natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med hensyn til arbejdsløshedsydelse udbe taltes der som udgangspunkt i alle tilfælde et grundbeløb svarende til 35% af den tidligere ind komst.
As far as un­employment benefit was concerned, as a starting point, all those eligible received a basic benefit corre­sponding to 35% of their former income.
Efter 18 måneders arbejdsløshed, forlænget med tre måneder for hvert erhvervsaktivt år, fik ydelsesmodtagere, der tilhørte gruppe 3, udbetalt et fast beløb, der eventuelt forhøjedes med et tillæg, så fremt de samlede månedlige ydelser for de personer, der boede sammen med den arbejdsløse, ikke oversteg
By way of introduction, the Court recalled that ac­cording to its established case-law Article 4(1 ) of the Directive prohibited less favourable treatment of a social group when it turned out that group was com­posed of a far higher number of persons of one or other sex, unless the measure in question was 'justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex (Case 33/89 — Kowalska).
EF-Domstolens afgørelser grundlag af de ydelsesberettigedes køn, men under hensyntagen til deres ægteskabelige eller familiemæs sige status, og hvor det viste sig, at den procentdel, der havde fordel af disse tillæg, klart var mindre for kvindernes vedkommende end for mændenes, var i strid med artikel 4, stk. 1, hvis denne ordning ikke kun ne begrundes i hensyn, der var forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn uvedkommende (sag 30/85 — Teuling).
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community plements which were not related to sex of those eli gible but would take into account their matrimonial and family status, the result of which was that an appreciably lower percentage of women than men were able to benefit from those supplements would be contrary to Article 4(1 ), if this system of benefits could not be justified by reasons excluding discri mination on grounds of sex (Case 30/85 — Teuling).
udgifter tog hensyn til de forholdsvis større behov, som ydelsesberettigede, der havde forsørgerpligt over for en ægtefælle eller en ægtefælle med meget lav indtægt, eller som havde forsørgerpligt over for et barn, havde i forhold til enlige.
of those persons eligible who had a spouse who was either totally dependent or who received only a very low income or for those who had a dependent child, by comparison to persons living alone.
Domstolen konklu derede, at hvis en medlemsstat af socialpolitiske grun de kunne udelukke enlige fra at modtage en be stemt ydelse, kunne den derfor så meget desto mere nedsætte en sådan ydelse, når der ikke var personer, over for hvem der var forsørgerpligt.
Thus, the Court concluded that if, in order to fulfil the needs of its social policy, a Member State could exclude workers living alone from entitlement to benefit, it could all the more, reduce, because of the absence of any dependent persons, the benefit which was paid to them.
Domstolen fri fandt sagsøgte med den begrundelse, at den belgi ske regering havde godtgjort, at den belgiske ordning om ydelser ved arbejdsløshed og sygdom opfyldte et lovligt socialpolitisk formål, at den omfattede tillæg, som var egnede til at nå det forfulgte formål og var nødvendige hertil, og at den således var begrundet i hensyn, som intet havde at gøre med forskelsbe handling på grundlag af køn.
The Court rejected the application of the Commission on the grounds that the Belgian Go vernment had shown that its system of unemployment and sickness benefit fulfilled a legitimate objective of its social policy, that the supplements included were likely to achieve that objective and were necessary to that end and that it was thus justified by factors un related to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
For det første gjorde den belgiske regering gælden de, at den forskellige fordeling af mænd og kvinder i de tre grupper af ydelsesmodtagere beroede på den samfundsmæssige realitet, at der var færre erhvervsaktive kvinder end mænd.
In the first place, the Belgian Government argued that the difference in the ratio of men to women between the three categories of beneficiaries was a product of a social phenomenon arising from the fact that the number of women in employment was lower that of men.
Domstolen fandt imidlertid, at der ikke af sådanne betragtninger kunne udledes objektive kriterier, som var forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn uvedkommende.
The Court, however, was of the opinion that such consideration could not be re garded as forming the basis of objective criteria un related to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
Sagsøgte frifindes.
The Commission's application is dismissed;
For det andet fastholdt den belgiske regering, at formålet med den belgiske ordning var, at der inden for de grænser, de budgetmæssige midler nødven digvis satte, uden tidsbegrænsning sikredes hvert en kelt individ en minimumsindkomst i stedet for den normale indkomst, hvorved der blev taget hensyn til den pågældendes familiemæssige forhold, idet den ne enten kunne have yderligere behov som følge af, at der var personer, over for hvem der var forsørger pligt, eller eventuelt kunne støtte sig på en ægtefælleindkomst.
Secondly, the Belgian Government maintained that its national system was designed to provide, within the limits which were necessarily implied by budgetary resources available, each individual, foran unlimited period ottime, with a minimum replacement in come, taking into account the family status of the eli gible party who might either be responsible for meeting the supplementary needs of people in his or her charge or might on the other hand benefit from the income of a spouse.
Domstolen bemærkede, at dis se principper og formål faldt inden for rammerne af en socialpolitik, som på fællesskabsrettens daværende udviklingstrin var omfattet af medlemsstaternes kom petence, ¡det de havde en rimelig skønsmargen med hensyn til de sociale beskyttelsesforanstaltningers art og de konkrete betingelser for deres gennemførelse (sag 184/83 — Hofmann).
In considering this argument, the Court observed that these principles and objec tives were part of a social policy which, under current Community law, was a matter for Member States which had a reasonable margin of discretion in so far as social security measures and concrete means to put them into effect were concerned (Case 184/83 — Hofmann).
Endvidere anførte Domsto len, at det belgiske system i den daværende udform ning gav det indkomstsurrogat, der var indført i Belgien, karakter af et garanteret socialt minimum for den enkelte familie.
Moreover, the Court noted that the Belgian system, as it stood, tended to give the replace ment income programme instituted in Belgium the character of a guaranteed minimum income for fami lies.
For så vidt angik sikringen af et ek sistensminimum, havde Domstolen allerede fastslå et, at fællesskabsretten ikke var til hinder for, at en medlemsstat som led i kontrollen med sine sociale
Where the guarantee of the minimum means of subsistence was concerned, the Court had already stat ed that Community law was not opposed to a Member State which, in controlling its social expendi ture, took into account the relatively greater needs
EFD behandlede problemerne i denne sag på sam me måde som i sag 30/85 — Teuling.
The EG dealt with the problems arising out of this case as it did in Case 30/85 — Teuling.
Den accepterede som begrundelse for en objektiv retfærdiggørelse af indirekte forskelsbehandling en grund, der byggede på principper og formål, der udgjorde en del af Belgiens socialpolitik.
It accepted as an objective justification for indirectly discriminatory treatment a reason which was given on the basis of principles and objectives which formed part of Bel gium's social policy.
I denne forbindelse anerkendte EFD, at medlemsstaterne på fællesskabsrettens daværen de udviklingstrin havde en rimelig skønsmargen med hensyn til de sociale beskyttelsesforanstaltningers art og de konkrete betingelser for deres gennemførel se.
In connection with this, the EG recognized the reasonable discretion the Member States had, in that stage of Community law, as far as social security measures and concrete means to put them into effect were concerned.
Denne løsning kan få følger for den faktiske an vendelse af kriteriet objektiv begrundelse som om handlet i sag 170/84 — Bilka.
This approach may give rise to implications for the effective application of the objective justification test as laid down in Case 170/84 — Bilka.
Endvidere synes dommen under hensyntagen til inkonsekvensen og undtagelserne i den belgiske lovgivning at være i modsætning til dommen i sag 102/88 — Ruzius-Wil-brink.
In addition, taking into account the inconsistencies and exceptions provided by the Belgian legislation, the judgment seems contrary to that in Case 102/88 — Ruzius-Wilbrink.
Men denne nye måde at gribe tingene an på blev stadfæstet i sag C-226/91 — Molenbroek.
However, this new approach was confirmed in Case C-226/91 — Molenbroek.
Forenede sager C-87/90, C-88/90 og fyldt 65 år, modtog en forhøjet pension.
Joined Cases C-87/90, C-88/90 and C-89/90 had not yet reached 65 received an increased pen­sion.
Forhøjelsen nedsattes imidlertid afhængigt af det antal år, ægtefællen ikke havde været forsikret.
This supplement was nevertheless reduced ac­cording to the number of years during which the spouse had not been insured under the scheme.
Dato for dommen: 11.juli 1991.
Date of judgment: 11 July 1991.
Reference: Endnu ikke offentliggjort.
Reference: Not yet reported. '
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — social sikring (Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december
Subject-matter: Equal treatment for men and women — Social security (EEC Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978).
Fru A. Verholen (sag C-87/90) havde efter at have arbejdet som lønmodtager i Nederlandene, indtil hun fyldte 61 år, oppebåret førtidig alderspension i hen hold til en ordning i tilknytning til sin arbejdskontrakt.
Mrs A. Verholen (Case C-87/90), after having pur­sued an occupation in the Netherlands up to the age of 61, took early retirement under a scheme linked to her contract of employment.
Fru T.H.M. van Wetten-van Uden (sag C-88/90) samt hustruen til hr. G.H. Heiderijk (sag C-89/90) hav de aldrig udøvet erhverv.
Mrs T.H.M. van Wet-ten-van Uden (Case C-88/90), as well as the wife of Mr G.H. Heiderijk (Case C-89/90), had never pursued an occupation.
Efter at være fyldt 65 år fik fru Verholen og fru van Wetten-van Uden afslag fra Sociale Verzekeringsbank på ydelse af fuld pension med den begrundelse, at deres ægtemænd, som var bosiddende i Nederlandene, i visse perioder havde udøvet erhverv i udlandet, hvor de havde været forsik ret.
Having reached the age of 65, Mrs Verholen and Mrs van Wetten-van Uden were refused a full pension by the Sociale Verzekeringsbank on the ground that their spouses, resident in the Nether­lands, had, during certain periods, pursued an occu­pation abroad, and had been insured there.
Hr. Heiderijk fik nedsat forhøjelsen af sin alders pension, som han modtog, fordi han forsørgede en ægtefælle, som endnu ikke var fyldt 65 år, idet nedsættelsen svarede til det antal år, i hvilke hans ægtefælle ikke havde været forsikret, herunder de år, i hvilke han selv havde arbejdet i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
Mr Heider­ijk had the supplement to his oldage pension, in respect of a dependent spouse who had not yet reached the age of 65, reduced according to the number of years during which she had not been in­sured, including those during which he worked in West Germany.
Sagsøgerne appellerede Sociale Verzekeringsbanks afgørelser til Raad van Beroep.
The claimants appealed against the decisions of the Sociale Verzekeringsbank to the Raad van Beroep.
2) Spørgsmål, der blev forelagt EFD
Questions referred to the ECJ
Ved tre kendelser af 30. januar og 15. februar 1990 forelagde Raad van Beroep, Hertogenbosch (Nederlandene) i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 Dom stolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
By three orders of 30 January and 1 5 February 1990, the Raad van Beroep of 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:
/ sag C-87/90:
In Case C-87/90:
Den nederlandske lov Algemene Ouderdomswet (i det følgende benævnt »AOW«) indførte til fordel for personer bosat i Nederlandene samt ikke bosidden de, der var fyldt 65 år, og som havde været indkomst skattepligtige for en virksomhed udøvet i Nederlandene, en almindelig alderspensionsordning, i henhold til hvilken pensionsrettigheder erhvervedes på grundlag af tilbagelagte forsikringsperioder.
The Dutch legislation Algemene Ouderdomswet) ('AOW') instituted for the benefit of Dutch residents as well as non-residents over the age of 65, who had been taxed on income earned from employment in the Netherlands, a general oldage pension scheme under which rights were calculated on the basis of past periods of insurance.
Ifølge denne ordning, som gjaldt indtil en lovændring, der trådte i kraft den 1. april 1985, var gifte kvinder med bopæl i Nederlandene, hvis ægtefæller, der ligeledes var bosiddende i Nederlandene, ikke var forsikret i hen hold til AOW, fordi de udøvede erhverv i udlandet, hvor de var forsikret, selv udelukket fra forsikringen for de tilsvarende perioder.
Under this scheme, appli­cable until an amendment to the law came into effect on 1 April 1985, a married women, resident in the Netherlands, whose spouse, also a Dutch resident, was not insured under the AOW because he was pursu­ing an occupation abroad and was insured under the scheme there, was herself excluded from the scheme during the corresponding period.
Derimod var gifte mænd med bopæl i Nederlandene, hvis ægtefæller var ude lukket fra forsikringen, fortsat tilsluttet den neder landske pensionsordning.
On the other hand, a married man, resident in the Netherlands, whose wife was not insured under the scheme re­mained eligible under the Dutch pension scheme.
Den pensionsberettigede, som forsørgede en ægtefælle, der endnu ikke var
Summary based on the English version of this judgment pub­lished in 11992] IRLR 38.
1 ) Er det foreneligt med artikel 4, stk. 1, (og/eller artikel 5) i direktiv 79/7/EØF, at en national be stemmelse, som alene udelukker gifte kvinder fra AOW-forsikringen, fortsat har virkning til efter den 22. december 1984 i den forstand, at disse kvinders AOW-pension også efter denne dato stadig kan nedsættes på grund af en forsikringsbe tingelse, som ikke gjaldt for mænd?
(1) Is the fact that a national provision which ex­cluded only married women from insurance under the AOW continues to be effective after 22 December 1984, in the sense that after that date it continues to be the case that the pension received by these women may be reduced be­cause they have failed to fulfil a requirement for cover which need not be fulfilled by men, com-
/ sag C-88/90:
In Case C-88/90:
1 ) Er fællesskabsretten til hinder for, at nationale domstole af egen drift prøver en national lovbe stemt ordning i forhold til et EØF-direktiv, hvis gennemførelsesfrist er udløbet, såfremt parter ne i sagen (f.eks. på grund af ukendskab) ikke på beråber sig dette direktiv?
(1 ) Does Community law prevent a national court from taking into consideration of its own mo tion whether a national scheme conforms with an EEC Directive when the period for implementa tion of that Directive has elapsed, if the party does not rely on that same Directive (for example be cause he is unaware of it)?
angå et direktiv, som de nationale myndigheder ikke havde gennemført inden for de givne frister, der var bindende for medlemsstaterne, og hvis præcise og ubetingede bestemmelser ¡følge Domstolens praksis kunne anvendes umiddelbart af en national dom stol.
Such a question might, specifically, concern a directive which had not been implemented by the national authorities within the time prescribed, which was obligatory on Member States and whose precise and unconditional provisions might, according to the case-law of the Court, be applied directly by a national court.
Den ret, der var anerkendt for borgerne til under visse betingelser for nationale domstole at påberåbe sig et direktiv, hvis gennemførelsesfrist var udløbet, afskar derfor ikke den nationale domstol fra at tage dette direktiv i betragtning, selv hvis borgeren ikke havde påberåbt sig det.
Conse quently, said the Court, the recognized right of a party to rely, under certain conditions, before a national court, on a directive for which the period of implementation had elapsed could not exclude the power of the national judge to consider that direc tive, even if the party had not relied on it.
2) Er fællesskabsretten til hinder for, at nationale domstole prøver en national lovbestemt ord ning i forhold til et EØF-direktiv, hvis gennemførel sesfrist er udløbet, såfremt parterne i sagen ikke kan påberåbe sig dette direktiv, fordi de ikke er omfattet af dets personelle anvendelsesområde, skønt samme parter er omfattet af en national lov bestemt ordning, som direktivet gælder for?
(2) Does Community law prevent the national court from taking into consideration whether national legal rules comply with an EEC Directive when the period for implementation of that Directive has elapsed, in a case where that party cannot rely on the said Directive because he does not fall within the scope of that Directive with regard to persons, even if the party does fall within the scope of national legislation to which that same Directive applies?
I sag C-89/90:
In Case C-89/90:
Domstolen var af den opfattelse, at det andet og det tredje spørgsmål i sag C-88/90 rejste samme pro blemer.
The Court took the view that the second and third questions of Case C-88/90 raised the same problems.
I besvarelse af de to spørgsmål henviste Domstolen til sin afgørelse i forenede sager 48,106 og 107/88 — Achterberg-te Riele, hvori den havde fastslået, at direktivets personelle anvendelsesområde var fastsat i artikel 2, hvorefter det fandt anvendelse på den erhvervsaktive befolkning, på personer, der søgte arbejde, samt på arbejdstagere, hvis erhvervsarbejde var blevet afbrudt af en af de i artikel 3, stk. 1, litra a), nævnte risici.
In replying to both questions, the Court mentioned its ruling in Joined Cases 48, 106 and 107/88 — Ach-terberg-te Riele, in which it had held that the scope of the Directive with regard to persons was determined by Article 2, under which the Directive applied to the working population, those seeking employment, as well as those whose employment had been inter rupted by one of the risks specified in Article 3(1 )(a).
I betragtning af dette konkluderede Domstolen, at den nationale domstol ikke kunne udvide det personelle anvendelsesområ de for direktiv 79/7 med den begrundelse, at parterne i sagen hørte under en national ordning, som f.eks. AOW, der var omfattet af en anden bestemmelse i di rektivet (artikel 3) vedrørende dets materielle anven delsesområde.
In view of this, the Court concluded that the national court should not extend the scope of Directive 79/7 with regard to the persons covered on the grounds that the parties were covered by a national scheme, such as the AOW, to which the Directive did apply by reason of another provision thereof (Article 3) relat ing to its scope ratione materiae.
1) Kan en part i sager for nationale domstole på beråbe sig artikel 4, stk. 1, (og/eller artikel 5) i direktiv 79/7/EØF, såfremt parten rammes af følgerne af en national diskriminerende bestem melse, der vedrørte ægtefællen, som ikke er part i sagen?
(1) In proceedings before a national court, can a party rely on Article 4(1 ) (and/or Article 5) of Directive 79/7/EEC if he suffers the effects of a dis criminatory national provision regarding his spouse, who is not a party to the said proceedings?
Med hensyn til spørgsmål 1 i sag C-88/90 bemærke de Domstolen, at den allerede havde anerkendt, at EØF-traktatens artikel 177 gav de nationale domsto le mulighed for og i givet fald forpligtede dem til en præjudiciel forelæggelse, når retten enten af egen drift eller på parternes begæring konstaterede, at sa gens realitet vedrørte et punkt, der var omtalt i artiklens stk. 1. Det forelagte spørgsmål kunne navnlig
As far as question 1 of Case C-88/90 was con cerned, the Court observed that it had already recog nized that Article 177 of the EEC Treaty conferred
Med hensyn til det spørgsmål, der var rejst i sag C89/90, bemærkede Domstolen indledningsvis, at ret ten til at påberåbe sig bestemmelserne i direktiv 79/7 ikke var begrænset til borgere omfattet af direkti vets personelle anvendelsesområde, for så vidt man ikke kunne udelukke, at andre personer kunne have en direkte interesse i at få overholdt forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling på de beskyttede personers vegne.
Concerning the question referred to in Case C-89/90, the Court mentioned at the outset that the right to rely on the provisions of Directive 79/7 was not restricted to persons who fell within the scope of the Directive, to the extent that it could not be ruled out that others might have a direct interest in seeing the principle of non-discrimination respected on behalf of the persons protected. The Court added that if,
Direktiv 79/7 skal fortolkes således, at det ikke tillader medlemsstaterne efter udløbet af den i artikel 8 fastsatte gennemførelsesfrist at oprethol de virkningerne af en national, tidligere lovgiv ning, som under visse omstændigheder udelukke de gifte kvinder fra alderdomsforsikring.
Directive 79/7 must be interpreted as not allow ing Member States to retain in force, after ex piry of the period for implementation laid down in Article 8, the effects of earlier national legisla tion which excluded married women in certain cir cumstances from oldage insurance cover.
I besvarelse af det spørgsmål, der var forelagt i sag C-87/90 nævnte Domstolen sag 384/85 Borrie Clarke, hvori den havde fastslået, at direktiv 79/7 ikke inde holdt nogen undtagelse fra ligebehandlingsprincippet i artikel 4, stk. 1, der kunne begrunde opretholdelse af en diskrimination, der bestod efter tidligere gælden de national lovgivning.
In answer to the question referred in Case C-87/90, the Court mentioned Case 384/85 — Borrie Clarke, where it stressed that Directive 79/7 did not provide for any derogation from the principle of equal treat ment under Article 4(1) which could authorize pro longing the discriminatory effect of any previous national provision.
Endvidere kunne en med lemsstat i henhold til Domstolens afgørelse i sag 80/87 — Dik ikke efter den 23. december 1984 opretholde ulige behandling, som skyldtes, at betingelserne for at erhverve ret til ydelser var indført før denne dato.
Moreover, according to its ruling in Case 80/87 — Dik, a Member State could not, after 23 December 1984, continue inequality of treat ment on the grounds that the conditions that needed to be fulfilled before a right to benefit would rise had been established before that date.
Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for, at en na tional ret af egen drift tager stilling til, om natio nale bestemmelser er forenelige med præcise og ubetingede bestemmelser i et direktiv, hvis gen nemførelsesfrist er udløbet, selv om en borger ikke har påberåbt sig dette direktiv for retten.
Community law does not preclude a national court from examining of its own motion whether national legal rules comply with the pre cise and unconditional provisions of a Directive, the period for whose implementation has elapsed, in the case where the person concerned has not relied on that Directive before the national court.
I denne sag bekræftede EFD den snævre fortolkning af det personelle anvendelsesområde for direktiv 79/7 om social sikring, som blev anlagt i de forenede sa ger 48, 106 og 107/88 — Achterberg-te Riele.
In this case, the EG confirmed the strict interpreta tion of the personal scope of Directive 79/7 on Social Security matters, which was adopted in Joined Cases 48, 106, and 107/88 — Achterberg-te Riele.
Den un derstregede, at direktivets personelle anvendelses område alene var fastsat i direktivets artikel 2, og at det ikke kunne udvides i medfør af direktivets artikel 3.
It emphasized that the Directive's personal scope is only defined by its Article 2 and may not be extended by virtue of Article 3 thereof.