Italy and thus renders applicable in Italy the intervention price for
ved denne forordning er blevet fastsat efter nævnte dato.
The complaint alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
hverken en fyldestgørende begrundelse for så vidt angår den manglende fastsættelse af en afledt interventionspris for hvidt sukker for Italien eller nogen angivelse af, hvorfor metoden til vurdering af forholdene er blevet ændret.
1998/1999 marketing year and, if necessary, annulment of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1360/98, in so far as it also fixes the intervention price for white sugar for Italy.
Desuden kan den omstændighed, at der for første gang i 30 år ikke er fastsat afledte interventionspriser for Italien, ikke anses for at være en tilsidesættelse af princippet om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning.
First, there appears to be no substance to the Italian Government's argument that the fixing of prices before 1 August is intended to enable sugar and sugarbeet manufacturers to plan their activities with full knowledge of the facts.
For det tredje har den italienske regering gjort gældende, at princippet om ligebehandling er tilsidesat, da det ikke er ud fra de samme kriterier, at Italien er blevet anset for en medlemsstat med overskud, mens andre medlemsstater er blevet anset for medlemsstater med underskud.
First, it complains of infringement of Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1785/81 and, consequently, breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, on the ground that the fixing of prices for the 1998/1999 marketing year did not take place until 26 June 1998 and was thus effected out of time.
Det skal i denne forbindelse præciseres, at selv om princippet om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning er et af Fællesskabets grundlæggende principper, kan de erhvervsdrivende dog ikke have nogen berettigede forventninger om opretholdelse af en bestående situation, som Fællesskabets institutioner kan ændre ved beslutninger truffet inden for rammerne af deres skøn på et område som de fælles markedsordninger, hvis formål netop kræver en
Thus, in contrast to the time-limit at issue in Case C-l/94 Cavariere Produzioni Industriali and Others [1995], the overstepping of the date of 1 August laid down in Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1785/81 cannot be capable of rendering invalid Regulation No 1361ÃJ8 in so far as it fixed intervention prices after that date.
Tilsidesættelse af artikel 3, stk 4 og 5, i forordning nr. 1785/81 konstant tilpasning efter ændringer i den økonomiske situation (jf· domai5.10.1994, forenede sager C-133/93, C-300/93 og C-362/93, Crispoltoni m.fl., præmis 57, og dom af 17. september 1998, sag C-372/96, Pontillo, præmis 22).
Second, the Italian Government alleges infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253 EC).
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at Domstolen i dommen af 6. juli 2000, præmis 34, fastslog, at datoen den 1. august, som er angivet i artikel 3, stk. 4 og 5, i forordning nr. 1785/81, ikke har tvingende karakter, og at den manglende overholdelse af denne dato således ikke kunne føre til, at Rådets forordning nr. 1580/% af 30. juli 1996 var ugyldig, for så vidt som denne havde fastsat interventionspriserne efter den 1. august.
It claims that Regulation No 1361/98 contains neither an adequate statement of reasons for the omission to fix a derived intervention price for white sugar for Italy nor any information explaining the change in the method of assessing the situation.
Dette gælder ligeledes for forordning nr. 1360/98 og nr. 1361/98, for så vidt de er udstedt efter udløbet af fristen i artikel 3, stk. 4 og 5, i forordning nr. 1785/81.
Second, the fact that Italy was refused the grant of derived intervention prices for the first time after 30 years cannot amount to a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Da Rådet og Kommissionen i henhold til forordning nr. 1785/81 er forpligtet til hvert år at fastsætte interventionspriserne, minimumspriserne og de forhøjede priser, navnlig under hensyntagen til udviklingen i produktionen og i forbruget, kan de erhvervsdrivende ikke have en berettiget forventning om, at de priser, der er fastsat for tidligere produktionsår, vil blive opretholdt.
Third and last, the Italian Government asserts that the principle of equal treatment has been breached, on the ground that the same criteria were not applied in the assessment whereby Italy was regarded as a Member State with excess production whereas other Member States were classified as deficit areas.
Klagepunktet om tilsidesættelse af beskyttelsen af den berettigede forventning
The plea alleging that Regulations Nos 1360/98 and 1361/98 were adopted out of time
Det bemærkes desuden, at den omstændighed, at der ikke er fastsat en afledt interventionspris for Italien, ikke kan have været en helt uventet begivenhed, der har overrasket de erhvervsdrivende i sukkersektoren.
The claim concerning infringement of Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1785/81
Den italienske regerings argument, hvorefter fastsættelsen af priserne inden den 1. august har til formål at gøre det muligt for sukkerfabrikanterne og sukkerroedyrkerne at planlægge driften af deres virksomhed med fuldt kendskab til alle relevante forhold, kan ikke tiltrædes.
As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that the Court held in paragraph 34 of the judgment of 6 July 2000 that the limit-date of 1 August in Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1785/81 is not peremptory and that failure to observe that date could not therefore have the effect of rendering invalid Council Regulation (EC) No 1580/96 of 30 July 1996, as regards the fixing therein of the intervention prices after 1 August.