natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Καταρχάς, η ε ν λ ό γ ω π ρ α κ τ ικ ή δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε κ α ν ν α ο δ η γ ή σ ε ισ τ η ν ε π ί τ ε υ ξ η τ ο υ ο κ ο π ο ν τ η ς π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία ς τ ω ν π ισ τ ω τ ώ ν τ ο ν ο π ο ί ο υ π ο τ ί θ ε τ α ι ό τ ι ε π ι δ ί ω κ ε , καθόσον, α ν η ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν η ε τ α ι ρ ία ε ίχ ε α σ κ ή σ ε ι δ ρ α σ τ η ρ ι ό τ η τ α σ τ ο Η ν ω μ έ ν ο Β α σ ί λ ε ι ο , τ ο υ π ο κ α τ ά σ τ η μ α τ η ς θ α ε ίχ ε κ α τ α χ ω ρ ισ θ ε ί σ τ η Δ α ν ία , ε ν ώ ο ι π ισ τ ω τ έ ς θ α β ρ ί σ κ ο ν τ α ν σ τ η ν ί δ ι α α κ ρ ι β ώ ς ε π ισ φ α λ ή θ έ σ η .
In particular, it follows from the judgment that the registration of geographical names as trade marks is not prohibited solely wherethe names designateplaces which are, in the mind of the relevant class ofpersons, currently associated with the categoryof goods in question, but also inthe case of geographical names which are liable to be used in future by theundertakings concerned as an indication of the geographical origin of thatcategory of goods.
Εξάλλου, ο ι π ισ τ ω τ έ ς τ η ς ή τ α ν π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ η μ έ ν ο ι γ ι α τ η ν ε θ ν ικ ό τ η τ α τ η ς ε τ α ι ρ ία ς κ α ι μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν ν α σ τ η ρ ιχ θ ο ύ ν σ ε ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ο υ ς κ α ν ό ν ε ς κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ δ ικ α ί ο υ π ο υ τ ο υ ς π ρ ο σ τ α τ ε ύ ο υ ν .
The Court also defined the scope of the derogation,laid downin the first sentence of Article 3(3) of the directive, for trademarkswhich haveacquired a distinctive character.
Τέλος, θ α μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν ν α λ η φ θ ο ύ ν μ έ τ ρ α λ ι γ ό τ ε ρ ο δ ε σ μ ε υ τ ικ ά ή π λ ή τ τ ο ν τ α λ ι γ ό τ ε ρ ο τ ι ς θ ε μ ε λ ιώ δ ε ι ς ε λ ε υ θ ε ρ ί ε ς .
It stated that a trade mark acquires distinctivecharacter following the use which has been made of it where the mark has cometo identify the product in respect of which registration is applied for as originatingfrom a particular undertaking and thus to distinguishthat product from goods of other undertakinss.
Σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α 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 ε φ α λ α ί ω ν , ο ισ η μ α ν τ ικ ό τ ε ρ ε ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς π ο υ π ε ρ α τ ώ θ η κ α ν τ ο 1999 π ρ ο ή λ θ α ν ό λ ε ς α π ό π ρ ο δ ικ α σ τ ικ ά ε ρ ω τ ή μ α τ α π ο υ υ π έ β α λ α ν α υ σ τ ρ ι α κ ά δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι α .
Article 5(1) of the directive defines the extent of the rights conferred bya trade mark while, under Article 5(2), a trade mark having a reputation mayenjoy protection extendingto products or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered.
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο , π α ρ έ χ ο ν τ α ς ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς δ ι ε υ κ ρ ι ν ί σ ε ι ς ω ς π ρ ο ς τ ι ς έ ν ν ο ι ε ς τ ω ν κ ι ν ή σ ε ω ν κ ε φ α λ α ί ω ν κ α ι τ ω ν κ ι ν ή σ ε ω ν π λ η ρ ω μ ώ ν , αναφέρεικαταρχάς, στηναπόφασητου, ό τ ι η ο ν ο μ α τ ο λ ο γ ία τ ω ν κ ι ν ή σ ε ω ν κ ε φ α λ α ί ω ν π ο υ έ χ ε ι π ρ ο σ α ρ τ η θ ε ί σ τ η ν
The more similar the goods or services covered and the moredistinctive the earlier mark, the greater would be the likelihood of confusion. Inthis connection, the Court provided certain indications - additional to thosecontained in the judgment in Windsuffing Chiemsee,cited above - to assistnational courts in determinins the distinctive character of a trade mark.
οδηγία 88/361/Ε Ο Κ δ ι α τ η ρ ε ί τ η ν ε ν δ ε ικ τ ικ ή α ξ ία π ο υ ε ίχ ε π ρ ι ν α π ό τ η θ έ σ η σ ε ισ χ ύ τ ω ν ά ρ θ ρ ω ν 73 Βεπ. τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ , ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ο ν ο ρ ισ μ ό τ η ς έ ν ν ο ι α ς τ ω ν κ ι ν ή σ ε ω ν κ ε φ α λ α ί ω ν , εξυπακουομένουότι, ό π ω ς π ρ ο κ ύ π τ ε ι α π ό τ η ν ε ισ α γ ω γ ή τ ο υ , ο κ α τ ά λ ο γ ο ς π ο υ π ε ρ ι έ χ ε ι δ ε ν ε ί ν α ι ε ξ α ν τ λ η τ ικ ό ς .
As regards protection extendingto non-similar products or services, provided forin Article 5(2), the Court stated in GeneralMotors that, in order for a registered trade mark to enjoy such protection as a mark having a reputation, it had to beknown by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or serviceswhich it covered.
Συνεπώς, η ε ν λ ό γ ω ρ ύ θ μ ισ η μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α α π ο θ α ρ ρ ύ ν ε ι τ ο υ ς ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ο μ έ ν ο υ ς α π ό τ ο ν α ε κ φ ρ ά σ ο υ ν μ ι α α π α ί τ η σ η σ τ ο ν ό μ ισ μ α ά λ λ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς .
In examining whether that condition was fulfilled, the nationalcourt had to take into consideration all the relevant facts of the case, in particularthe market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent andduration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking inpromoting it.
Επιπλέον, υ π ή ρ χ ε ο κ ί ν δ υ ν ο ς ν α έ χ ε ι ω ς σ υ ν έ π ε ι α ν α υ π ο β λ η θ ο ύ ν τ α σ υ μ β α λ λ ό μ ε ν α μ έ ρ η σ ε π ρ ό σ θ ε τ ε ς δ α π ά ν ε ς , καθόσονταυποχρέωνε, α π ο κ λ ε ισ τ ικ ά κ α ι μ ό ν ο ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ο υ ν α ε γ γ ρ α φ ε ί η υ π ο θ ή κ η , ν α π ρ ο σ δ ι ο ρ ί σ ο υ ν τ ο π ο σ ό σ τ ο ο π ο ί ο θ α α ν ε ρ χ ό τ α ν η α π α ί τ η σ η α ν ή τ α ν ε κ φ ρ α σ μ έ ν η σ τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό ν ό μ ισ μ α κ α ι , κατάπερίπτωση, ν α ζ η τ ή σ ο υ ν τ η ν α ν α γ ν ώ ρ ισ η τ η ς μ ε τ α τ ρ ο π ή ς α υ τ ή ς .
Territorially, it was sufficient for the reputation to exist in asubstantial part of the Member State or, in the case of trade marks registered atthe Benelux Trade Mark Office, in a substantial part of the Benelux territory,which part could consist of a part of one of the Benelux countries (udgment of
τ η θ έ σ η σ ε ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή
14 September 1999 in Case C-375197 GeneralMotors v Yplon, not yet reportedin the ECR).
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι ε π ρ ό κ ε ι τ ο γ ι α π ε ρ ι ο ρ ισ μ ό τ ω ν κ ι ν ή σ ε ω ν κ ε φ α λ α ί ω ν , α λ λ ά ό τ ι ο π ε ρ ι ο ρ ισ μ ό ς α υ τ ό ς ή τ α ν α π α ρ α ί τ η τ ο ς ώ σ τ ε ν α α π ο τ ρ έ π ο ν τ α ικ α τ α σ τ ρ α τ η γ ή σ ε ι ς τ ω ν ε θ ν ικ ώ ν φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ικ ώ ν ν ό μ ω ν κ α ι ρ υ θ μ ί σ ε ω ν υ π ό τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 73 Δ(νυνάρθρου58 ΕΚ), παράγραφος 1, στοιχείοβ', τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς .
The proprietorcould therefore continue to prohibit the use of the mark in pursuanceof the rightconferred on him by the directive as regards individual itemsof the product whichhad been put on the market in the Community (or in the EEA following theentryinto force of the EEA Agreement)without his consent (fudgment of I July 1999in Case C-I73198 Sebago and Another v GB-Unic, not yet reported in the ECR).
Π ρ ά γ μ α τ ι η ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ία α υ τ ή έ π λ η τ τ ε , χ ω ρ ί ς ν α λ α μ β ά ν ε ι υ π ό ψ η τ η ν ι θ α γ έ ν ε ι α τ ω ν σ υ μ β α λ λ ο μ έ ν ω ν μ ε ρ ώ ν ή τ ο ν τ ό π ο σ υ ν ά ψ ε ω ς τ η ς σ υ μ β ά σ ε ω ς δ α ν ε ί ο υ , ό λ α τ α ε γ κ α τ ε σ τ η μ έ ν α σ τ η ν Α υ σ τ ρ ία φ υ σ ικ ά κ α ι ν ο μ ικ ά π ρ ό σ ω π α π ο υ σ υ ν ή π τ α ν τ έ τ ο ι α σ ύ μ β α σ η , ο δ ε κ ύ ρ ι ο ς σ κ ο π ό ς τ η ς έ γ κ ε ι τ ο σ τ η δ ι α σ φ ά λ ισ η τ η ς ί σ η ς φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ικ ή ς τ ο υ ς μ ε τ α χ ε ι ρ ί σ ε ω ς .
While technically relating to the interpretation of Article 36 of the Treaty (now Article 30 EC), the judgment in Pharmacia & Upjohn was also concerned withthe concept of exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark, referred to in Article 7 of the directive. This case involved defining the conditions in which aparallel importer was entitled to replacethe original trade mark used by theproprietor in the Member State of export by the trade mark which the proprietorused in the Member State of import. The Court held that the parallel importerwas not required to prove an intention on the part of the proprietor of the trademarks to partition the markets, but the replacement of the trade mark had to beobjectively necessary if the proprietor were to be precluded from opposing it.This condition of necessity was satisfiedif, in a specific case, the prohibitionimposed on the importer against replacing the trade mark hindered effectiveaccess to the markets of the importing Member State, for exampleif a rule for theprotection of consumers prohibited the use in that State of the trade mark used inthe exporting Member State on the ground that it was liable to misleadconsumers. In contrast, the condition of necessity would not be satisfied ifreplacement of the trade mark were explicable solely by the parallel importer'sattempt to secure a commercial advantage (udgment of 12 October 1999 in Case C- 379 19 7 Pharmacia & Upjohn v Paranova, nor yet reported in the ECR). 20.
Αντιθέτως, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε τ η ρ ύ θ μ ισ η α υ τ ή α σ υ μ β ί β α σ τ η μ ε τ η Σ υ ν θ ή κ η , στομέτροπου, π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ο υ γ ι α δ ά ν ε ι α π ο υ σ υ ν ά π τ ο ν τ α ν χ ω ρ ί ς τ η ν κ α τ ά ρ τ ισ η ε γ γ ρ ά φ ο υ , τ α δ ά ν ε ι α π ο υ σ υ ν ά π τ ο ν τ α ν σ τ η ν Α υ σ τ ρ ία δ ε ν
The Court also annulled the measure by which the Commission hadregistered the name "Feta" as a protected designation of origin pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2081192 on the protection of geographical indications and
υ π ο β ά λ λ ο ν τ α ν σ τ η ν κ α τ α β ο λ ή τ ο υ ε π ι δ ί κ ο υ φ ό ρ ο υ , ενώ, ο σ ά κ ι ς τ ο δ ά ν ε ι ο σ υ ν α π τ ό τ α ν ε κ τ ό ς τ ο υ ε θ ν ικ ο ύ ε δ ά φ ο υ , υ π έ κ ε ι τ ο σ τ ο ν φ ό ρ ο ε φ ό σ ο ν η ύ π α ρ ξ η τ ο υ α ν α φ ε ρ ό τ α ν μ ε μ ν ε ία τ ο υ δ α ν ε ί ο υ α υ τ ο ύ σ τ α λ ο γ ισ τ ικ ά β ι β λ ία κ α ι έ γ γ ρ α φ α τ ο υ δ α ν ε ισ τ ή (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 14η ς Ο κ τ ω β ρ ί ο υ 1999, 0-439/97, 8αηάοζ, 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 ).
C-289196, C-293196 and C-299196Denmark and Others v Commission tl999l ECR I-1541). The Court found that, in deciding that the name "Feta" did not constitute a generic name within the meaning of Article 3 of RegulationNo 2081192 and could therefore be registered, the Commission had wronglyminimised the importance to be attached to the situation existing in the MemberStates other than the State of origin and considered their national legislation to be entirely irrelevant.
Μετιςαποφάσειςαυτές, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε π ικ ύ ρ ω σ ε σ χ ε δ ό ν ό λ ε ς τ ι ς ε κ τ ι μ ή σ ε ι ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ (αποφάσειςτης 8η ς Ι ο υ λ ί ο υ 1999, 0-49/92 Ρ, Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή κ α τ ά Λ η ί ο Ρ α Π β ά ρ α ζ ί ο η ί , 0-51/92 ?,Η β κ ι ι Ι β 5 Ο Η β η τ ί ο α Ιχ κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , 0-199/92 Έ , Η Η Ι Ξ κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , Ο-200/92 Ρ, Ι Ο Ικ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , 0-227/92 Υ , Η ο β ο Η χ ΐ κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , 0-234/92 Ρ, 5Η β Ι Ι Ι η ί β π ι α ή ο η α Ι Ο Η β π ι ί ο α Ι Ο ο π ι ρ α η γ κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , 0-235/92 Ρ, Μ ο η ί β β α ί ί η ί κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , και 0-245/92 Ρ, Ο Η β π ύ β Ι , ί η ζ κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , ο ι ο π ο ί ε ς δ ε ν έ χ ο υ ν 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 ).
It may be that a difference in treatment, whether direct or indirect, is justified byobjective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. In that case,it is for the Member State, as the author of the allegedlydiscriminatory rule, toshow that the rule reflects a legitimate aim of its social policy, that that aim isunrelated to any discrimination based on sex, and that it could reasonably considerthat the means chosen were suitable for attaining that aim (Sey mour-Smith and
Η ε ξ α ί ρ ε σ η α υ τ ή α π ο β λ έ π ε ισ τ η δ ι α τ ή ρ η σ η τ η ς ισ ο ρ ρ ο π ία ς μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ω ν δ ύ ο θ ε μ ε λ ι ω δ ώ ν , α λ λ ά ε ν ί ο τ ε α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ τ ικ ώ ν μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ο υ ς , επιταγών, τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς π ρ έ π ε ι ν α τ η ρ ε ί μ ι α έ ν ν ο μ η τ ά ξ η , δ η λ α δ ή τ η ς σ τ α θ ε ρ ό τ η τ α ς τ ω ν ε ν ν ό μ ω ν σ χ έ σ ε ω ν κ α ι τ η ς τ η ρ ή σ ε ω ς τ η ς ν ο μ ι μ ό τ η τ α ς .
Similarly, where national legislation grants a termination payment to workers whoend their employment relationship prematurely in order to take care of theirchildren owing to a lack of child-carefacilities for them, Community law does notpreclude that payment being lower than that received,for the same actual periodof employment, by workers who give notice of resignation for an importantreason related to working conditions in the undertaking or to the employer'sconduct.
Κ α τ ά τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο , η σ ο β α ρ ό τ η τ α τ ω ν σ υ ν ε π ε ιώ ν π ο υ σ υ ν α ρ τ ώ ν τ α ι π ρ ο ς τ η ν α ν α γ ν ώ ρ ισ η τ ο υ α ν υ π ό σ τ α τ ο υ π ρ ά ξ ε ω ς τ ω ν θ ε σ μ ικ ώ ν ο ρ γ ά ν ω ν τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς ε π ι τ ά σ σ ε ι , γ ι α λ ό γ ο υ ς α σ φ ά λ ε ι α ς δ ικ α ί ο υ , ν α ε π ι φ υ λ ά σ σ ε τ α ι η α ν α γ ν ώ ρ ισ η α υ τ ή σ ε ε ν τ ε λ ώ ς α κ ρ α ί ε ς π ε ρ ι π τ ώ σ ε ι ς .
Those payments cannot be compared with one another since the situations covered are different in substance and origin fiudgment of 14 September1999 in Case C-249197 Gruber v Silhouette International Schmied, not yet reported in the ECR).
Κ α τ ά τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο , δ ε ν σ υ ν ισ τ ο ύ ν τ έ τ ο ι α π ε ρ ισ τ α τ ικ ά ε ν δ ε ίξ ε ι ς γ ε ν ικ ο ύ χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α π ο υ α φ ο ρ ο ύ ν υ π ο τ ι θ έ μ ε ν η π ρ α κ τ ικ ή τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς α π ο ρ ρ έ ο υ σ α α π ό δ ικ α σ τ ικ ή α π ό φ α σ η ε κ δ ο θ ε ί σ α σ ε ά λ λ ε ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς ή α π ό δ η λ ώ σ ε ι ς γ ε ν ό μ ε ν ε ς ε π ' ε υ κ α ι ρ ία ά λ λ ω ν δ ι α δ ικ α σ ιώ ν .
In this connection, the Court held that work is not the same where the same activities are performed overa considerable length of time by persons the basis of whose qualification toexercise their profession is different (Case C-309/97 Angestelltenbetriebsrat der
Ο ι α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς π ο λ υ π ρ ο π υ λ ε ν ί ο υ δ ι ε υ κ ρ ι ν ίζ ο υ ν ε π ί σ η ς ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς π τ υ χ έ ς α π τ ό μ ε ν ε ς τ ω ν π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ν ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή ς τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 85 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς (ν υ ν ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 81 ΕΚ).
Council Directive 761707 lEEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion,and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).
η συμφωνία, η ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ισ μ έ ν η π ρ α κ τ ικ ή , ε φ ό σ ο ν α π ο σ κ ο π ε ί σ τ ο ν π ε ρ ι ο ρ ισ μ ό , τ η ν κ α τ ά ρ γ η σ η ή τ η ν ό θ ε υ σ η τ ο υ α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ , εμπίπτειστοάρθρο85, παράγραφος1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς , έ σ τ ω κ α ι α ν δ ε ν σ η μ ε ιώ ν ο ν τ α ισ τ η ν α γ ο ρ ά α π ο τ ε λ έ σ μ α τ α π λ ή τ τ ο ν τ α τ ο ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ό .
principle of proportionality, to come to the view that the specific conditions fordeployment of those assault units and in particular the rule of interoperability -that is to say the need for every Marine, irrespective of his specialisation,to becapable of fighting in a commandounit - justified their composition remaining exclusively male.
Όμως, ά π α ξ α π ο δ ε ιχ θ ε ί ό τ ι μ ι α ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η σ η μ ε τ έ σ χ ε σ ε σ υ ν α ν τ ή σ ε ι ς μ ε τ α ξ ύ ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ν π ο υ ε ίχ α ν π ρ ο δ ή λ ω ς α ν τ ί θ ε τ ο σ τ ο ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ό χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α , μπορείναθεωρηθείότισ' α υ τ ή ν ε ν α π ό κ ε ι τ α ι ν α π α ρ ά σ χ ε ι δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ή ε ξ ή γ η σ η τ ο υ π ε ρ ι ε χ ο μ έ ν ο υ τ ω ν σ υ ν α ν τ ή σ ε ω ν α υ τ ώ ν , χ ω ρ ί ς α υ τ ό ν α σ υ ν ισ τ ά α δ ικ α ι ο λ ό γ η τ η α ν τ ισ τ ρ ο φ ή τ ο υ β ά ρ ο υ ς τ η ς α π ο δ ε ίξ ε ω ς ή π ρ ο σ β ο λ ή τ ο υ τ ε κ μ η ρ ί ο υ α θ ω ό τ η τ α ς .
The Court confirmed thatsolution when the French Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) raised the issue again fiudgment of 28 September 1999 in CaseC-44AD7 GIE Groupe Concordeand Others v The Master of the vesselSuhadiwarno Panjan and Others, not yet reported in the ECR). The Cour de Cassation had suggested in its order forreference that it would be preferablefor national courts to determine the place ofperformance of the obligation by seeking to establish,having regard to the natureof the relationshipcreating the obligation and the circumstances of the case, theplace where performance actually took place or should have takenplace, withouthaving to refer to the law which, under the rules on conflict of laws, governs theobligation at issue.
Συναφώς, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε ό τ ι , ναιμενηέκφραση«κατ' εξακολούθησηπαράβαση» έ χ ε ι π ε ρ ι ε χ ό μ ε ν ο π ο υ κ ά π ω ς δ ι α φ έ ρ ε ισ τ ι ς έ ν ν ο μ ε ς τ ά ξ ε ι ς τ ω ν δ ι α φ ό ρ ω ν κ ρ α τ ώ ν μ ε λ ώ ν , π ε ρ ι έ χ ε ι π ά ν τ ω ς δ ι ά φ ο ρ ε ς μ ο ρ φ έ ς π α ρ α β α τ ικ ή ς σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά ς ή ε ν έ ρ γ ε ι ε ς ε κ τ ε λ έ σ ε ω ς μ ι α ς μ ό ν η ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς , π ο υ σ υ ν δ έ ο ν τ α ι α π ό έ ν α κ ο ι ν ό υ π ο κ ε ι μ ε ν ικ ό σ τ ο ιχ ε ί ο .
In a further case concerning Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Court ruled thata court did not have jurisdiction to hear the whole of an action founded on twoobligations of equal rank arising from the same contract when, according to theconflict rules of the State where that court was situated,one of those obligationswas to be performed in that State and the other in another Contracting State fiudgment of 5 October 1990 in Case C-420197 Leathertex Divisione Sintetici v Bodetex, not yet reported in the ECR). In order to reach that conclusion the
Βάσειαυτού, έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ η μ έ ν α ε ίχ ε θ ε ω ρ ή σ ε ι ό τ ι ο ι δ ρ α σ τ η ρ ι ό τ η τ ε ς π ο υ ε ν τ ά σ σ ο ν τ α ν σ ε σ υ σ τ ή μ α τ α κ α ι ε π ι δ ί ω κ α ν έ ν α ν κ α ι τ ο ν α υ τ ό σ κ ο π ό σ υ ν ισ τ ο ύ σ α ν μ ία κ α τ ' ε ξ α κ ο λ ο ύ θ η σ η π α ρ ά β α σ η τ ω ν δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ω ν τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 85, παράγραφος1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς , ο π ό τ ε η π ρ ο β λ ε π ό μ ε ν η σ τ η ν κ α ν ο ν ισ τ ικ ή ρ ύ θ μ ισ η π ε ν τ α ε τ ή ς π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ία π α ρ α γ ρ α φ ή ς μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν ' α ρ χ ί σ ε ι μ ό ν ο ν α φ ό τ ο υ ε ίχ ε λ ή ξ ε ι η π α ρ ά β α σ η .
Court first ruled out all the grounds which could have justified centralisingjurisdiction: (i) the contract at issue in the main proceedings was not a contractof employment, a circumstance which would have justified centralisingjurisdiction at the place of performance of the obligation which characterised thecontract; (ii) since Article 22 of the Convention, relating to the handling ofrelated actions, is not a provision which confersjurisdiction, it does not enablea court before which a case is pending to be accorded jurisdiction to try a relatedcase; and (iii) in the case of obligations of equal rank, the principle thatjurisdiction is determined by the main obligation cannot be applied.
Τέλος, ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ η δ ι ο ικ η τ ικ ή δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία , μ ι α α ν α ι ρ ε σ ε ί ο υ σ α π ρ ο σ ή ψ ε σ τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο ό τ ι δ ε ν ε ίχ ε σ υ ν α γ ά γ ε ισ υ ν έ π ε ι ε ς α π ό τ η ν ά ρ ν η σ η τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς ν α τ η ς ε π ι τ ρ έ ψ ε ι τ η ν π ρ ό σ β α σ η σ τ ι ς α π α ν τ ή σ ε ι ς τ ω ν ά λ λ ω ν π α ρ α γ ω γ ώ ν σ τ ι ς α ν α κ ο ι ν ώ σ ε ι ς τ ω ν α ι τ ι ά σ ε ω ν .
23.2 In Case C-99196 Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek [1999] ECR I-2227,the Court provided some clarification of the words "contractfor the sale of goods on instalment credit terms" in Article 13, first paragraph, point 1, of the Convention.
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ν έ κ ρ ι ν ε τ η ν π ρ ο σ έ γ γ ισ η π ο υ α κ ο λ ο ύ θ η σ ε τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , τ ο ο π ο ί ο δ ε ν α π ο φ ά ν θ η κ ε ε π ί τ η ς ν ο μ ι μ ό τ η τ α ς τ η ς α ρ ν ή σ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς , αλλάεξέτασεμήπως, χωρίςτηνάρνησηαυτή, η δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία θ α ε ίχ ε κ α τ α λ ή ξ ε ισ ε δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ό α π ο τ έ λ ε σ μ α .
According to the judgment, this provision is intended to protect thepurchaser only where the vendor has granted him credit, that is to say, where the
Ά λ λ α σ η μ α ν τ ικ ά σ τ ο ιχ ε ία π ε ρ ι έ χ ο ν τ α ισ τ η ν π ρ ο μ ν η σ θ ε ί σ α α π ό φ α σ η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή κ α τ ά Α η ί ο Ρ α Π β ο ΐ ρ α ζ ί ο η ί .
vendor has transferred to the purchaser possession of the goods in question beforethe purchaser has paid the full price.
Πρώτον, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α ν α γ ν ώ ρ ισ ε ό τ ι , ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ η ς φ ύ σ ε ω ς τ ω ν ε π ι δ ί κ ω ν π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ν κ α θ ώ ς κ α ι τ η ς φ ύ σ ε ω ς κ α ι τ ο υ β α θ μ ο ύ α υ σ τ η ρ ό τ η τ α ς τ ω ν κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ν τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς ε π ισ ύ ρ ο υ ν , η ε υ θ ύ ν η ε κ τ η ς δ ι α π ρ ά ξ ε ω ς τ ο υ ς έ χ ε ι π ρ ο σ ω π ο π α γ ή χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α .
In such a case, first, the purchaser may,when the contract is concluded, be misled as to the real amount which he owes,and second, he will bear the risk of loss of those goods while remaining obliged to pay any outstandinginstalments. instalments.
Τογεγονός, όμως, κ α ι μ ό ν ο ν ό τ ικ ά θ ε ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η σ η μ ε τ έ χ ε ισ τ η ν π α ρ ά β α σ η μ ε τ ο ν δ ικ ό τ η ς τ ρ ό π ο δ ε ν α ρ κ ε ί γ ι α ν ' α π ο κ λ ε ί σ ε ι τ η ν ε υ θ ύ ν η τ η ς γ ι α ο λ ό κ λ η ρ η τ η ν π α ρ ά β α σ η , π ε ρ ι λ α μ β α ν ο μ έ ν η ς κ α ι τ η ς σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά ς π ο υ υ λ ο π ο ι ε ί τ α ι α π ό ά λ λ ε ς μ ε τ έ χ ο υ σ ε ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς , α ν α υ τ έ ς σ υ μ μ ε ρ ίζ ο ν τ α ι τ ο ν ί δ ι ο α ν τ ί θ ε τ ο σ τ ο ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ό σ κ ο π ό ή α π ο τ έ λ ε σ μ α .
In the same judgment, the Court confirmed the interpretation of Article 24 of the Convention(provisional, including protective, measures) which it had adopted in
Τρίτον, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι έ ν α σ ύ ν ο λ ο ε κ δ η λ ώ σ ε ω ν σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά ς π λ ε ι ό ν ω ν ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ν σ υ ν ισ τ ο ύ σ ε έ κ φ ρ α σ η ε ν ι α ία ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς π ο υ ε μ π ί π τ ε ι ε ν μ έ ρ ε ισ τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α τ η ς σ υ μ φ ω ν ία ς κ α ι ε ν μ έ ρ ε ισ τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α τ η ς ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ισ μ έ ν η ς π ρ α κ τ ικ ή ς .
The Court alsoclarified the form in which parties could, in international trade orcorlmerce, indicate their consent to a jurisdiction clause for the purposes of the third casementioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention (Case C-I59197 Castelletti v Hugo Trumpy _BAR_l999l ECR r-1s97).
Τέλος, στηνίδιααυτήυπόθεση, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο δ έ χ θ η κ ε τ η ν α ί τ η σ η α ν α ι ρ έ σ ε ω ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , α φ ο ύ δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε ό τ ι τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε , χωρίςαντίφαση, ναδεχθεί, αφενός, τ η ν ά π ο ψ η π ε ρ ί ε ν ι α ία ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς , η ε υ θ ύ ν η γ ι α τ η ν ο π ο ία μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α κ α τ α λ ο γ ισ τ ε ί σ υ ν ο λ ικ ά σ ε ό λ ε ς τ ι ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς , και, αφετέρου, ν α α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ι μ ε ρ ικ ώ ς τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η , γ ι α τ ο ν λ ό γ ο ό τ ι δ ε ν ε ίχ ε α π ο δ ε ιχ θ ε ί η σ υ μ μ ε τ ο χ ή μ ι α ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ς σ ε ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς α π ό τ ι ς ε ν έ ρ γ ε ι ε ς π ο υ α π ο τ ε λ ο ύ σ α ν μ έ ρ ο ς α υ τ ή ς τ η ς ε ν ι α ία ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς .
C-262196 Sürül v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [1999] ECR l-2685the Court, after reopening the oral procedure in order to examine the effect of Article 9 of that agreement, delivered a judgment of greatimportance, by according for the first time direct effect to the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationalitylaid down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 on the application of the socialsecurity schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish
Ηαπόφασητης 4η ς Μ α ρ τ ί ο υ 1999 στηνυπόθεση0-119/97 Ρ, ϋ /β χ κ λ π κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς (Συλλογή1999, σ.
Therefore, the reasoningwhich had led the Court, in Case C-277194 Taflan-Met and Others v Bestuur van de Sociale
1-1341), έ δ ω σ ε σ τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο τ η ν ε υ κ α ι ρ ία ν α κ α θ ο ρ ί σ ε ι τ ο ν β α θ μ ό σ τ ο ν ο π ο ί ο η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α α π ο ρ ρ ί π τ ε ικ α τ α γ γ ε λ ί ε ς σ χ ε τ ικ έ ς μ ε τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 86 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς (ν υ ν ά ρ θ ρ ο 82 ΕΚ) λ ό γ ω ε λ λ ε ίψ ε ω ς ε π α ρ κ ο ύ ς κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν τ ο ς .
Verzekeringsbank [1996] ECR I-4085,to hold that Articles 12 and 13 of DecisionNo 3i80 did not have direct effect did not apply to Article 3(1). The Court then stated that Article 3(1) laid down in clear, precise and unconditionalterms aprohibition of discrimination, based on nationality, against persons residing in theterritory of any Member State to whom the provisions of Decision No 3/80 wereapplicable.