natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen påpegede, at reglen om forbud mod dobbeltydelser I artikel 79, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1408/71 (ovenfor nr. 823) kun har mening og kun kan anvendes, såfremt der faktisk er erhvervet ret til ydelser efter lovgivningen i den stat, hvor erhvervsudøvelsen sker.
For Its part the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale refused the award of family allowances relying on the fact that by virtue of the Italian legislation in force at the time, the quality of 'head of the household' with regard to family allowances was vested in the father and could not be transferred to the spouse when the husband, the pensioner, was neither an invalid nor unemployed.
Dette er ikke tilfældet, når der er erhvervet ret til ydelser i bopælslandet som følge af, at et medlem af pensionistens eller rentemodtagerens familie har erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse, men denne ret ikke kan udøves på grund af en særegenhed I dette lands lovgivning.
In this dispute between a German institution and two infants of German nationality who, after the divorce of their parents in the Federal Republic of Germany, the death of their father and the subsequent remarriage of their mother to a Belgian national, resided in Belgium with their mother and stepfather.
Tvisten stod mellem en tysk institution og to mindreårige børn med tysk statsborgerskab, som efter deres forældres skilsmisse i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, og efter at deres mor, der var blevet enke, havde indgået nyt ægteskab med en belgisk statsborger, var bosiddende i Belglen på deres mors og stedfars bopæl.
The Court of Justice considered that the overlapping rule provided by Article 79 (3) of Regulation No 1408/71 (No 823 supra), could not be understood and could not be applied unless an entitlement to benefits had been effectively opened and acquired underthe legislation ofthe State where the professional or trade activity was exercised.
Problemet var, om børnene eventuelt kunne modtage rente som børn, der har mistet begge forældre eller én af dem, fra den tyske Institution samtidig med børnetilskud, der tilkendes efter den belgiske sociale sikringsordning på grundlag af de beskæftigelsesperioder, børnenes stedfar har tilbagelagt i Belgien.
Such was not the case when a right existed I η the country of residence because of the pursuit of a professional or trade activity by a member of the family of the pensioner or beneficiary of an allowance, but where that right was imperfect because of the peculiarity of the legislation of that country.
For at løse dette problem forelagde en tysk domstol De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol følgende spørgsmål:
'Is Article 79 (3) of Regulation No 1408/71 to be understood in the sense that the rights to benefits under Articles 77 and 78 and 79 (2) of that regulation are to be suspended in order to avoid duplication of benefits only where rights which by their nature are similar, are given in another Member State?
»Efter artikel 79, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning nr. 1408/71 stilles retten til børnetilskud for børn, over for hvem faderen, der er pensionist efter en medlemsstats lovgivning, har forsørgerpligt, ikke i bero, såfremt moderen ikke faktisk har erhvervet rettil disse børnetilskud i medfør af lovgivningen i en anden medlemsstat I kraft af erhvervsudøvelse, eller fordi kun faderen anerkendes som familieforsørger, eller fordi betingelserne for at tillægge moderen ret til børnetilskuddene Ikke er opfyldt.«
'Within the meaning of Article 79 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council the suspension of the right to family allowances for dependent children of the father who is a pensioner under the legislation of a Member State is not applicable if the mother has not actually acquired the right to those same allowances under the legislation of another Member State by virtue of the pursuit of a professional or trade activity or because the capacity of head of household is accorded only to the father or, in any event, because the conditions upon which the award to the mother, of the right to receive the allowances depends, are not fulfilled.'
I samme sag havde Domstolen fået forelagt følgende spørgsmål :
In the same case the Court of Justice was also asked to decide the question:
»Skal artikel 79, stk. 3, I forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 forstås saledes, at retten til ydelser efter forordningens artikler 77 og 78 samt efter artikel 79, stk. 2, for at undgå dobbeltydelser kun stilles I bero, når der i en anden medlemsstat består en ret til ydelser af samme art?
'The right to (he benefits referred to in Article 79 (3) of Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council Is to be suspended, pursuant to the provisions of that paragraph, in order to prevent duplication of benefits only in so far as that right overlaps with rights to benefits of the same kind acquired by virtue of the pursuit of a professional or trade activity.'
Dvs. : Krav på ovennævnte rente over forforsikrings­institutioner i to medlemsstater medfører, at et af de to krav stilles I bero, og krav på børnetilskud i to medlemsstater medfører, at et af de to krav på børnetilskud stilles I bero, medens ydelser af forskellig art i to medlemsstater (f. eks. børnetilskud på den ene side og rente til børn, der har mistet begge forældre eller én af dem på den anden side) ikke omfattes af artikel 79, stk. 3.«
'Assuming that the Italian authority's attitude is no longer justifiable at the present time in view of the principles of equal rights for men and women, should not the Belgian institution award the difference between the amount of the Italian family allowances in order to protect rights acquired under the legislation of the country of last employment and thus prevent unequal treatment of workers who have had to satisfy the same conditions to obtain the pension?'
»Såfremt det antages, at den italienske myndigheds opfattelse Ikke længereer berettiget pågrund af principperne om lige ret for mand og kvinde, skal den belgiske Institution da afholde forskellen mellem det belgiske og det italienske børnetilskud, for at de rettigheder, der er erhvervet i medfør af lovgivningen i det sidste beskæftigelsesland, kan sikres, og uligheder i behand­lingen af arbejdstagere, som har måttet opfylde samme betingelser for at erhverve pensionen eller renten, således undgås?«
The Court of Justice did not accept this argument, in reply to which it stated in its grounds of judgment that as in the case of the earlier Regulation No 3, the persons covered by Regulation No 1408/71, as was indicated by its heading, included not only employed persons but also their families moving within the Community and that the general terms in which Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 were couched, demonstrated that the regulation also applied when the residence in another Member State was notthat of the worker himself but of his survivor.
I denne forbindelse fremførte Domstolen følgende:
The position ofthe Court expressed in Case 134/77 (Ragazzoni — No 5384 supra), which was linked to the application of the overlapping provisions set out in Article 76 of Regulation
I sit indlæg anførte Kommissionen, at det efter dens skøn frengår af sagsakterne, af de nederlandske familieydelser i medfor at artlkellO, stk. 1, litrab), ¡forordning nr. 574'72 ikke udbetales fuldt ud.menalenei det omfang, de overstiger de tyske familieydelser.
— that rule, designed to prevent the overlapping of family allowances, is applicable only to the extent to which it does not, without cause, deprive the person concerned of the benefit of a part of the legislation of a Member State;
— en sådan undtagelse er indeholdt 1 artikel 79, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1408/71, der bestemmer, at retter til ydelser til børn, over for hvilke pensionisten har forsørgerpligt, stilles i bero, såfremt der i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse kan kræves udbetalt familieydelser eller børnetilskud for de pågældende børn efter en medlemsstats lovgivning;
In its observations the Commission stated that in so far as it had been able to judge from the file, an entire Dutch family allowance had not been paid but only that part which exceeded German family allowances, by virtue of Article 10(1) (£ > ) of Regulation No 574/72.
— såfremt de tilskud, hvis udbetaling stilles i bero, er større end de tilskud, der oppebæres i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse, skal reglen om forbud mod dobbeltydelser I artikel 79, stk. 3, således kun anvendes partielt, og forskelsbeløbet skal udbetales ekstra.
— when the amount of the allowances of which payment is suspended, is greater than that of the allowances received by virtue of pursuit of a professional or trade activity, it is therefore appropriate that the rule against overlapping of benefits contained in Article 79 (3) should be applied only partially and that the difference between these amounts should be granted in the form of a supplement.
Som svar på det andet spørgsmål afsagde Domstolen derfor sålydende dom:
As a result the Court of Justice ruled ¡n answer to the second question:
»Artikel 79, stk. 3, gælder kun for det beløb, der faktisk udbetales i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse.«
'Article 79 (3) is applicable only to the extent of the amount actually paid by virtue of the pursuit of a professional or trade activity.'
Den kompetente institution i Nederlandene må derfor kun suspendere retten til børnetilskud for det beløb, som det tyske bornetilskud (»Kindergeld«) udgør, og skal i givet fald udbetale det oversky­dende beløb til fru Koschniske.
5428­3 — Case 9/79 (Marianne Koschniske wife of Wörsdorfer ν Raad van Arbeid at Hengelo in the Netherlands — Judgment of 12 July 1979).
5428-3 — Sag 9/79. Marianne Koschniske, gift Wörsdorfer, mod Raad van Arbeid, Hengelo (Nederlandene) (dom af 12.juli 1979).
The competent body in the Netherlands could only suspend the entitlement to family allowances up to the amount of the German 'Kindergeld' and must, where necessary, pay the excess to Mrs Koschniske.
Dommen af 12. juli 1979 omhandler således kun det fortolkningsproblem, der var blevet forelagt, og der tages hverken i præmisserne eller i den dispositive del stilling til dette indlæg.
Restricting itself to the interpretation of the question which had been asked the Court replied to these observations neither in its reasoning nor in its ruling.
I den pågældende sag drejede det sig om fortolkningen af artikel 10, stk. 1, litrab), ¡forordning nr. 574/72, hvorefter retten til børnetilskud, som en pensionist modtager i forbindelse med sin pension eller rente, suspenderes, såfremt »hans ægtefælle« udøver erhvervsmæssig virksomhed på området i en medlems­stat, hvor retten til familieydelser ikke er betinget af forsikring eller beskæftigelse.
This case concerned the interpretation of Article 10(1) (b) of Regulation No 574/72 the provisions of which suspend the payment of family allowances to a pensioner if the 'spouse' exercises a professional or trade activity in the territory of a MemberState where entitlement to family allowances ¡s not made subject to employment or insurance conditions.
Den nederlandske version af artikel 10, stk. 1, litrab), i forordning nr. 574/72 benytter ordet »echtgenote« (ægtehustru), hvorimod alle de andre versioner anvender et udtryk, som omfatter såvel mandlige som kvindelige arbejdstagere.
In the Dutch version of Article 10 (1) φ ) of Regulation No 574/72 the word 'echtgenote' (spouse), appears in place of expressions used in the other versions and it covers both masculine as well as feminine workers.
Betragter man alene bestemmelsen i dennes nederlandske version, kan ordlyden give indtryk af, at det anvendte begreb udelukkende omfatter en person af hunkøn.
The text of the provision, considered in the Dutch version alone, might give rise to the construction that it applies only to female persons.
Artikel 77 og 78, der henholdsvis vedrorer ydelser til børn, der forsørges af pensionister eller rentemodtagere, og ydelser til børn, der har mistet begge forældre eller en af dem, indeholder regler for tilkendelse af disse ydelser.
Articles 77 and 78, dealing respectively with benefits for dependent children of pensioners and benefits for orphans, lay down the rules applicable for the granting of these benefits.
Disse regler er først og fremmest lovkonfliktregler.
These are essentially rules to be followed ¡n case of a conflict of laws.
De fastsætter, hvilken lovgivning der skal finde anvendelse i de enkelte tilfælde, idet grundprincippet er, at den kompetence, der er forbundet med en medlemsstats lovgivning, for så vidt angår udbetaling af familieydelser til en berettiget, er eksklusiv i forhold til den kompetence, der består for en anden medlemsstats lovgivning.
They determine the legislation applicable in each of the cases that may arise, whereby the underlying notion is that the applicability of the legislation of a Member State for the payment of benefits to a claimant must in principle exclude the applicability of the legislation of another Member State.
Artikel 79, stk. 3, indeholder endvidere en bestemmelse om forbud mod dobbeltydelser (suspension af retten til ydelser i henhold til ovennævnte bestemmelser, når der i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse kan kræves udbetalt familieydelser eller børnetilskud for de pågældende bom efter en medlemsstats lovgivning).
Moreover, a rule overlapping is laid down in Article 79 (3) (suspension of the right to benefits due under the aforegoing provisions in cases where the children qualify for family benefits or family allowances under the legislation of another Member State by virtue of the pursuit of a professional or trade activity).
Dette fortolkningsspørgsmål blev rejst under en sag, hvori en kvindelig tysk statsborger, som siden 1970 havde arbejdet som lønmodtager i Nederlandene, men af helbredsgrunde måtte ophøre med at arbejde den 17. marts s.a. Hun har siden den 14. april 1971 oppebåret en nederlandsk invalidepension samt børnetilskud efter nederlandsk lovgivning for de tre børn, der bor hos hende og hendes mand i Nordhorn (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland).
This question of interpretation was raised in an appeal brought by a woman of German nationality who having worked as an employed person in the Netherlands since 1970 but having had to stop work on 17 March of the same year for reasons of health, obtained a Dutch invalidity pension as from 14 April 1971 to which was added by virtue of the legislation of the said country, family allowances in respect of her three children who resided with her and her husband in Nordhorn in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Den nederlandske institution havde med virkning fra 1977 suspenderet udbetalingen af disse børnetilskud I medfør af artikel 10, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 574/72 med den begrundelse, at sagsøgerens ægtemand udøvede erhvervsmæs­sig virksomhed i Tyskland og dér oppebar børnetilskud.
As from 1977, the Dutch institution suspended these family allowances by virtue of Article 10 (1) (o) of Regulation No 574/72 because the spouse of the person concerned had a professional or trade activity in the Federal Republic of Germany and received allowances in respect of dependent children.
Domstolen har allerede i sag 100/78 (Rossi) (jf. ovenfor nr. 5428-2) udtalt sig om fortolkningen af sidstnævnte bestemmelse i forbindelse med senere erhvervsudøvelse i en anden medlems­stat.
The Court had already decided on how this provision should be interpreted, in Case 100/78(Rossi) (cf. 5428­2 above) ¡n the case of the subsequent pursuit of a professional or trade activity in another Member State.
Dommene La Terza og Gravina omhandler andre tilfælde med ændringer i de pågældendes situation.
The La Terza and Gravina judgments concern other types of changes in the position of those concerned.
I sag 733/79 drejede det sig om erhvervelse af ret til pension i bopælsstaten på et senere tidspunkt, hvorved denne stat blev kompetent med hensyn til udbetaling af familieydelser.
In Case 733/79 the question concerned the subsequent entitle­ment to a pension ¡n the Member State of residence entailing the responsibility of that State for the payment of family benefits.
— Nødvendigheden af en ensartet fortolkning af fællesskabsfor­ordningerne udelukker imidlertid, atden pågældende bestem­melses ordlyd betragtes ¡soleret, hvorfor bestemmelsen må fortolkes og anvendes på baggrund af versionerne i de andre officielle sprog;
— this interpretation is corroborated on the one hand, by the objective of the provision which is to avoid the overlapping of family allowances in respect of the same children and, on the other, by the principle of equality of treatment between male and female workers in the field of social security.
Sag 807/79 (Gravina) vedrørte de efterladte børns ændring af bopæl.
Case 807/79 (Gravina) dealt with a change of residence on the part of the orphans.
»Udtrykket diens echtgenote (hans ægtehustru) i artikel 10, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 574/72 omfatter også en ægtemand, der
'The term 'diens echtgenote' (his spouse) appearing in Article 10 paragraph 1 (b) of Regulation No 574/72, includes also the married man carrying out a professional activity in a Member State and whose spouse in application of Article 77, para­graph 2 (a) of Regulation No 1408/71, Is entitled to family allowances ¡n accordance with the legislation of another Member State.'
5428-5 — I dommen La Terza af 12. juni 1980 afsagde Domstolen sålydende dom: »Artikel 77, stk. 2, litra b), i), i forordning nr. 1408/71 skal fortolkes således, at en ret til børnetilskud, som skal udredes af den medlemsstat, på hvis område en invalidepen­sionist har bopæl, ikke medfører, at retten til større og tidligere
Article 77 (2) (b) (i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that entitlement to family benefits from the State in whose territory the recipient of an invalidity pension resides does not take away the right to higher benefits awarded previously by another Member State.
5429 erhvervede børnetilskud, som det påhviler en anden medlems­stat at udrede, bortfalder.
COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY
Ved dom af 12. juli 1984 har Domstolen truffet følgende afgørelse:
In a judgment of 12 July 1984, the Court ruled as follows:
5428-6 — På samme made bekræftede Domstolen i dommen Gravina af 9. juli "980:
5428­6 — In the Gravina judgment of 9 July 1980 the Court ruled along similar lines, as follows:
Såfremt den ydelse, der efter artikel 77, stk. 2, litra b), i), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr.1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesska­bet (EFT specialudgave 1971 II, s. 366), skal udbetales af bopælsmedlemsstaten, er lavere end de ydelser, der er erhvervet ret til efter en anden stats lovgivning, bevarer arbejdstageren ret til det højeste beløb og har ret til fra den sidstnævnte stats kompetente sociale institution at kræve et tillæg til ydelserne, som udgør forskellen mellem de to beløb.
Where, in the case referred to in Article 77/2 (b) (i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), the amount of the benefits paid by the State of residence is lower than that granted by another State which is responsible for payment, the worker retains the right to the higher amount and is entitled to receive an additional benefit, paid by the competent social security institution of that State, equal to the difference between the two amounts.
»Artikel 78, stk. 2, nr. i), i Rådets forordning nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 skal fortolkes således, at retten til ydelser fra den stat, hvor det barn, som har mistet begge forældre eller en af dem, og som har fået tilkendt ydelserne, har bopæl, ikke indebærer, at retten til hojere ydelser, som tidligere er erhvervet alene i henhold til en anden medlemsstats lovgivning, fortabes.
Article 78 (2) (£ > ) (i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 must be interpreted as meaning that the entitlement to benefits payable by the State in whose territory the orphan to whom they have been awarded resides does not remove the entitlement to higher benefits previously acquired by virtue of the legislation of a single Member State.
Når det ydelsesbeløb, som faktisk oppebæres i bopælsmedlemsstaten, er lavere end ydelsesbeløbet alene efter den anden medlemsstats lovgivning, har det efterladte barn rettil en supplerende ydelse, som svarer ti I forskellen mellem de to beløb, og som skal afholdes af den kompetente institution i sidstnævnte stat.«
Where the amount of benefits actually received in the Member State of residence is less than of the benefits provided for by the legislation ofthe other MemberState alone, the orphan is entitled to supplementary benefits, payable by the competent institution of the latter State, equal to the difference between the two amounts.
Gennemgangen af de forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 77, stk. 2, litra b), i), I nævnte forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71.«
Consideration of the questions referred to the Court has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 77 (2) (b) (i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71'.
»Skal en tysk socialforsikringsinstitution til et barn med italiensk statsborgerskab, der har mistet sine forældre eller en af dem, og som altid har boet i Italien, betale et tillæg til den pension til børn af afdøde arbejdstagere, der udredes af en italiensk forsikrings­institution, når barnets afdøde fader havde betalt bidrag til både den tyske og italienske socialforsikring, og der allerede alene I kraft af de i Tyskland betalte bidrag efter tysk lovgivning bestod et krav pa den fornævnte pension?«
Must the German pension institution pay to an orphan who is an Italian national and has always lived in Italy a supplement to the orphans' pension granted to him by the Italian pension institution if his late father paid contributions to both the German and the Italian pension institutions, even though entitlement to the grant of an orphans' pension was acquired under German legislation by virtue of the German contributions above?
Ved dom af 24. november 1983 har Domstolen truffet følgende afgørelse:
In a judgment of 24 November 1983, the Court of Justice ruled :
5429 — Retspraksis, der har udviklet sig på denne måde, gør det således nødvendigt at erkende de fortolkede bestemmelsers begrænsning.
5429 — This case­law imposes the need to recognize the limits of the scope ofthe provisions interpreted.
De fastsatte regler har en begrænset karakter, som ikke fremgår af ordlyden.
The rules laid down would be relative in nature, which is not apparent from the text.
Det gælder både for antikumulations­reglen i artikel 79, stk. 3, og for lovkonfliktreglerne i artikel 77 og 78.
This applies to the rule against overlapping of Article 79 (3) as well as to the rules governing the conflict of laws laid down in Articles 77 and 78.
I modsætning til det, der synes at have været hensigten ved affattelsen af forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, må det anerkendes på grundlag af Domstolens retspraksis, at der er mulighed for, at flere nationale lovgivninger kan finde anvendelse samtidig med hensyn til erhvervelse og beregning af familieydelser til børn af pensionister eller til børn, der har mistet en af deres forældre eller begge forældre.
Contrary to what would appear to have been the wish of the drafters of Regulation No 1408/71, the case­law would leave open the possibility that several national legislations apply simultaneously for the purpose of granting and calculating family benefits for dependent children of pensioners and for orphans.