natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Η κ υ κ λ ο φ ο ρ ία τ ω ν φ α ρ μ ά κ ω ν κ α ι τ ω ν φ υ τ ο π ρ ο σ τ α τ ε υ τ ικ ώ π ρ ο ϊό ν τ ω ν ε ν τ ό ς τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς κ α ι , συνεπώς, η σ χ ε τ ικ ή ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία ε μ φ α ν ίζ ο υ ν ό λ ω ς ι δ ι ά ζ ο ν τ α χ α ρ α κ τ η ρ ισ τ ικ ά , σ τ ο ν β α θ μ ό π ο υ η ε μ π ο ρ ία α υ τ ώ ν τ ω ν κ α τ η γ ο ρ ιώ ν π ρ ο ϊό ν τ ω ν ε ν τ ό ς κ ά θ ε κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ τ ε ι , καταρχήν, τ η χ ο ρ ή γ η σ η α δ ε ία ς κ υ κ λ ο φ ο ρ ία ς (Α Κ ) α π ό τ ι ς α ρ μ ό δ ι ε ς ε θ ν ικ έ ς α ρ χ έ ς .
In accordance with that case-Iaw, Community law does notpreclude prohibitions relating to the organisation of lotteries, even though theyconstitute obstaclesto the freedom to provide services, given the socialpolicy concerns and the concern to prevent fraud which justify them. The Court thusrefused to find fault either with Finnish legislation which grants to a single publicbody exclusive rights to operate slot machines, in view of the public interestobjectives justifying that legislation (udgment of 21 September I.999 in Case C- I 241 97 Iääräv Kihlakunnansyyttäjö (Jyväslrylä), not yet reported in the ECR),or with Italian legislation which reservesto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting eve.nts(_BAR_udgment of 21 October 1999 in Case C-67198 Questore di Verona v Zenatti, not yet reported in the ECR).
Η β α σ ικ ή κ α ν ο ν ισ τ ικ ή ρ ύ θ μ ισ η αρτίου 1988, για τ η ν τ ρ ο π ο π ο ί η σ η τ η ς
In Läörä, the Court gave a very direct ruling, stating that, since it enabled the public-interestobjectives pursued to be achieved more easily, a decision to grant an exclusive
Ο δ η γ ία ο δ η γ ία ς τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ τ η ς 22α ς Μ 83/189 (ΕΕΙ.
Council Directive of 25 February 1964 (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-L964,p. 117).
ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ α φ α ρ μ α κ ε υ τ ικ ά 91/414/Ε Ο Κ ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ α π ε ρ ι λ α μ β ά ν ε τ α ισ τ η ν ο δ η γ ία 65/65/Ε Ο Κ ι δ ι ο σ κ ε υ ά σ μ α τ α 4 κ α ισ τ η ν ο δ η γ ία φ υ τ ο π ρ ο σ τ α τ ε υ τ ικ ά π ρ ο ϊό ν τ α .
In Zenatti, by contrast, it stated that it was for the national court toverify whether, having regard to the specific rules governing its application, the Italian legislation was genuinely directed to realisingthe objectives which werecapable of justifying it and whether the restrictions which it imposed did notappear disproportionate in the light of thoseobjectives. objectives.
Καταρχάς, οιυποθέσεις \]ρ ]ο Η η κ α ιΚ Η ό η β - Ρ ο η Ι β η ο Κ ο τ β τ ε ίχ α ν ω ς α ν τ ικ ε ί μ ε ν ο π ρ ο δ ικ α σ τ ικ ά ε ρ ω τ ή μ α τ α π ρ ο ς τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ω ς π ρ ο ς τ η ν ε ρ μ η ν ε ία τ η ς ο δ η γ ία ς 65/65.
Under German law, when lessees leasegoods froma lessor established in another Member State the taxable amount for calculationof the tax which they are required to pay is, in the majority of cases, larger -and therefore their treatment for tax purposes less favourable - than if they wereto lease such goods from a lessor established in Germany.
Σ τ η ν π ρ ώ τ η α π ό τ ι ς δ ύ ο υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε , μεταξύάλλων, ότιηοδηγία 65/65 κ α ι γ ε ν ικ ό τ ε ρ α τ ο κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ό δ ί κ α ι ο δ ε ν ε π ι β ά λ λ ο υ ν σ τ α κ ρ ά τ η μ έ λ η τ η ν υ π ο χ ρ έ ω σ η , σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς δ ικ α σ τ ικ ο ύ ε λ έ γ χ ο υ τ ω ν ε θ ν ικ ώ ν α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν π ε ρ ία ν α κ λ ή σ ε ω ς τ ω ν Α Κ τ ω ν φ α ρ μ α κ ε υ τ ικ ώ ν ι δ ι ο σ κ ε υ α σ μ ά τ ω ν , ν α π α ρ έ χ ο υ ν σ τ α α ρ μ ό δ ι α ε θ ν ικ ά δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι α τ η ν ε ξ ο υ σ ία ν α υ π ο κ α θ ισ τ ο ύ ν τ ι ς α ρ μ ό δ ι ε ς γ ι α τ η ν α ν ά κ λ η σ η τ ω ν Α Κ ε θ ν ικ έ ς α ρ χ έ ς σ τ η ν ε κ τ ί μ η σ η τ ω ν π ρ α γ μ α τ ικ ώ ν σ τ ο ιχ ε ί ω ν , ι δ ί ω ς δ ε τ ω ν μ έ σ ω ν ε π ισ τ η μ ο ν ικ ή ς α π ο δ ε ίξ ε ω ς π ο υ χ ρ η σ ι μ ο π ο ι ή θ η κ α ν π ρ ο ς σ τ ή ρ ι ξ η τ η ς α ν α κ λ η τ ικ ή ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς .
It then found that the legislation at issue gave riseto a difference of treatment based on the place of establishment of the providerof services, which was prohibited by Article 59. However, Germany invoked theprinciple of coherencyof the tax system, essentially contending that the advantagein favour of a lessee who dealt with a lessor established in Germany wascounterbalanced by the fact that that lessor was himself subject to the tax at issue.The Court rejected that line of argument, since the link in question was merelyindirect; indeed,the holder of a German leasewas generally exempt solely as aresult of the fact that the lessor himself was liable to the tax at issue, while thelatter had a number of means of avoiding actually paying the tax.
Π ρ ο ς α ι τ ι ο λ ό γ η σ η τ η ς λ ύ σ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α ν α φ έ ρ θ η κ ε , κατ' αναλογίαν, σ τ ο ν π ε ρ ι ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ο δ ικ α σ τ ικ ό έ λ ε γ χ ο π ο υ α σ κ ε ί ο κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ό ς δ ικ α σ τ ή ς ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ι ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ώ ν α ρ χ ώ ν π ο υ σ τ η ρ ίζ ο ν τ α ισ ε π ο λ ύ π λ ο κ ε ς ε κ τ ι μ ή σ ε ι ς (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 21η ς Ι α ν ο υ α ρ ί ο υ 1999, 0120/97, ϋ ρ ρ Η π , Συλλογή 1999, σ. 1-223).
Nor did the Court accept that the fact that a lessor established in another Member State wassubject there to lower taxation could justify a compensatorytax arrangement,because such an approach would prejudice the very foundations of the singlemarket (iudgment of 26 October 1999 in Case C-294197 Eurowings Luftverkehrsv FinanzamtDortmund-(Jnnü, not yet reported in the ECR).
Η υ π ό θ ε σ η Κ Η ο η β - Ρ ο π ί β η ο α π ο τ ε λ ε ί σ υ ν έ χ ε ι α τ η ς ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία ς Ό β Ρ β ί] ρ β Γ (απόφασητης 20ή ς Μ α 'Γ ο υ 1976, 104/75, Συλλογήτόμος 1976, σ.
Last, the Court was asked about the limits imposed by Community lawon the freedom of the Member States to regulate the social protection of personsworking on their territory.
Ο δ η γ ία α γ ο ρ ά τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ τ η ς 15η ς Ι ο υ λ ί ο υ 1991, σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ η φ υ τ ο π ρ ο σ τ α τ ε υ τ ικ ώ ν π ρ ο ϊό ν τ ω ν (Ε Ε ί 230, σ. 1).
In the main proceedings it was necessary to establishwhether social obligations imposed by Belgian law, breach of which waspunishable by penalties under Belgian public-order legislation, could be appliedin respect of workers of an undertaking set up in another Member State who were
ε ισ α γ ω γ ή σ ε σ χ έ σ η μ ε φ ά ρ μ α κ ο γ ι α τ ο ο π ο ί ο έ χ ε ι ε π ί σ η ς χ ο ρ η γ η θ ε ίΑ Κ ε ν τ ό ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς ε ισ α γ ω γ ή ς .
November 1999 in Joined Cases C-369196 and C-376196 Arblade and Leloup, notyet reported in the ECR).
Σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Κ Η ό η β - Ρ ο α Ι β η ο (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 16η ς Δ ε κ ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1999, 0-94/98, η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ), τ ο ε π ί δ ικ ο π ρ ο ϊό ν α π ο τ ε λ ο ύ σ ε α ν τ ικ ε ί μ ε ν ο Α Κ η ο π ο ία ε ίχ ε π α ύ σ ε ι ν α π α ρ ά γ ε ι α π ο τ ε λ έ σ μ α τ α ε ν τ ό ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς ε ισ α γ ω γ ή ς κ α ι ή τ α ν π α λ α ι ά π α ρ α λ λ α γ ή φ α ρ μ ά κ ο υ τ ο υ ο π ο ί ο ν η ν έ α π α ρ α λ λ α γ ή ε ίχ ε Α Κ ε ν τ ό ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς α υ τ ο ύ , α μ φ ισ β η τ ε ί τ ο δ ε η δ υ ν α τ ό τ η τ α ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή ς , γ ι α τ η ν π α λ α ι ά π α ρ α λ λ α γ ή , τ η ς α π λ ο π ο ι η μ έ ν η ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς π α ρ ά λ λ η λ η ς ε ισ α γ ω γ ή ς .
The Court stated first of all that the fact that national rules were categorised aspublic-order legislation did not mean that they were exempt from compliance withthe provisions of the Treaty, as otherwise the primacy and uniform application of Community law would be undermined. It then considered in turn whether therequirements imposed by the Belgian legislation had a restrictive effect onfreedom to provide services, and, if So, whether, in the sector underconsideration, such restrictions were justified by overriding reasons relating to thepublic interest.
Μετηναπόφασηαυτή, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ικ α ν έ ν α ς α π ό τ ο υ ς τ ρ ε ι ς λ ό γ ο υ ς π ο υ π ρ ο έ β α λ λ ε ο δ ικ α ι ο ύ χ ο ς τ η ς Α Κ δ ε ν ε π έ τ ρ ε π ε ν α α π ο κ λ ε ισ τ ε ί κ α τ ά τ ρ ό π ο ν α π ό λ υ τ ο η δ υ ν α τ ό τ η τ α π α ρ ά λ λ η λ η ς ε ισ α γ ω γ ή ς .
If they were, it established whether that interest was alreadyprotected by the rules of the Member State in which the service provider wasestablished and whether the same result could be achieved by less restrictive rules.
Πρώτον, π α ρ α τ ή ρ η σ ε ό τ ι ο ι δ ύ ο π α ρ α λ λ α γ έ ς τ ο υ φ α ρ μ ά κ ο υ δ ε ν π α ρ α σ κ ε υ ά ζ ο ν τ α ν σ ύ μ φ ω ν α μ ε τ ο ν ί δ ι ο τ ύ π ο , ε φ ό σ ο ν η π α ρ α λ λ α γ ή γ ι α τ η ν ο π ο ία ε ίχ ε χ ο ρ η γ η θ ε ίΑ Κ ε ν τ ό ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς ε ισ α γ ω γ ή ς π α ρ α σ κ ε υ α ζ ό τ α ν μ ε ά λ λ α έ κ δ ο χ α κ α ισ ύ μ φ ω ν α μ ε δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ή μ έ θ ο δ ο .
The Court thus acknowledged that provisions guaranteeing a minimum wage werejustified but, in order for their infringement to justify the criminal prosecution of an employer established in another Member State, they had to be sufficientlyprecise and accessible for them not to renderit impossible or excessively difficultin practice for such an employer to determine the obligations with which he was required to comply.
Συναφώς, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ισ τ ι ς α ρ μ ό δ ι ε ς α ρ χ έ ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς ε ισ α γ ω γ ή ς ε ν α π έ κ ε ι τ ο ν α β ε β α ι ω θ ο ύ ν ό τ ι τ ο π α ρ α λ λ ή λ ω ς ε ισ α γ ό μ ε ν ο φ α ρ μ α κ ε υ τ ικ ό ι δ ι ο σ κ ε ύ α σ μ α , έ σ τ ω κ α ι α ν δ ε ν ή τ α ν ω ς π ρ ο ς ό λ α τ α σ η μ ε ία π α ν ο μ ο ι ό τ υ π ο π ρ ο ς α υ τ ό π ο υ έ χ ο υ ν ή δ η ε π ι τ ρ έ ψ ε ι ν α κ υ κ λ ο φ ο ρ ή σ ε ι , ε ίχ ε τ ο ί δ ι ο ε ν ε ρ γ ό σ υ σ τ α τ ικ ό κ α ι τ α ί δ ι α θ ε ρ α π ε υ τ ικ ά α π ο τ ε λ έ σ μ α τ α χ ω ρ ί ς ν α δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ε ί κ α ν έ ν α π ρ ό β λ η μ α α π ό ά π ο ψ η π ο ι ό τ η τ α ς , α π ο τ ε λ ε σ μ α τ ικ ό τ η τ α ς κ α ι α β λ ά β ε ι α ς .
On the other hand, the obligation to pay employer'scontributions to the "timbres-intemp6ries" (bad weather stamps) and"timbres-fidölitö" (loyalty stamps) schemes could be justified only if, first, thecontributions payable gave rise to a social advantage for the workers concernedand, second, those workers did not edoy in the State of establishment,by virtueof the contributions already paid by the employer in that State, protection whichwas essentially similar to that afforded by the rules of the Member State in whichthe services were provided.
Δεύτερον, κ ρ ί θ η κ ε ό τ ι τ ο σ ύ σ τ η μ α τ η ς φ α ρ μ α κ ο ε π α γ ρ υ π ν ή σ ε ω ς δ ε ν λ ε ι τ ο υ ρ γ ο ύ σ ε ε ν τ ό ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς ε ισ α γ ω γ ή ς , δ ε δ ο μ έ ν ο υ ό τ ι ο κ ά τ ο χ ο ς Α Κ ε ν τ ό ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς α υ τ ο ύ δ ε ν ε ίχ ε υ π ο χ ρ έ ω σ η ν α π α ρ έ χ ε ι τ α κ τ ικ ά π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ί ε ς σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ ο π α ρ α λ λ ή λ ω ς ε ισ α γ ό μ ε ν ο φ ά ρ μ α κ ο .
As regards obligations to draw up certain documentsand to keep them in certain placesand for a certain time, their compatibility withthe Treaty essentially dependedon whether they were necessary in order to enableeffective review of compliance with the national legislation and on whethercomparable obligations might exist in the State in which the undertaking was established.
Τέλος, ε ίχ ε υ π ο σ τ η ρ ιχ θ ε ί ό τ ι τ ο ε ι δ ικ ό ό φ ε λ ο ς γ ι α τ η δ η μ ό σ ι α υ γ ε ία π ο υ π α ρ ε ίχ ε η ν έ α π α ρ α λ λ α γ ή σ ε σ χ έ σ η μ ε τ η ν π α λ α ι ά δ ε ν θ α μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α ε π ι τ ε υ χ θ ε ία ν η π α λ α ι ά κ α ι η ν έ α π α ρ α λ λ α γ ή τ ο υ φ α ρ μ α κ ε υ τ ικ ο ύ ι δ ι ο σ κ ε υ ά σ μ α τ ο ς δ ι ε τ ί θ ε ν τ ο σ υ γ χ ρ ό ν ω ς σ τ η ν α γ ο ρ ά τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς ε ισ α γ ω γ ή ς .
While confirming that direct taxation fell within the competence of the Member States, the Court none the lessdeclared incompatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 43 EC) provisions governing the taxation of companies in force in Greece,Germany and Sweden in so far as they involved differences in treatment betweencompanies incorporated under national law and branches or agencies of companies aa
Επισημαίνεται, ωστόσο, η α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 5η ς Ο κ τ ω β ρ ί ο υ 1999, π ο υ ε κ δ ό θ η κ ε ε π ί δ ι α φ ο ρ ά ς μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ο υ Β α σ ι λ ε ί ο υ τ η ς Ισ π α ν ία ς κ α ι τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ η ς κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ή ς α λ ι ε υ τ ικ ή ς π ο λ ι τ ικ ή ς (0-179/95, Ισ π α ν ία κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ).
In so far as that difference in treatment resulted in partfrom bilateral treaties concluded with non-member countries, the Court observedthat the Member States were free to conclude such bilateral treaties in order toeliminate double taxation, but the national treatment principle required them togrant to permanent establishmentsof Community companies the advantagesprovided for by those treaties on the same conditions as those which applied toresident companies.
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α π έ ρ ρ ιψ ε κ α ι τ ο ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η μ α α υ τ ό .
Here, Danish nationals resident in Denmark formed in the United Kingdom a company which did not trade in the
ανταλλαγήκαι, τέλος, ό τ ι δ ε ν α π ο δ ε ικ ν υ ό τ α ν ό τ ι η ε π ί μ α χ η α ν τ α λ λ α γ ή έ θ ε τ ε σ ε κ ί ν δ υ ν ο τ ο υ ς π ό ρ ο υ ς τ ω ν ο ικ ε ί ω ν ζ ω ν ώ ν ο ύ τ ε , κατάσυνέπεια, ό τ ι έ θ ι γ ε τ α δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ α τ ω ν κ ρ α τ ώ ν μ ε λ ώ ν π ο υ δ ι έ θ ε τ α ν π ο σ ο σ τ ώ σ ε ι ς ε ν τ ό ς τ ω ν ζ ω ν ώ ν α υ τ ώ ν . Ωςεκτούτου, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α π έ ρ ρ ιψ ε τ η ν π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή .
nothing to preclude the Member State concerned from adopting any appropriatemeasure for preventing or penalising fraud, either in relation to the companyitself, or in relation to its members where it had been established that they werein fact attemptingto evadetheir obligations towards creditors established on theterritory of the State in question, the Court concluded that the refusal to registerthe company was contrary to the Treaty.
Ο ι α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς π ο υ ε κ δ ό θ η κ α ν τ ο 1999 σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ η ν ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ η κ υ κ λ ο φ ο ρ ία τ ω ν π ρ ο σ ώ π ω ν σ τ ο ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ό τ η ς Ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ ή ς Ε ν ώ σ ε ω ς α ν τ ικ α τ ο π τ ρ ίζ ο υ ν τ ι ς ό λ ο κ α ι π ι ο π ο ικ ί λ ε ς π τ υ χ έ ς τ η ς α ρ χ ή ς α υ τ ή ς , ε ί τ ε π ρ ό κ ε ι τ α ι γ ι α τ η ν ο μ ο θ ε τ ικ ή κ α τ ο χ ύ ρ ω σ η τ ω ν ε π α γ γ ε λ μ ά τ ω ν , ε ί τ ε π ρ ό κ ε ι τ α ι γ ι α τ ο υ ς ε λ έ γ χ ο υ ς σ τ α ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ά σ ύ ν ο ρ α , τ η ν κ ο ι ν ω ν ικ ή α σ φ ά λ ισ η ή τ η φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ία .
All of the most important cases on the free movement of capital decidedin 1999 arose from questions referred for a preliminary ruling by Austriancourts. courts.
Π ρ ο ς τ ο ν σ κ ο π ό τ η ς δ ι ε υ κ ο λ ύ ν σ ε ω ς τ η ς ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ η ς κ υ κ λ ο φ ο ρ ία ς τ ω ν ε ρ γ α ζ ο μ έ ν ω ν σ τ ο ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ό τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς , ο κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ό ς ν ο μ ο θ έ τ η ς έ χ ε ι θ ε σ π ί σ ε ι ο δ η γ ί ε ς ο ι ο π ο ί ε ς π ρ ο β λ έ π ο υ ν γ ε ν ικ ά σ υ σ τ ή μ α τ α α ν α γ ν ω ρ ί σ ε ω ς τ ω ν δ ι π λ ω μ ά τ ω ν κ α ι ε π α γ γ ε λ μ α τ ικ ώ ν ε κ π α ι δ ε ύ σ ε ω ν .
The Court provided some explanation of the terms "movementsof capital" and "payments", stating first of all that the nomenclature in respect ofmovements of capital annexedto Directive 88/3 lI IEEC 10 still had the sameindicative value, for the purposes of defining the notion of capital movements, asit did before the entry into force of Article 73b et seq.of the EC Treaty, subjectto the qualification, contained in the introduction to the nomenclature,that the listset out thereinwas not exhaustive.
Σ τ ι ς δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ι ς α υ τ έ ς υ π ά γ ο ν τ α ι τ α λ ε γ ό μ ε ν α «ν ο μ ο θ ε τ ικ ώ ς κ α τ ο χ υ ρ ω μ έ ν α » επαγγέλματα, ή τ ο ικ ά θ ε ε π α γ γ ε λ μ α τ ικ ή δ ρ α σ τ η ρ ι ό τ η τ α η ο π ο ία , ω ς π ρ ο ς τ ι ς π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς π ρ ο σ β ά σ ε ω ς σ ε α υ τ ή ν ή ν ο μ ικ ή ς κ λ ή θ η κ ε σ ύ μ β α σ η ασκήσεωςτης, ρ υ θ μ ίζ ε τ α ι ά μ ε σ α ή φ ύ σ ε ω ς .
In the case before the Court, it followed thatthe mortgage was covered by Article 73b of the Treaty. Next, the Court statedthat the requirement at issue constituted a restriction on the movement of capitalsince its effect was to weaken the link between the debt to be secured, payable in the currency of another Member State, and the mortgage, whose value could, asa result of subsequent currency exchangefluctuations, come to be lower than thatof the debt to be secured.
Σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ρ β π ι ά η ά β ζ ά β ν α ε ξ ε τ ά σ ε ι α ν έ ν α ε π ά γ γ ε λ μ α π ο υ σ υ ν α φ θ ε ί σ α α π ό τ ο υ ς κ ο ι ν ω ν ικ ο ύ ς θ ε ω ρ η θ ε ί ω ς ν ο μ ο θ ε τ ικ ώ ς κ α τ ο χ υ ρ ω μ έ ν ο ο δ η γ ιώ ν .
This could only reduce the effectiveness of such asecurity, and thus its attractiveness. Consequently,the legislation was liable todissuade the parties concerned from denominating a debt in the currency ofanother Member State.
Στηνίδιααπόφαση, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο δ ι ε υ κ ρ ί ν ισ ε , εξάλλου, σχετικάμεταμη
Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty(OJ1988 L178, p.5).
Τ α π ρ α γ μ α τ ικ ά π ε ρ ισ τ α τ ικ ά τ η ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ς λ Υ ψ β ΐ ώ β β Ι ζ , α φ ο ρ ο ύ ν τ η ν ά ρ ν η σ η τ ο υ ε ν λ ό γ ω κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ υ π η κ ό ο υ , ό τ α ν ε ισ ή λ θ ε σ τ ι ς Κ ά τ ω Χ ώ ρ ε ς α π ό τ ο ν α ε ρ ο λ ι μ έ ν α τ ο υ Ρ ό τ τ ε ρ ν τ α μ π ρ ο ε ρ χ ό μ ε ν ο ς α π ό τ ο Σ τ ρ α σ β ο ύ ρ γ ο , ν α ε π ι δ ε ίξ ε ι τ ο δ ι α β α τ ή ρ ι ο τ ο υ κ α ι ν α α π ο δ ε ίξ ε ι τ η ν ο λ λ α ν δ ικ ή ι θ α γ έ ν ε ι α τ ο υ , κ α τ ά π α ρ ά β α σ η τ η ς ισ χ ύ ο υ σ α ς ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ία ς τ ω ν Κ ά τ ω Χ ω ρ ώ ν .
Konle, cited above, was mainly concerned with the ability of publicauthorities, in that case the Land of Tyrol, systematically to require anadministrative authorisation prior to the acquisition of land, with an obligation forthe acquirer to show that the acquisition would not be used to create a secondaryresidence. The Court stated that, to the extent that a Member State could justifythe system by relying on a town and country planning objective, the restrictive measure inherent in such a requirement could be accepted only if it were notapplied in a discriminatory manner and if the same result could not beachievedby other less restrictive procedures.
Σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς ε π α κ ο λ ο υ θ ή σ α σ α ς π ο ι ν ικ ή ς δ ί κ η ς , ο λ Υ ^η ο ε^ ε π ικ α λ έ σ θ η κ ε π ρ ο ς υ π ε ρ ά σ π ισ η τ ο υ τ α ά ρ θ ρ α 7 Α, δεύτεροεδάφιο, και8 Α τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ (ν υ ν , κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρα14 ΕΚκαι18 ΕΚ).
The Court considered that not to be so in thecase before it, in particular since the available documents revealed the intentionof using the means of assessment offered by the authorisation procedure in orderto subject applications from foreigners, including Community nationals,to a morethorough check than applications from Austrian nationals.
Συγκεκριμένα, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η υ π ο χ ρ έ ω σ η κ α τ α ρ γ ή σ ε ω ς τ ω ν ε λ έ γ χ ω ν τ ω ν π ρ ο σ ώ π ω ν σ τ α ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ά σ ύ ν ο ρ α τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς π ρ ο ϋ π έ θ ε τ ε τ η ν ε ν α ρ μ ό ν ισ η τ ω ν ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ιώ ν τ ω ν κ ρ α τ ώ ν μ ε λ ώ ν σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ η ς δ ι ε λ ε ύ σ ε ω ς τ ω ν ε ξ ω τ ε ρ ικ ώ ν σ υ ν ό ρ ω ν τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς , τηςμεταναστεύσεως, τ η ς θ ε ω ρ ή σ ε ω ς τ ω ν δ ι α β α τ η ρ ί ω ν , τ η ς χ ο ρ η γ ή σ ε ω ς π ο λ ι τ ικ ο ύ α σ ύ λ ο υ κ α ι τ η ς α ν τ α λ λ α γ ή ς π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ιώ ν ε π ί τ ω ν θ ε μ ά τ ω ν α υ τ ώ ν .
The national legislation applied, irrespectiveof the nationality of the contracting parties or of the place where the loan wascontracted, to all natural and legal persons resident in Austria who entered intoa contract for a loan, and its main objective was to ensure equal tax treatment.On the other hand, the Court found that the legislation was contrary to the Treatyin so far as, in the case of loans contracted without being set down in a writteninstrument, a loan contracted in Austria was not subject to the duty at issuewhereas, if it was contracted outside Austria, duty was payable by virtue of theexistence of the loan being recorded by an entry in the borrower's books andrecords of account (udgment of 14 October 1999 in Case C-439197 Sandoz v
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ι ς σ υ ν έ π ε ι ε ς τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ό φ ε ι λ ε ν α σ υ ν α γ ά γ ε ι α π ό τ ο α σ υ μ β ί β α σ τ ο α υ τ ό , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι ο ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ο ς ε ίχ ε δ ικ α ί ω μ α ν α κ α τ α β ά λ ε ι ε ισ φ ο ρ έ ς κ ο ι ν ω ν ικ ή ς α σ φ α λ ί σ ε ω ς τ ο υ ι δ ί ο υ ε π ι π έ δ ο υ μ ε τ ι ς ε ισ φ ο ρ έ ς π ο υ κ α τ α β ά λ λ ε ι ο ε ρ γ α ζ ό μ ε ν ο ς ο ο π ο ί ο ς δ ι α τ ή ρ η σ ε τ η ν κ α τ ο ικ ία τ ο υ σ τ ο ί δ ι ο κ ρ ά τ ο ς μ έ λ ο ς , καθόσον, ε λ λ ε ίψ ε ι ο ρ θ ή ς ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή ς τ ο υ κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ δ ικ α ί ο υ , τ ο τ ε λ ε υ τ α ί ο α υ τ ό κ α θ ε σ τ ώ ς ή τ α ν τ ο μ ό ν ο έ γ κ υ ρ ο
As regardsreopening of the oral procedure, the Court stated that the Court of First Instanceis not obliged to accedeto a request to that effect unless the party concernedrelies on facts which may have a decisive influence on the outcome of the caseand which it could not put forward before the close of the oral procedure.According to the Court, indications of a general nature relating to an allegedpractice of the Commission that emerged from a judgment delivered in other casesor from statements made on the occasion of other proceedings do not amount tosuch facts. The Court also made it clear that the Court of First Instance was notobliged to order that the oral procedure be reopenedon the ground of an allegedduty to raise of its own motion issues concerning the regularity of the procedure
26η ς
Instance.
Αντιθέτως, η ε π ί δ ικ η σ τ ι ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς Ο κ Η γ ε ρ μ α ν ικ ή κ α ι ο λ λ α ν δ ικ ή ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ία δ ε ν τ η ν α ρ χ ή τ η ς ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ η ς κ υ κ λ ο φ ο ρ ία ς τ ω ν κ ί η ά κ α ι Ν ί ]Η α ί 5, αντιστοίχως, κ ρ ί θ η κ α ν α σ υ μ β ί β α σ τ ε ς μ ε π ρ ο σ ώ π ω ν .
With regard to theconceptof a concerted practice - which refers to a form of coordination betweenundertakings that, without having been taken to a stage where an agreementproperly so-called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes for the risks ofcompetition practical cooperation between the undertakings - the Court statedfirst that, like an agreement, a concerted practice falls under Article 85 where ithas as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition even in theabsence of anti-competitive effects on the market.
1-2493), τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ίχ ε ε ρ μ η ν ε ύ σ ε ι τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 48 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς (ν υ ν , κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρο39 ΕΚ) υ π ό τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α ό τ ι ο κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ό ς ν τ ΐ Ύ \κ ο ο ς π ο υ ε ισ π ρ ά τ τ ε ι , ε ν τ ό ς κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς ά λ λ ο υ α π ό τ ο κ ρ ά τ ο ς ο ι τηςκατοικίαςτου, τ ι ς κ ύ ρ ι ε ς α π ο δ ο χ έ ς τ ο υ κ α ι ό λ α σ χ ε δ ό ν τ α ο ικ ο γ ε ν ε ι α κ ά ε ισ ο δ ή μ α τ α τ ο υ υ φ ί σ τ α τ α ι δ υ σ μ ε ν ή δ ι ά κ ρ ισ η ε ά ν η π ρ ο σ ω π ικ ή κ α ι ο ικ ο γ ε ν ε ι α κ ή τ ο υ κ α τ ά σ τ α σ η δ ε ν λ α μ β ά ν ε τ α ι υ π ό ψ η σ τ ο τ ε λ ε υ τ α ί ο α υ τ ό κ ρ ά τ ο ς π ρ ο ς τ ο ν σ κ ο π ό τ η ς φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ή σ ε ω ς τ ο υ ε ισ ο δ ή μ α τ ο ς τ ο υ .
Second, the Court statedin relation to application of the rule of reason, which certain appellants relied on,that even if that rule does have a place in the context of Article S5(1) of the Treaty, in no event may it exclude application of that provision in the case of arestrictive arrangement involving producers accounting for almost all the Community market and concerning price targets, production limits and sharingout of the market.