natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 79. december 1978 om gradvis gennemførelse af prin cippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring skal fortolkes således, at det ifølge bestemmelsen er tilladt at fastsætte en lovbe stemt pensionsalder, som er forskellig for de to køn, med henblik på ydelse af alders- og arbejdsophørspensioner, og at udøve forskelsbehandling som den af den forelæggende ret beskrevne, der nødvendigvis er knyttet til denne forskel.
Article 7(1 )(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be inter preted as authorizing the determination of a statutory pensionable age which differs according to sex for the purposes of granting oldage and retirement pen sions and also forms of discrimination such as those described by the national court which are necessarily linked to that difference.
Selv om EFD havde fastlået, at forskelsbehandling med hensyn til bidragsperioder i forbindelse med ar bejdsophørspensioner var omfattet af artikel 7 i di rektiv 79/7, er det bemærkelsesværdigt, at den statue rede, at selv om bestemmelsen ikke indeholder en tidsgrænse, følger det af direktivets art, at undtagelsen har midlertidig karakter.
Despite the fact that the EG had held that discri mination as to the contribution periods with respect to retirement pensions falls within the exception of Article 7 of Directive 79/7, it is noteworthy that it ruled that although the provision does not contain a time limit, it follows from the nature of the Directive that the exception has a temporary character.
Derfor var det underforstået, at EFD pålagde medlemsstaterne at ændre deres pensionsordninger.
Hence, im plicitly, the EG called upon the Member States to change their system of pensions.
Eftersom undtagelsen omhandlede »fastsættelsen af pensionsalderen med henblik på ydelse af alders- og arbejdsophørspensioner«, udtalte Domstolen, at det var klart, at den vedrørte def tidspunkt, fra hvilket pen sioner kom til udbetaling.
Since the text of the derogation referred to 'the de termination of pensionable age for the purpose of granting oldage and retirement pensions', the Court said that it was clear that it concerned the mo ment from which pensions became payable.
Teksten henviste imidler tid ikke udtrykkeligt til forskelsbehandling i forbindelse med varigheden af bidragsperioderne eller bidragets størrelse.
The text did not, however, refer expressly to discrimination in respect of the extent of the obligation to contri bute for the purposes of the pension or the amount thereof.
Domstolen fastslog derfor, at sådanne for mer for forskelsbehandling kun var omfattet af und tagelsen, såfremt de fandtes nødvendige for at opnå de mål, direktivet tilsigtede, ved at tillade medlems staterne at opretholde en pensionsalder, der var for skellig for mænd og kvinder.
The Court maintained, therefore, that such forms of discrimination fell within the scope of the derogation only if they were found to be necessary in order to achieve the objectives which the Directive was intended to pursue by allowing Member States to retain a different pensionable age for men and women.
I den henseende bemærkede Domstolen, at direktivets udtrykkelige for mål var at opnå en gradvis gennemførelse af prin cippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring.
In that regard the Court noted that the ex press purpose of the Directive was to achieve the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social se curity.
Den gradvise karakter af gennemførelsen blev afspejlet i en række undtagelser, herunder den, der var fastsat i artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), og viste sig ved, at der ikke var fastsat nogen be stemt tidsfrist for opretholdelsen af undtagelserne.
The progressive nature of the implementa tion was reflected in a number of derogations, includ ing the one provided for by Article 7(1 )(a), and manifested itself by the absence of any precise time li mit for their maintenance.
Domstolen fastslog derefter, at det kunne udledes af arten af undtagelserne i artikel 7, stk. 1, i direktivet, at fællesskabsretten havde haft til formål at tillade medlemsstaterne midlertidigt at opretholde de for dele, der var indrømmet kvinder med hensyn til pensio nering, for at gøre det muligt for dem gradvis at ændre pensionsordningerne på dette punkt uden at forrykke den komplicerede finansielle balance i disse ordninger, hvis betydning man ikke kunne se bort fra.
The Court then stated that it could be deduced from the nature of the excep tions contained in Article 7(1 ) of the Directive that the Community legislation intended to allow Member States to maintain temporarily the advantages ac corded to women with respect to retirement in order to enable them progressively to adapt their pension systems in this respect, without disrupting the complex financial equilibrium of those systems, the impor tance of which could not be ignored.
Disse fordele omfattede de kvindelige arbejdstage res mulighed for at opnå ret til pension tidligere end mandlige arbejdstagere, jf. artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a).
Those advan tages included the possibility for female workers of qualifying for a pension earlier than male workers, as
pågældende ydelse normalt skulle opfylde.
pients of the benefit in question normally had to fulfil.
Endvidere betragtedes personer, der arbejdede under 24 timer om ugen, efter reglerne til gennemførelse af 1986loven ikke som havende lønnet arbejde, og børnepasningsudgifterne kunne ikke fratrækkes i indtægten fra deltidsbeskæftigelsen.
Moreover, under the regulations implementing the 1986 Act, persons working less than 24 hours a week were not regarded as being in remunerative work and childminding expenses were not deducti­ble from earnings from parttime work.
Dato for dommen: 16. juli 1992.
Date of judgment: 16 July 1992.
(Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978 og Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976).
Subject-matter: Equal treatment of men and women — Social security — Employment and vocational training -Low-income benefit (EEC Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978 and EEC Council Directive 76/207 of 9 February 1976).
På tidspunktet for de begivenheder, der gav anledning til hovedsagen, var fr. Jackson, en ugift moder med et lille barn, arbejdsløs og oppebar »supplementary allowance«.
At the time of the events giving rise to the main proceedings, Ms Jackson, an unmarried mother with a small child, was unemployed and in receipt of sup­plementary allowance.
I 1986 begyndte hun på et erhvervsuddannelseskursus organiseret af Manpo wer Services Commission, og oppebar i den forbindel se en månedlig ydelse.
In 1986, she started a voca­tional training course arranged by the Manpower Services Commission, in respect of which she received a weekly allowance.
Adjudication Officer tog hen syn til denne indkomst og trak hendes ret til »supplementary allowance« tilbage, samtidig med at han nægtede hende ret til i sin indkomst at fratræk ke de børnepasningsudgifter, hun afholdt i kursusperioden. perioden.
The Adjudication Officer took account of that income and withdrew her entitlement to supplementary allowance while refusing her the right to deduct from her income the childminding expenses which she incurred in respect of her child during her period in training.
På tidspuntet for de begivenheder, der gav anledning til hovedsagen, var fru Cresswell, en fraskilt mo der med ansvaret for to små børn, arbejdsløs og modtog »income support«.
At the time of the events giving rise to the main proceedings, Mrs Cresswell, a divorced mother respon­sible for two young children, was unemployed and in receipt of income support.
Hun begyndte derefter at arbejde på deltid i under 24 timer om ugen.
She then took up parttime employment for less than 24 hours a week.
Adjudication Officer, som tog hensyn til denne indkomst, nedsatte hendes »income support«, men nægtede at fratrække hendes børnepasningsudgifter i hendes indkomst.
The Adjudication Officer, taking account of that income, reduced her income support but refused to deduct from her income the expenses for minding her children.
I Det Forenede Kongerige blev der ved Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 for personer, hvis midler var utilstrækkelige til deres underhold, indført en ydelse benævnt »supplementary allowance« for personer, der var mellem 16 år og pensionsalderen, og en »supplementary pension« for personer, der var over pen sionsalderen.
In the United Kingdom, the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 introduced for persons whose means were insufficient to meet their needs a benefit known as 'supplementary allowance' for those between 16 years of age and pensionable age and a 'supplementary pension' for those over pensionable age.
Mens børnepasningsudgifter efter reglerne til gennemførelse af 1976-loven i princippet kunne fratrækkes i deres lønindtægter, kunne de ikke fratrækkes i de ydelser, der blev udbetalt i forbin delse med erhvervsuddannelse organiseret af Man power Services Commission, et britisk lovbestemt organ med ansvar for erhvervsuddannelse. Ved Social Security Aet 1986, som trådte i stedet for Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 fra april 1988, indførtes en »income support«, som blev ydet til alle, der var fyldt 18 år, og hvis indkomst ikke oversteg et bestemt beløb, og som ikke havde lønnet beskæftigelse.
Whereas under the regulations implementing the 1976 Act childminding expenses were in principle deductible from earnings from employment, they were not de­ductible from allowances paid during vocational train­ing organized by the Manpower Services Commis­sion, a British statutory body responsible for vocational training.
Lige som reglerne til gennemførelse af 1976-loven fritog reglerne til gennemførelse af 1986loven enlige foræl dre, der havde ansvaret for et barn, der var medlem af deres husstand, fra det krav om at være til rådighed for arbejdsmarkedet, som modtagere af den
Like the regulations im­plementing the 1976 Act, those implementing the 1986 Act exempted a sole parent responsible for a child, who was a member of his household, from the requirement of being available for work which reci-
EF-Domstolens afgørelser religger, udbetales til personer, der ikke har de fornødne midler til deres underhold, som defi neret i loven, uafhængigt af om de er omfattet af de risici, der er nævnt i artikel 3 i direktiv 79/7, omfattet af artikel 3 i direktiv 79/7?
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community stances to persons whose means are insufficient to meet their needs as defined by statute and who may or may not have suffered from one of the risks listed in Article 3 of Directive 79/7 — within the scope of Article 3 of Directive 79/7?
2) Er svaret på spørgsmål 1 det samme i alle tilfælde, eller afhænger det af, om en person er omfattet af en af de risici, der er nævnt i artikel 3 i direktiv 79/7?
Directive. Consequently, said the Court, exclusion from the scope of Directive 79/7 was justified a fortiori where, as in the cases at issue, the law set the amount of the theoretical needs of the persons con cerned, used to determine the benefit in question, independently of any consideration relating to the exis tence of any of the risks listed in Article 3(1 ) of the Directive.
ner, der dækkedes af direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1.
(2) Is the answer to question 1 the same in all cases or does it depend on whether a person is suffer ing from one of the risks listed in Article 3 of Direc tive 79/7?
Endvidere fritog de nationale ordninger i visse situationer, særlig situationer som de her foreliggende, modtager ne fra pligten til at stå til rådighed for arbejdsmarke det. Dette viste, at den pågældende ydelse ikke kunne betragtes som direkte og faktisk forbundet med beskyttelsen mod risikoen for arbejdsløshed.
Moreover, in certain situations, in particular those presented here, the national schemes at issue exempt ed claimants from the obligation to be available for work.
3) Kan betingelserne for at modtage »supplementary allowance« (sag C-63/91) eller »income support« (sag C-64/91 ) være omfattet af direktiv 76/207, når disse betingelser alene vedrører ad gang til at modtage »supplementary allowance« eller »income support«, mens anvendelsen af disse betingelser kan påvirke enlige forældres mu lighed for at tage deltidsarbejde eller deltage i erhvervsuddannelse?
(3) Are the conditions of entitlement for receipt of supplementary allowance (Case C-63/91) or in come support (Case C-64/91 ) capable of falling within Directive 76/207 where those conditions relate solely to access to supplementary allowance or income support but the effect of application of those conditions may be such as to affect the ability of a single parent to take up access to parttime employment or vocational training?
I besvarelse af de første to spørgsmål bemærkede Domstolen indledningsvis, at en ydelse, for at være omfattet af direktiv 79/7's anvendelsesområde, helt eller delvis skulle udgøre en lovbestemt ordning, der sikrede beskyttelse mod en af de opregnede risici el ler udgjorde en form for socialbistand med samme for mål (sagerne 1 50/85 — Drake og C-243/90 — Smithson).
In reply to the first two questions, the Court first pointed out that a benefit, if it was to fall within the scope of Directive 79/7, should constitute the whole or part of a statutory scheme providing for protection against one of the specified risks or a form of social assistance having the same objective (Cases 1 50/85 — Drake and C-243/90 — Smithson).
I sidstnævnte sag havde Domstolen fastslå et, at selv om betalingsmåden ikke var afgørende med hensyn til kvalificering af en ydelse som en ydelse, der var omfattet af ovennævnte direktiv, skulle ydel sen ikke desto mindre for at være omfattet af direktivet være direkte og faktisk forbundet med beskyttelsen mod en af de i artikel 3, stk. 1, opregnede risici.
In the latter case it stated that, although the mode of payment was not decisive as regards the identification of a benefit as one which fell within the scope of the aforesaid Direc tive, nevertheless, in order to fall within the scope of the Directive, the benefit should be directly and effecti vely linked to the protection provided agairst one of the risks specified in Article 3(1).
Dom stolen bemærkede dog, at artikel 3, stk. 1, ikke hen viste til en lovbestemt ordning, som på visse betingel ser sikrede personer, hvis midler lå under en ved lov fastsat grænse, en særlig ydelse med henblik på deres underhold.
However, observed the Court, Article 3(1 ) did not refer to a statutory scheme which, on certain conditions, provided for per sons with means below a legally defined limit with a special benefit designed to enable them to meet their needs.
Denne afgørelse påvirkedes ikke af, at modtageren af ydelsen faktisk var i en af de situatio
That finding was not affected by the circum stance that the recipient of the benefit was in fact in one of the situations covered by Article 3(1 ) of the
For at besvare det tredje spørgsmål om anvendelses området for direktiv 76/207 erindrede Domstolen om, at det i direktivets artikel 1, stk. 2, var fastsat, at Rå det med henblik på at sikre en gradvis gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling med hensyn til so cial sikring på forslag fra Kommissionen vedtog nærmere bestemmelser særlig om dets indhold, ud strækning og gennemførelse.
In order to answer the third question concerning the scope of Directive 76/207, the Court recalled that Article 1 (2) thereof provided that, with a view to ensuring the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment in matters of social security, the Council acting on a proposal from the Com mission, would adopt provisions defining its sub stance, its scope and the arrangements for its application.
I denne forbindelse bemærkede Domstolen, at den havde fortolket den ne bestemmelse således, at direktiv 76/207 ikke var be stemt til anvendelse i forbindelse med social sikring (sag 192/85 — Newstead).
In this connection, it noted that it had in terpreted that provision as meaning that Directive 76/207 was not intended to apply in social security matters (Case 192/85 — Newstead).
Denne undtagelse skulle dog fortolkes snævert (sag 1 52/84 — Marshall).
This exception should, however, be interpreted strictly (Case 152/84 — Marshall).
Følgelig kunne en ordning vedrørende bestemte ydel ser ikke udelukkes fra direktivets anvendelsesområ de, alene fordi ordningen formelt var en del af en na tional social sikringsordning, da opfyldelsen af direktivets formål ellers kunne vanskeliggøres.
It followed that, because of the risk of detracting from the objective of Directive 76/207, a scheme of benefits could not be excluded from the scope of the Directive solely because, formally, it was part of a national social security benefit.
Domsto len påpegede, at en sådan ordning alene ville være omfattet af direktivets anvendelsesområde, såfremt den vedrørte adgang til beskæftigelse, herunder erhvervsuddannelse og forfremmelse, eller arbejdsvil kår.
Nevertheless, pointed out the Court, such a scheme would fall within the scope of that Directive only if its subjectmatter was access to employment, including voca tional training and promotion, or working condi tions.
Følgelig, konkluderede Domstolen, var påstan den om, at reglerne for beregning af ydelsesmodtagernes faktiske indkomst, der var udgangspunktet for fastsættelsen af ydelsen, kunne påvirke enlige mødres muligheder for at deltage i erhvervsuddannelse eller tage deltidsansættelse, ikke tilstrækkelig til, at sådanne ordninger var omfattet af direktiv 76/207.
Consequently, concluded the Court, the assertion that the method of calculating claimants' actual earnings, which were used as the basis for de termining the amount of the benefits, might affect sole mothers' ability to take up access to vocational or parttime employment, was not sufficient to bring such schemes within the scope of Directive 76/207.
I besvarelse af de forelagte spørgsmål statuerede Domstolen: synsvinkel, nemlig direktivets effektivitet, statuerede EFD, at det afgørende kriterium skulle være, om den pågældende sociale sikringslovgivning vedrørte ad gang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfrem melse eller arbejdsvilkår.
In reply to the questions submitted to it, the Court ruled that: related to access to employment, training, promo tion or working conditions.
Derefter så EFD på de lov givningsmæssige hensigter (se sag C-243/90 — Smithson).
The EG, subsequently, looked at the legislative intentions (see Case C-243/90 — Smithson).
Da ydelsen til enlige forældre i alminde lighed tog sigte på at beskytte mod fattigdom, betrag tedes den som værende uden for anvendelsesområ det for direktiv 76/207.
As the single parent benefit aimed, in general, at protection against poverty, it was considered to fall beyond the scope of Directive 76/207.
2. flåders direktiv 76/207 skal fortolkes således, at det ikke omfatter en social sikringsordning som supplerende tillæg (»supplementary allowance«) eller indkomsttilskud (»income support«), alene fordi en enlig forælders mulighed for at deltage i erhvervsuddannelse eller tage deltidsansættelse kan påvirkes af betingelserne for tildeling afydel-
Directive 76/207 is to be interpreted as not ap plying to a social security scheme, such as sup plementary allowance or income support, simply because the conditions of entitlement for re ceipt of the benefits may be such as to affect the ability of a single parent to take up access to vocational training or parttime employment.
I denne sag kom EFD atter ind på det væsentligste formål med såvel direktiv 79/7 om social sikring som direktiv 76/207 om ligebehandling.
In this case the EG elaborated further upon the material scope of both Directive 79/7 on Social Se curity matters and Directive 76/207 on Equal Treat ment.
Med hensyn til det første direktiv er EFD's afgørelse meget lig afgørel sen i sag C-243/90 —Smithson.
As regards the first Directive, the EG's ruling is very similar to that in Case C-243/90 —Smithson.
EFD fastslog, at der ikke forelå en »direkte og faktisk« forbindelse mellem ydelsen (et beløb, der blev udbetalt til enlige foræl dre) og en af de risici, der var nævnt i artikel 3, stk. 1, i direktiv 79/7. Tilstanden som »enlige forældre« er ikke nævnt deri.
The EG held that a 'direct and effective link' did not exist between the benefit (an amount paid to single parents) and one of the risks mentioned in Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7; 'single parenthood' is not listed there.
Med hensyn til det andet direktivs an vendelsesområde opstod der et problem, da sag søgerne hævdede, at den nationale sociale sikringslov påvirkede deres muligheder for at deltage i erhvervsuddannelse eller tage deltidsansættelse.
As to the scope of the second Directive, an is sue arose when the claimants maintained that the national social security law affected their ability to take up vocational training or parttime employment.
EFD henviste til sag 192/85 —Newstead, hvor den hav de udtalt, at direktiv 76/207 ikke fandt anvendelse på social sikring, men at dette begreb skulle fortolkes snævert (sag 152/84 — Marshall).
The EG recalled that in Case 192/85 — Newstead, it had stated that Directive 76/207 did not apply to social security matters but that this concept should be in terpreted strictly (Case 1 52/84 — Marshall).
Ved kendelse af 24. juli 1991 forelagde Raad van Beroep, Amsterdam, i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
By an order dated 24 July 1991, the Raad van Ber­oep of Amsterdam, referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:
Reference: Endnu ikke offentliggjort.
Reference: Not yet reported. "
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — social sikring —alderspension (Artikel 4, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978).
Subject-matter: Equality between men and women — Social security — Oldage pension (Article 4 (1) of EEC Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1 978).
1 ) Skal artikel 4, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978 fortolkes således, at be stemmelsen er til hinder for at anvende en national lovbestemmelse om alderspensionsforsikring, som — uanset køn — udelukkende lader tildelingen og størrelsen af et tillæg til en pensionsbe rettiget, hvis ægtefælle, der forsørges, endnu ikke er fyldt 65 år, afhænge af den yngre ægtefælles indtægter fra eller i forbindelse med erhvervsar bejde, også selv om bestemmelsen har til følge, at flere mænd end kvinder kan opnå et tillæg?
(1) Is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as preclud­ing national legislation on oldage pensions which, regardless of sex, makes the award to a pensioner of a supplementary allowance, and the amount thereof, for a partner not yet 65 depen­dent exclusively on whether the younger partner receives income from or in connection with work, if the consequences of that condition is that more men than woman qualify for the allowance?
I henhold til Algemene Ouderdomswet (i det følgen de benævnt »AOW«) (den nederlandske lov om almin delig alderspension) havde enhver gift mand eller kvinde fra sit fyldte 65. år ret til alderspension svarende til 50% af mindstelønnens nettobeløb.
The Algemene Ouderdomswet ('AOW') (Dutch Gen­eral Old-Age Law) provided that any married man or woman was entitled, on reaching the age of 65, to an oldage pension in the amount of 50% of the net minimum wage.
Fra 1. april 1988 oppebar en gift mand eller kvinde, hvis ægtefælle, der forsørgedes af pensionisten, endnu ikke var fyldt 65 år, 70% af mindstelønnens netto beløb.
As from 1 April 1988, a married man or woman whose dependent spouse had not yet reached the age of 65 received 70% of the net mini­mum wage.
Han eller hun havde derudover ret til et tillæg på 30% af mindstelønnens nettobeløb, som blev ned sat i forhold til størrelsen af ægtefællens egne indtægter fra eller i forbindelse med erhvervsarbejde.
Moreover, he/she was entitled to a sup­plement of 30% of the net minimum wage, which was reduced in accordance with the spouse's own in­come from or in connection with work.