natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ η ν π ρ ο δ ικ α σ τ ικ ή δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία , ό λ ω ς δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ο ί π ρ ο β λ η μ α τ ισ μ ο ία π ο τ έ λ ε σ α ν τ ο α ν τ ικ ε ί μ ε ν ο τ ω ν υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ν Α η ά β π χ ο η , Ό β Η α α η Β β Η β β τ κ α θ ώ ς κ α ι Α ζ ί β η ά α η α ζ ί ο η α ΐ β α η ί ο η ο π ι α ά β Ι Ι β Μ (Α Ν Α 5) κ α ιΚ α ά ί ο ΐ β Ι β ν ίΞ ί ο η β ΐΐα ΐ ία η α (Κ Α Ι ).
As regards links between Community law and national law, the past yearbrought some judicial explanationof, first, the obligations of national courts and,second, the liability of Member States for harm caused to individuals by infringements of Community law.
Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο π ρ ό σ θ ε σ ε ό τ ι τ ο γ ε γ ο ν ό ς ό τ ι η Σ ο υ η δ ία κ α τ έ σ τ η σ τ η σ υ ν έ χ ε ι α μ έ λ ο ς τ η ς Ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ ή ς Ε ν ώ σ ε ω ς δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α έ χ ε ι ω ς α π ο τ έ λ ε σ μ α ν α α π ο ν ε μ η θ ε ί σ τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α ρ μ ο δ ι ό τ η τ α ε ρ μ η ν ε ία ς τ η ς
the Community legal order that, in order to forestall differences of interpretation,every Community provision should be given a uniform interpretation, irrespectiveof the circumstances in which it was to be applied.
Χ ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ η ν ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή τ η ς σ ε κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ι ς π ο υ σ τ η ν κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ή έ ν ν ο μ η τ ά ξ η .
On the other hand, the Courtdid not call into question national rules of procedure according to which aninterim arbitration award which was in the nature of a final award and in respectof which no application for annulment had been made within the prescribedtime-limit acquired definitive force and could no longer be called into question by a subsequent arbitration award.
Τ η ν ί δ ι α π ρ ο σ έ γ γ ισ η Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο κ α ισ τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 15η ς Ι ο υ ν ί ο υ 1999 Ο-140/97, Κ β ο Η ό β ^β Γ (η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή , σκέψη 38).
The time-limit laid down in the case at issue, ofthree months from the lodging of the award at the registry of the court havingjurisdiction in the matter, did not seem excessively short compared with those prescribed in the legal systems of the other Member States fiudgment of 1 June1999 in CaseC-I26/97 Eco Swiss China Time v BenettonInternational, not yet reported in the ECR).
Η α π ό φ α σ η π ο υ ε κ δ ό θ η κ ε σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ό β Η α α η Β β Η β β τ ε ί ν α ι α ξ ι ο σ η μ ε ί ω τ η δ ι ό τ ι τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο , α π α ν τ ώ ν τ α ς σ ε π ρ ο δ ικ α σ τ ικ ό ε ρ ώ τ η μ α ε ρ μ η ν ε ία ς τ ο υ κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ δ ικ α ί ο υ σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ η γ έ ν ε σ η κ α ι ε ί σ π ρ α ξ η τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ ή ς ο φ ε ι λ ή ς , δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε τ ο α ν ί σ χ υ ρ ο α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς τ η ν ο π ο ία ο ύ τ ε κ α ν ε ίχ ε α ν α φ έ ρ ε ι τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 7η ς Σ ε π τ ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1999, 0-61/98, 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 ).
Rechberger contains some explanation of the concepts of a "sufficiently seriousbreach" and a "direct causal link" between that breach and the loss or damagesustained by the injured parties, concepts which constitute two of the threeconditions for Member State liability to arise (iudgment of 15 June 1999 in Case C- 1 40 19 7 Rechberger v Austria, not yet reported in the ECR).
Σεμιαπρώτηφάση, στοερώτημααν, σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς ε ξ ω τ ε ρ ικ ή ς δ ι α μ ε τ α κ ο μ ί σ ε ω ς , ο ι τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ έ ς α ρ χ έ ς ο φ ε ί λ ο υ ν ν α π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ή σ ο υ ν τ ο ν κ ύ ρ ι ο υ π ό χ ρ ε ο ό τ ι υ φ ί σ τ α τ α ικ ί ν δ υ ν ο ς α π ά τ η ς , σ τ η ν ο π ο ία α υ τ ό ς δ ε ν έ χ ε ισ υ μ μ ε τ ο χ ή α λ λ ά η ο π ο ία μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ή σ ε ι τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ ή ο φ ε ι λ ή ε ι ς β ά ρ ο ς τ ο υ , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α π ά ν τ η σ ε α ρ ν η τ ικ ά .
A number ofprivate individuals had brought proceedings against the Republic of Austria beforean Austrian court, claiming that it should be held liable following the incorrecttranspositionof Directive 90l3I4lEEC on package travel, package holidays andpackage tours, t which had prevented them from obtainingthe reimbursement ofmoney paid to a travel organiser who becameinsolvent.
Στησυνέχεια, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ξ έ τ α σ ε κ α τ ά π ό σ ο ν , σ ε π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η π α ρ α λ ε ίψ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς τ η ς π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ία ς , ε ί ν α ι δ υ ν α τ ή η α π α λ λ α γ ή τ ο υ κ ύ ρ ι ο υ υ π ό χ ρ ε ο υ α π ό τ η ν υ π ο χ ρ έ ω σ η κ α τ α β ο λ ή ς τ η ς τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ ή ς ο φ ε ι λ ή ς π ο υ γ ε ν ν ή θ η κ ε α π ό τ η ν α π ά τ η α υ τ ή .
More particularly, it wasalleged, first, that Austria had restricted the protection provided for by thedirective to trips with a departure date of 1 May 1995 or later although it hadacceded to the European Union on 1 January of the same year.
Κ α τ ά τ η ν ισ χ ύ ο υ σ α ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ία , η α π α λ λ α γ ή α υ τ ή ε ί ν α ι δ υ ν α τ ή ε φ ό σ ο ν π λ η ρ ο ύ ν τ α ι δ ύ ο σ ω ρ ε υ τ ικ έ ς π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς , η μ ία ε κ τ ω ν ο π ο ί ω ν ε ί ν α ι η ύ π α ρ ξ η «ε ι δ ικ ή ς π ε ρ ι π τ ώ σ ε ω ς ».
The Court heldthat the directive had not been transposedcorrectly and that such incorrecttransposition amounted to a "sufficiently serious" breach of Community lawwhich could give rise to liability on the part of the Member State even where ithad implementedall the other provisions of the directive.
κύριαςδίκης. Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο θ ε ώ ρ η σ ε ό τ ι η π ρ ο σ έ γ γ ισ η α υ τ ή ή τ α ν σ ύ μ φ ω ν η κ α ι μ ε τ η ν α ρ χ ή τ η ς ο ικ ο ν ο μ ία ς τ η ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς , κ α θ ό σ ο ν τ ο ζ ή τ η μ α τ η ς ν ο μ ι μ ό τ η τ α ς τ η ς ε ν λ ό γ ω α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς ε ίχ ε τ ε θ ε ί ε υ θ έ ω ς ε ν ώ π ι ο ν τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ σ ε ά λ λ η υ π ό θ ε σ η , η δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ε π ί τ η ς ο π ο ία ς ε ίχ ε α ν α σ τ α λ ε ί ε ν α ν α μ ο ν ή τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ω β Η α α η Β β Η β β τ .
that instead of ensuring, in accordance with the directive, that the travel organiserhad sufficient security for the refund of money paid over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency, the Republic of Austria had done nomore than require, for the coverageof that risk, a contract of insurance or a bankguarantee calculatedon the basis of the organiser'spast or estimated turnover.The Court held that this likewise amounted to an incorrect transposition of the directive inasmuch as the consumer was not provided with an effective guaranteethat the result intended by the directive would be achieved.
Σ τ η ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν η π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε τ ε λ ικ ά α ν ί σ χ υ ρ η τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς .
The Courtobserved, however, that the national court had well andtruly found that there wassuch a link in the case in point.
Δ έ κ α έ τ η μ ε τ ά τ η ν ί δ ρ υ σ η τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ , τ ο ζ ή τ η μ α τ η ς ε κ τ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ α ν α ι ρ ε τ ικ ο ύ ε λ έ γ χ ο υ π ο υ α σ κ ε ί τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε π ί τ ω ν α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ α π ο τ έ λ ε σ ε κ α ι π ά λ ι τ ο ε π ί κ ε ν τ ρ ο π ο λ λ ώ ν α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν .
In its reply, the Court stated that it is for each Member State to ensurethat individuals obtain reparationfor damage caused to them by non-compliancewith Community law, whicheverpubtic authority is responsible for the breach andwhichever public authority is in principle, under the law of the Member Stateconcerned, responsible for making reparation.
1-185), α π ο τ έ λ ε σ ε τ η ν π ρ ώ τ η π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή ς τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 49, τρίτοεδάφιο, τ ο υ Ο ρ γ α ν ισ μ ο ύ Ε Κ τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ , τοοποίο, μ ε ε ξ α ί ρ ε σ η τ ι ς υ π α λ λ η λ ικ έ ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς , π α ρ έ χ ε ισ τ α κ ρ ά τ η μ έ λ η κ α ι τ α ό ρ γ α ν α τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς π ο υ δ ε ν π α ρ ε ν έ β η σ α ν σ ε υ π ό θ ε σ η ε ν ώ π ι ο ν τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ τ ο δ ικ α ί ω μ α ν α α σ κ ή σ ο υ ν α ν α ί ρ ε σ η κ α τ ά τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς ε π ί τ η ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς .
Although the mainpurpose of the mechanismfor resolving disputesunder the WTO agreements wasto secure the withdrawal of measures inconsistentwith the WTO rules, themechanism also provided the contracting parties with the possibility of the grantof compensation on an interim or even definitive basis. Consequently,to requirethe judicial organs to refrain from applying rules of domestic law which wereinconsistent with the WTO agreements would have the consequence of deprivingthe legislative or executive organs of the contracting parties of that possibilityafforded by the agreements of entering into negotiated arrangements even on atemporary basis.
Π έ ρ α ν α υ τ ή ς τ η ς κ α ι ν ο τ ο μ ία ς ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ η δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία , η υ π ό θ ε σ η π α ρ ο υ σ ία ζ ε κ α ι μ ι α π ρ ό σ θ ε τ η ι δ ι α ι τ ε ρ ό τ η τ α , κ α θ ό σ ο ν η Γ α λ λ ία δ ε ν α μ φ ισ β η τ ο ύ σ ε α υ τ ή κ α θ α υ τ ή ν τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η ε π ί τ η ς δ ι α φ ο ρ ά ς , ή τ ο ι τ η ν α π ό ρ ρ ιψ η π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή ς ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ω ν ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ν μ ε α ί τ η μ α τ η ν α κ ύ ρ ω σ η κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , αλλάυποστήριζεότι, α ν τ ί ν α κ η ρ ύ ξ ε ι τ η ν π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή α β ά σ ι μ η , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ π ρ ε π ε ν α ε ίχ ε κ ά ν ε ι δ ε κ τ ή τ η ν έ ν σ τ α σ η α π α ρ α δ έ κ τ ο υ π ο υ ε ίχ ε π ρ ο β ά λ ε ι η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή .
According to the Court, it followed that the WTO agreements,interpreted in the light of their subject-matter and purpose, did not determine theappropriate legal means of ensuring that they were applied in good faith in thelegal order of the contracting parties.
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 , α ν α ί ρ ε σ ε τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ κ α ι , α π ο φ α ι ν ό μ ε ν ο ο ρ ισ τ ικ ώ ς ε π ί τ η ς δ ι α φ ο ρ ά ς , α π έ ρ ρ ιψ ε ω ς α π α ρ ά δ ε κ τ η τ η ν α σ κ η θ ε ί σ α α π ό τ ι ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς .
The Court noted that the same solutionwas, moreover, applied by other contracting parties, so that a different attitudeat Community level might lead to disuniform application of the WTO rules, bydepriving the legislative or executive organs of the Community of the scope formanoeuvre enjoyed by their counterpartsin the Community's trading partners.As to the remainder,the Court established that the Community measure contestedin the case was not designed to ensure the implementation in the Community legalorder of a particular obligation assumedin the context of the WTO and that it didnot make express reference to any specific provisions of the WTO agreements,the only instances where it would be for the Court to review the legality of the Community measure in question in the light of the WTO rules.
Συναφώς, α π ό δ ύ ο α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς τ η ς 18η ς Μ α ρ τ ί ο υ κ α ι τ η ς 8η ς Ι ο υ λ ί ο υ 1999 π ρ ο κ ύ π τ ε ι ό τ ι α ν α ί ρ ε σ η μ π ο ρ ε ί κ α τ α ρ χ ή ν ν α α σ κ η θ ε ί κ α τ ά α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο α π ο ρ ρ ί π τ ε ι ω ς α π α ρ ά δ ε κ τ η α ί τ η σ η α ν α θ ε ω ρ ή σ ε ω ς .
Judgment was given in 1999 in three actions for annulment of Council measuresbrought by the European Parliament on the ground that its prerogatives had beeninfringed.
Επιτροπής, η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α
It accordingly dismissed the Parliament's application (Case
Ιουλίου 1999, 0-5/93 Ρ, Ό 8Μ δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ).
C-42197Parliament v Council lL999l ECR I-869).
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α ι τ ι ο λ ό γ η σ ε τ ο σ υ μ π έ ρ α σ μ α α υ τ ό π α ρ α π έ μ π ο ν τ α ς σ τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 49, πρώτοεδάφιο, τ ο υ Ο ρ γ α ν ισ μ ο ύ Ε Κ τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ (δ ι ά τ α ξ η τ η ς 4η ς Ο κ τ ω β ρ ί ο υ 1999, 0-349/99 Ρ, Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή κ α τ ά Α Ό Τ
By contrast, another application brought by the Parliament was allowed in a judgment delivered two dayslater fiudgment of 25 February 1999 in Joined Cases
Ο β 8β Ι ΐ5 θ Η α }ΐ ά β Γ
C-164197and C-165197Parliament v Council [1999] ECR I-1139).
Α ώ β ί ΐ Ξ ^β π ι β ί η Ξ ϋ Η α ρ
judgment concerned two Council regulations on the protection of the
Τ ί β τ ζ ύ ο Η ΐ β Γ , 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 ).
Community's forests against atmospheric pollution and against fire which hadbeen adopted on the basis of Article 43 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,Article 37 EC).
Απαντώντας, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α ν α γ ν ώ ρ ισ ε ό τ ι ο ι α π α ι τ ή σ ε ι ς π ο υ α π ο β λ έ π ο υ ν σ τ η ν α π ο τ ε λ ε σ μ α τ ικ ό τ η τ α τ η ς δ ι α ι τ η τ ικ ή ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς ς , κ α ι ο λ ο γ ο ύ ν τ ο ν π ε ρ ι ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ο χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α τ ο υ ε λ έ γ χ ο υ τ ω ν δ ι α ι τ η τ ικ ά , / αποφάσεωνκαι
In its judgment of 8 July 1999 in Case C-189197Parliament v Council, notyetreported in the ECR, the Court interpreted for the first time the term "agreementshaving important budgetary implications for the Community" used in the second
τ η ν σ ε ε _BAR_ρ ^ε τ ικ έ ς π ε ρ ι π τ ώ σ ε ι ς α κ ύ ρ ω σ η α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς ή τ η μ η α ν α γ ν ώ ρ ισ η τ η ς .
subparagraph of Article 228(3) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the secondsubparagraph of Article 300(3) EC).
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο σ τ ή ρ ι ξ ε , μεταξύάλλων, τ ο σ υ μ π έ ρ α σ μ α τ ο υ σ τ η δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ η ό τ ι ο ι δ ι α ι τ η τ έ ς , α ν τ ί θ ε τ α π ρ ο ς τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο , δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ ν ν α ζ η τ ή σ ο υ ν α π ό τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ν α α π ο φ α ν θ ε ί π ρ ο δ ικ α σ τ ικ ώ ς ε π ί ε ρ ω τ η μ ά τ ω ν π ο υ α π ο σ κ ο π ο ύ ν σ τ η ν ε ρ μ η ν ε ία τ ο υ κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ δ ικ α ί ο υ .
The Court also rejected two criteria proposed by the Parliament: first,the share of the expenditure at issue in relation to expenditure of the same kindunder the relevant budget heading and, second, the rate of increase in expenditureunder the agreement in question in relation to the financial section of the previousagreement.
Όμως, η κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ή έ ν ν ο μ η τ ά ξ η έ χ ε ι π ρ ό δ η λ ο σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν , π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ο υ ν α α π ο φ ε ύ γ ο ν τ α ι ε ν δ ε χ ό μ ε ν ε ς α π ο κ λ ί σ ε ι ς ω ς π ρ ο ς τ η ν ε ρ μ η ν ε ία , ν α ε ρ μ η ν ε ύ ε τ α ικ α τ ά τ ρ ό π ο ε ν ι α ί ο κ ά θ ε δ ι ά τ α ξ η τ ο υ κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ δ ικ α ί ο υ , α ν ε ξ α ρ τ ή τ ω ς τ ω ν σ υ ν θ η κ ώ ν υ π ό τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς ε φ α ρ μ ό ζ ε τ α ι .
Three other criteria were ultimately adopted by the Court. It found,first, that the fact that expenditure under an agreement was spreadover severalyears was relevant, since relatively modest annual expenditure could, over anumber of years, represent a significant budgetary outlay.
Αντιθέτως, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο δ ε ν α μ φ ισ β ή τ η σ ε τ ο υ ς δ ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ο ύ ς ε θ ν ικ ο ύ ς κ α ν ό ν ε ς σ ύ μ φ ω ν α μ ε τ ο υ ς ο π ο ί ο υ ς ε ν δ ι ά μ ε σ η δ ι α ι τ η τ ικ ή α π ό φ α σ η , έ χ ο υ σ α τ ο ν χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α τ ε λ ικ ή ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς η ο π ο ία δ ε ν α π ο τ έ λ ε σ ε α ν τ ικ ε ί μ ε ν ο π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή ς α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς ε ν τ ό ς τ η ς τ α σ σ ο μ έ ν η ς π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ία ς , α π ο κ τ ά ισ χ ύ δ ε δ ικ α σ μ έ ν ο υ κ α ι δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ε ί π λ έ ο ν ν α θ ι γ ε ία π ό μ ε τ α γ ε ν έ σ τ ε ρ η δ ι α ι τ η τ ικ ή α π ό φ α σ η .
It then held thatcomparison of the expenditure under an agreement with the amount of theappropriations designed to finance the Community's external operations enabledthat agreement to be set in the context of the budgetaryoutlay approved by the Community for its external policy, and offered an appropriate means of assessingthe financial importance which the agreement actually had. Finally, where asectoral agreement was involved, that analysiscould, in appropriate cases, becomplemented by a comparison between the expenditure entailed by theagreement and the whole of the budgetary appropriations for the sector inquestion, taking the internal and external aspects together.
Συγκεκριμένα, η π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ία π ο υ ε ίχ ε τ α χ θ ε ί σ τ η ν π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η ε κ ε ί ν η , η ο π ο ία ή τ α ν τ ρ ί μ η ν η α π ό τ η ς η μ ε ρ ο μ η ν ία ς κ α τ α θ έ σ ε ω ς τ η ς δ ι α ι τ η τ ικ ή ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς σ τ η γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ία τ ο υ α ρ μ ο δ ί ο υ δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ , δ ε ν φ α ι ν ό τ α ν υ π ε ρ β ο λ ικ ά σ ύ ν τ ο μ η ε ν ό ψ ε ι α υ τ ώ ν π ο υ κ α θ ο ρ ίζ ο ν τ α ισ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ ω ν ε ν ν ό μ ω ν τ ά ξ ε ω ν τ ω ν ά λ λ ω ν κ ρ α τ ώ ν μ ε λ ώ ν (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 1η ς Ι ο υ ν ί ο υ 1999, 0-126/97, 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 ).
Applying those criteriato the case before it, the Court found that the fisheries agreement with Mauritania(the agreement in issue) had been concluded for five years, which was not a particularly lengthy period, and that while the annual amounts at issue exceeded5Vo of expenditure on fisheries, they representedbarely more than L% of the whole of the payment appropriations allocated for external operations of the Community, a proportion which, whilst far from negligible, could scarcely bedescribed as important.
Η υ π ό θ ε σ η Κ β ο Η ύ β τ ξ β Γ π ε ρ ι έ χ ε ι ο ρ ισ μ έ ν α σ τ ο ιχ ε ία ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ι ς έ ν ν ο ι ε ς «κ α τ ά φ ω ρ η π α ρ α β ία σ η » κ α ι «ά μ ε σ η α ι τ ιώ δ η ς σ υ ν ά φ ε ι α » μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ η ς π α ρ α β ι ά σ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς κ α ι τ η ς π ρ ο κ λ η θ ε ί σ α ς ζ η μ ία ς , έννοιες
In the final case it was, this time, the Commission which sought the annulmentof a Council regulation on mutual assistance between the administrative authoritiesof the Member States and cooperation between those authorities and the
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ικ α ι ε ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ω η μ ε τ α φ ο ρ ά τ η ς ο δ η γ ία ς ή τ α ν
Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agriculfuralmatters.
Ι ο υ ν ί ο υ
The Court rejected that argument.
εσφαλμένη, κ α θ ό σ ο ν η ε θ ν ικ ή κ α τ α ν α λ ω τ ή τ ο ε π ι θ υ μ η τ ό α π ό ε ξ α σ φ ά λ ι ζ ε π ρ ά γ μ α τ ισ τ ο ν α π ο τ έ λ ε σ μ α .
The national court also asked the Court whether the direct effect of a directive, where the deadline for its transposition into nationallaw had expired, was affected by the existence of a notification made by a
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο π α ρ α τ ή ρ η σ ε , ωστόσο, ό τ ι τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ίχ ε δ ι α π ισ τ ώ σ ε ι ό ν τ ω ς ό τ ι υ π ή ρ χ ε τ έ τ ο ι α ά μ ε σ η α ι τ ιώ δ η ς σ υ ν ά φ ε ι α κ α ι ό τ ι , εξάλλου, σ κ ο π ό ς τ η ς ο δ η γ ία ς ή τ α ν α κ ρ ι β ώ ς ν α π ρ ο φ υ λ ά ξ ε ι τ ο ν κ α τ α ν α λ ω τ ή α π ό τ ι ς σ υ ν έ π ε ι ε ς τ η ς π τ ω χ ε ύ σ ε ω ς , α σ χ έ τ ω ς τ ω ν α ι τ ί ω ν α υ τ ή ς .
The Court notedin that regard that Article 100a(4),as worded prior to the Treaty of Amsterdam,was silent as to the time within which the Commission had to adopt a position onthe national rules notified to it.
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο κ α τ έ λ η ξ ε , συνεπώς, σ τ ο σ υ μ π έ ρ α σ μ α ό τ ι α σ υ ν ή θ ισ τ ε ς ή α π ρ ό β λ ε π τ ε ς π ε ρ ισ τ ά σ ε ι ς , σ τ ο μ έ τ ρ ο π ο υ δ ε ν θ α ε ίχ α ν α π ο τ ε λ έ σ ε ι ε μ π ό δ ι ο γ ι α τ η ν ε π ισ τ ρ ο φ ή τ ω ν κ α τ α β λ η θ έ ν τ ω ν π ο σ ώ ν κ α ι τ ο ν ε π α ν α π α τ ρ ισ μ ό τ ω ν κ α τ α ν α λ ω τ ώ ν , ε ά ν τ ο σ ύ σ τ η μ α ε γ γ υ ή σ ε ω ς ε ίχ ε θ ε σ π ισ τ ε ί σ ύ μ φ ω ν α μ ε τ η ν ο δ η γ ία , δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν ν α α π ο κ λ ε ί σ ο υ ν τ η ν ύ π α ρ ξ η ά μ ε σ η ς α ι τ ιώ δ ο υ ς σ υ ν ά φ ε ι α ς κ α ι , ωςεκτούτου, τ η θ ε μ ε λ ί ω σ η τ η ς ε υ θ ύ ν η ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς .
The Court declared however, for the sake ofcompleteness, that the fact that there was no time-limrt could not absolve the Commission from the obligation to act with all due diligence in discharging itsresponsibilities, since implementation of the notification scheme provided for bythe Treaty required the Commission and the Member States to cooperatein good faith (udgment of 1 June 1999 in CaseC-3I9197 Kortas, not yet reported in the ECR).
Σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Κ ο η Ι β , τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ρ ώ τ η σ ε , μεταξύάλλων, αν, σ τ α ο μ ο σ π ο ν δ ι α κ ά κ ρ ά τ η μ έ λ η , η α π ο κ α τ ά σ τ α σ η τ ω ν ζ η μ ιώ ν π ο υ έ χ ο υ ν π ρ ο κ λ η θ ε ί σ τ ο υ ς ι δ ιώ τ ε ς α π ό μ έ τ ρ α ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ή ς τ ά ξ ε ω ς λ η φ θ έ ν τ α κ α τ ά π α ρ α β ία σ η τ ο υ κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ δ ικ α ί ο υ π ρ έ π ε ι ο π ω σ δ ή π ο τ ε ν α δ ι α σ φ α λ ίζ ε τ α ι α π ό τ ο ο μ ο σ π ο ν δ ι α κ ό κ ρ ά τ ο ς γ ι α ν α π λ η ρ ο ύ ν τ α ι ο ικ ο ι ν ο τ ικ έ ς υ π ο χ ρ ε ώ σ ε ι ς τ ο υ ε ν λ ό γ ω κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς .
The case of Colim v Bigg's Continent Noord which concerned Directive 83ll89lEEC,2 as amended by Directive 88lI82lEEC, 3 continuesa long seriesof cases on the Community legislation laying down a procedure for the provisionof information in the field of technical standards and regulations.
Αντιθέτως, 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 ε ισ τ α κ ρ ά τ η μ έ λ η κ α μ ία τ ς ) ο π ο π ο ί τ \α χ \ τ η ς κ α τ α ν ο μ ή ς α ρ μ ο δ ι ο τ ή τ ω ν κ α ι ε υ θ υ ν ώ ν μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ω ν α ρ χ ώ ν τ ο π ικ ή ς α υ τ ο δ ι ο ικ ή σ ε ω ς π ο υ υ φ ί σ τ α ν τ α ισ τ η ν ε π ικ ρ ά τ ε ι α τ ο υ ς , α ρ κ ε ί δ ε ο ι δ ι α δ ικ α σ τ ικ έ ς λ ε π τ ο μ έ ρ ε ι ε ς π ο υ υ φ ί σ τ α ν τ α ισ τ η ν
In the mainproceedings, the national court was uncertain whether national legislationrequiring labelling particulars, instructions for use and guaranteecertificates forpfoducts to be given in the language or languages of the area where the productswere placed on the market should have been notified as a technical regulation.In its judgment, the Court held that it was necessary to distinguish between the
Σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ ο υ θ ε σ μ ικ ο ύ δ ί κ α ι ο ν , ο ι υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς π ο υ α π α σ χ ό λ η σ α ν τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν , γιαμίαακόμαφορά, τ ο ν κ α θ ο ρ ισ μ ό τ η ς ν ο μ ικ ή ς β ά σ ε ω ς τ ω ν κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ώ ν π ρ ά ξ ε ω ν , μεδιαδίκους, τοέτοςαυτό, κ υ ρ ί ω ς τ α κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ά ό ρ γ α ν α .
The movement of medicinal products and plant protection products within the Community, and therefore the related case-law, present very specificfeatures inasmuch as a marketing authorisation issued by the appropriate national authorities is in principle required before such products may be marketed in each
Συγκεκριμένα, τ ο Κ ο ι ν ο β ο ύ λ ι ο θ ε ω ρ ο ύ σ ε ό τ ι , επιπλέοντουάρθρου130 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ (νυνάρθρου 157 ΕΚ), πουαφοράτηβιομηχανία, η α π ό φ α σ η α υ τ ή έ π ρ ε π ε ν α έ χ ε ι ω ς ν ο μ ικ ή β ά σ η κ α ι τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 128 (νυν, κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρο151 ΕΚ), π ο υ α φ ο ρ ά τ ο ν π ο λ ι τ ισ μ ό .
65165 and, more generally, Community law did not require the Member States,in the context of procedures for the judicial review of national decisions revoking authorisations to market proprietary medicinal products, to give the competentnational courts and tribunals the power to substitute their assessment of thefacts - and, in particular, of the scientific evidence relied on in support of therevocation decision - for the assessment made by the national authoritiescompetent to revoke such authorisations.
Γ ι α ν α ε κ τ ι μ ή σ ε ι τ ο β ά σ ι μ ο τ η ς π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή ς , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ξ έ τ α σ ε α ν η π ο λ ι τ ισ τ ικ ή π τ υ χ ή α π ο τ ε λ ο ύ σ ε ο υ σ ιώ δ η σ υ ν ισ τ ώ σ α τ η ς ε π ί δ ικ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς ό π ω ς α κ ρ ι β ώ ς κ α ι η β ι ο μ η χ α ν ικ ή , κ α τ ά τ ρ ό π ο ν ώ σ τ ε ν α μ η ν ε ί ν α ι δ υ ν α τ ό ς ο δ ι α χ ω ρ ισ μ ό ς μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ο υ ς , ήαν«τοκέντροβάρους» τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς β ρ ισ κ ό τ α ν σ τ η β ι ο μ η χ α ν ικ ή δ ι ά σ τ α σ η τ η ς κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ή ς ο ρ ά σ ε ω ς .
In justifying that ruling, the Courtreferred by analogy to the restricted nature of the judicial review conducted bythe Community judicature with regard to decisions of the Community authoritiesadopted on the basis of complex assessments (Case C-t20197 Upjohn v The
Εξάλλου, ο ι α ι τ ι ο λ ο γ ικ έ ς σ κ έ ψ ε ι ς π ο υ α ν α φ έ ρ ο ν τ α ν σ τ ι ς π ο λ ι τ ισ τ ικ έ ς π τ υ χ έ ς τ η ς κ ο ι ν ω ν ία ς τ η ς
Council Directive 9l/414/EECof 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant prorecrion productson the market (OJ1991 L230, p.1).