natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
4192 — Artikel 12, stk. 2, første punktum, udvider anvendelsen af de nationale bestemmelser om forbud mod dobbeltydelser til at omfatte andre sociale ydelser eller indtægter, der er opnået i en anden medlemsstat.
In the second case (Case 37/77, Greco), the question put was somewhat different. It was worded as follows: 'Is Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible with the reduction of an invalidity pension granted by a Member State under Article 46 (1) on the ground that similar benefits are awarded by the competent institution of another Member State, where such reduction is effected on the basis of provisions of the internal law of the first Member State?'
4193 — Denne udvidelse (artikel 12, stk. 2, andet punktum) gælder imidlertid kun for ydelser af samme art, som fastsættes i henhold til fællesskabsbestemmelserne.
In judgments of 13 October 1977 the Court of Justice gave an identical reply to both of these questions when it ruled that:
Ud fra den betragtning, at bestemmelsen om undgåelse af dobbeltydelser i artikel 11, stk. 2, i forordning nr.3 »fortolket i lyset af traktatens artikler 4851 er modstykket til de fordele, som forordningerne nr. 3 og 4 giver arbejdstagerne ved at sætte dem i stand til at påberåbe sig en samtidig anvendelse af flere medlemsstaters sociale sikrlngslove, og dens formål er at forhindre, at de ved denne anvendelse opnår fordele, som i den nationale lovgivning bliver betragtede som ugrundede«, afsagde Domstolen følgende dom:
Considering that the provisions against overlapping laid down in Article 11 (2) of Regulation No 3 was 'B22 in the light of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty, the counterweight to the advantages which Regulations Nos 3 and 4 procure for workers by enabling them to claim benefits simultaneously under the social security laws of several Member States, and its purpose is to prevent them deriving from that claim advantages which the national legislation considers excessive', the Court of Justice ruled as follows:
4194 — Begrebet samtidig ret til flere ydelser af samme art omfatter f.eks. det tilfælde, hvor der samtidig består ret til invalidepension efter lovgivningen i to medlemsstater.
'So long as a worker is receiving a pension by national legislation alone, the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 do not prevent the national legislation, including the national rules against the overlapping of benefits, from being applied to him in its entirety, provided that if the application of such national legislation proves less favourable than the application of the rules regarding aggregation and apportionment those rules must, by virtue of Article 46 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71 be applied.'
— »En national retsnorm, hvis formål er at forbyde den kumulative oppebæreise af en sygeforsikringsydelse og en invalideforsikringsydelse, udgør en bestemmelse om suspen­sion eller nedsættelse i den betydning, der er forudsat i forordning nr.3, artikel 11, stk. 2.
— 'A provision of national law intended to foroid the simul­taneous receipt of sickness benefit and benefit for insurance against incapacity to work constitutes a provision for suspension or reduction within the meaning of Article 11 (2) of Regulation No 3.
4195 — Begrebet samtidig rettil flere ydelser af forskellig art kan f.eks. omfatte det tilfælde, hvor der består ret til en ydelse ved Invaliditet efter lovgivningen i en medlemsstat og en rente I anledning af erhvervssygdom efter lovgivningen i en anden medlemsstat.
— The expression "b22 benefits acquired under a scheme in another Member State' cannot be limited merely to the case where the provision against overlapping is expressed in terms covering all benefits in general, whether acquired under the scheme in other Member States or under that of the State concerned.
— Begrebet »ydelser, der er erhvervet i henhold til en anden medlemsstats ordning«, kan ikke begrænses til det ene tilfælde, hvor bestemmelsen om forbud mod dobbeltydelser er udformet således, at den omfatter samtlige de ydelser, som er erhvervet, såvel i henhold til andre medlemsstaters ordning som i henhold til ordningen i den pågældende stat selv.
in Case 22/75 (Mura), the Court of Justice dismissed, in its grounds for judgment, the charge by the referring court that migrant workers obtained an advantage over workers who had never left their own country by pointing out that the legal situation of these categories of workers were not comparable, and that any difference which might exist to the benefit of migrant workers did not result from the interpretation of Community law but rather from the lack of any common social security system or of any harmonization of the existing national schemes.
— Udtrykket »ydelser, der er erhvervet i henhold til en anden medlemsstats ordning«, kan kun omfatte det beløb, som faktisk er blevet udbetalt som ligestillet ydelse«.
— The expression 'benefits acquired under a scheme in another Member State' can only mean the amount actually paid as assimilated benefit.
Se forste del I, nr. 1437, 1594 og 1620.
4203­3 — Case 75/76 (Silvana Kaucic and Anna Maria Kaucic ν Institui National Maladie Invalidité — Judgment of 10 March 1977).
I denne sag om anvendelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 3 og nr. 4, drejede tvisten sig om muligheden for samtidig at få udbetalt invalidepensioner, der dels var erhvervet I henhold til lovgivnin­gerne i EØF-medlemsstaterne, dels I henhold til lovgivningen i et tredjeland.
In this case, in the framework of the scope of Regulations (EEC) Nos 3 and 4, the action concerned accumulating invalidity pensions acquired, on the other hand, under the legislation of Member States of the EEC, concurrently with those acquired under the legislation of a third State.
4197 — I overensstemmelse med artikel 12, stk. 3, finder bestemmelserne om forbud mod dobbeltydelser anvendelse på modtageren af ydelser ved invaliditet eller førtidsydelser ved alderdom, hvis den pågældende er erhvervsmæssigt beskæftiget i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor den institution, der skal udbetale ydelserne, er beliggende.
The point at issue in these two cases was the calculation by two Dutch institutions of, respectively, an invalidity pension for a Dutch national who had worked and acquired pension rights first in the Federal Republic Germany and then in the Netherlands (Case 98/77), and a survivor's pension for a Dutch national whose husband had completed periods of insurance in the Netherlands and in the Federal Republic of Germany (Case 105/77).
Som svar på dette spørgsmål fastslog EF-Domstolen navnlig, at artikel 11, stk. 2, 2. pkt., I forordning nr.3, som forbyder, at nationale bestemmelser om nedsættelse af ydelser bringes i anvendelse over for den ydelsesberettigede, omfatter denne bestemmelse kun de tilfælde, hvor der I henhold til forordningen artikler 26 og 28 er erhvervet ydelser af samme art, og den er derfor ikke til hinder for, at der anvendes bestemmelser om nedsættelse af ydelser, såfremt en af ydelserne er erhvervet i henhold til lovgivningen i en ikke-medlemsstat.
In its reply to this question, the Court of Justice found, in particular that the second sentence of Article 11 (2) of Regulation No 3 which prohibited the application to beneficiaries of provisions in the legislation of a Member State for the reduction of benefit, referred only to cases where benefits of the same kind were acquired in accordance with provisions of Article 27 and 28 of the regulation, and accordingly did not prohibit the application of provisions for reduction where one of the benefits had been acquired pursuant to the legislation of a third country.
Se ligeledes vedrorende denne sag 4707 og 4813.
In regard to this case see also Nos 4707 and 4818.
4198 — Af hensyn til særreglerne i den nederlandske lovgivning præciseres det i artikel 12, stk. 4, at når en nederlandsk institution, der i medfør af den nationale lovgivning skal udbetale en invalidepension, er forpligtet til også at deltage i udgifterne ved erstatning for erhvervssygdom tilkendt efter en anden medlemsstats lovgivning, nedsættes invalidepensionen med det beløb, der tilkommer den institution, som det påhvilerat udbetale erstatning for erhvervssygdom.
The Court of Justice therefore delivered two identical judgments, the texts of which were the same as that in the Greco Case, namely 'so long as a worker is receiving a pension by virtue of national legislation alone, the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 do not prevent the national legislation, including the national rules against the overlapping of benefits, from being applied to him in Its entirety, provided that if the application of such national legislation proves less favourable than the application of the rules laid down by Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71 the provisions of that article must be applied' (vide infra 4819).
I begge tilfælde havde den kompetente belgiske institution i henhold til de nationale regler om forbud mod dobbeltydelser (art. 23, stk. 1, arrêté royal beige af 19. november 1970) fratrukket den franske og italienske pension, der var blevet tilkendt af de kompetente institutioner i disse to lande, fra den belgiske pension
In both cases, the competent Belgian institution had applied the national rules against the overlapping of benefits (Art. 23 (1) ofthe Royal Decree of 19 November 1970), and deducted the amount of the Italian and French pensions, awarded by the institutions of
4203 — Som nævnt ovenfor (se nr. 4190) har anvendelsen af bestemmelserne om forbud mod dobbeltydelser givet anledning til talrige afgørelser fra Domstolen.
4203­6 — In Case 26/78 (Institut National d'Assurance Maladie Invalidité et Union Nationale des Fédérations Mutualistes Neutres v Antonio Viola — Judgment of 5 October 1978) as in Case 73/77 (Naselli, vide supra 4203­3), the dispute concerned the calcu­
(som de pågældende var berettiget til alene i kraft af de forsikringsperioder, der var tilbagelagt i Belgien).
4203 continue to provide such person with the invalidity benefits to which he ¡s entitled under the legislation which it administers until the provisions of paragraph (1) become applicable as regards that institution.
Som i sag 83/77 (Naselli, 4203-3 ovenfor) angik retstvisten en belgisk institutions beregning af en Invalidepension til en italiensk statsborger, der havde arbejdet i Italien og i Belgien, og som fra det sidstnævnte land (Belgien) havde fået tilkendt invalidepension efter national lovgivning og fra Italien en pro rata pension i henhold til bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 3.
lation, by a Belgian institution, of an invalidity pension for an Italian national who had worked in Italy and Belgium, who had been awarded, in the latter country (Belgium), an invalidity pension in accordance with the legislation of that country, and an Italian pension which was apportioned in accordance with Regulation No 3.
I den tørste sag (sag 22/77, Mura) var Domstolen blevet anmodet om at udtale sig om spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt »artikel 12 I EØF-forordning nr. 1408/71, der tillader sammenlægning af ydelser, har forrang for Interne 'antisammenlægnings'-regler i tilfælde af, at fællesskabsreglerne bevirker en begunstigelse af den vandrende arbejdstager i forhold til den fastboende«?
Although that provision only expressly refers to the obligation of an institution, responsible for providing the invalidity benefits which have not been converted into old­age benefits, to continue to provide benefits to a person receiving the invalidity benefits, when account is taken of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty that provision implies that an institution providing invalidity benefits which have been converted into old­age benefits is not empowered to stop granting those benefits on the ground that the recipient thereof is also in receipt of invalidity benefits which have not yet been converted.
Der blev stillet spørgsmålet om, i hvilket omfang den belgiske institution kunne nedsætte sin pension i henhold til bestemmel­serne om forbud mod dobbeltydelser i artikel 70, § 2, i belgisk lov af 9. august 1963, og nærmere bestemt om forhøjelsen af den pension for forsørgelsesberettiget ægtefælle og den årlige forhøjelse i anledning af julen, der var ret til efter italiensk lovgivning, ved anvendelsen af reglerne om sammenlægning af ydelser varen integrerende del af invalidepensionen.
The question was to what extent the Belgian institution could reduce its pension pursuant to the provisions against overlapping laid down in Article 70 (2) ofthe Belgian Law of 9 August 1963, and more specifically whether for the application of the rules against the overlapping of benefits, the pension supplements for a dependent spouse and the annual supplement awarded at Christmas, provided for by the Italian legislation, were an integral part of the invalidity pension.
Kunne med andre ord den pension, som den pågældende var berettiget til alene i medfør af belgisk lovgivning nedsættes ikke blot med den italienske pensions grundbeløb, men også med de forhøjelser af pensionen, der er fastsat i italiensk lovgivning.
In other words, could the pension to which the person concerned was entitled under Belgian legislation only be reduced not only by the amount of the Italian basic pension but also by the amount of supplements to that pension provided under Italian legislation?
Under henvisning til præmisserne og dommen i sag 83/77, Naselli, og sag 140/73, Manuso, fremførte Domstolen som begrundelse for sin afgørelse bl.a. følgende:
It may therefore be concluded that the invalidity benefits commuted into old­age pension and the non­converted invalidity benefits must be regarded as being of the same kind and that the provisions of Chapter 3 are applicable to them.
I den anden sag (sag 37/77, Greco) var spørgsmålet blevet stillet med næsten samme ordlyd.
Referring to the grounds for judgment given and the judgments delivered in Cases 83/77 (Naselli) and 140/73 (Nancuso), the Court of Justice in support of its decision, reasoned that:
Det var formuleret således: »Er det foreneligt med artikel 12, stk. 2, i EØF-forordning nr. 1408/71, at en af en medlemsstat i henhold til artikel 46, stk. 1, bevilget invalidepension nedsættes på grundlag af ydelser af samme art, som udbetales af en institution i en anden medlemsstat, når denne nedsættelse sker i medfør af nationale retsregler i den førstnævnte stat?«
In those circumstances the last sentence of Article 12 (2) of the regulation precludes the application of national rules against overlapping.
— De begrænsninger, der omhandles i forordningens artikel 11, stk. 2, kan kun gøres gældende over for de forsikrede, for så vidt angår de ydelser, der er erhvervet ved anvendelse af forordning nr. 3 og 4, og ingen af bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 3 er til hinder for, at nationale forbud mod dobbeltydelser finder anvendelse på ydelser, der er erhvervet alene i henhold til national lovgivning;
— the restrictions referred to in Article 11 (2) of the regulation applied to insured persons only as regard benefits acquired by applying Regulation No 3 and No 4; no provisions of Regu­lation No 3 precluded the application to benefits acquired by virtue of the national legislation alone, of national rules against the overlapping of benefits;
— anvendelsen af forordningens bestemmelser om forholds­mæssig beregning medfører, at det for at erhverve ret til ydelser er nødvendigt først at sammenlægge de perioder, der er tilbagelagt under de forskellige lovgivninger.
— applying the rules on apportionment laid down by the regulation implied that a prior aggregation of periods completed underthe legislation of various Member States was necessary to acquire entitlement to benefits.
»Oppebærer en arbejdstager pension udelukkende i henhold til national lovgivning, er forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke til hinder for, at den nationale lovgivning i sin helhed finder anvendelse på ham, herunder de nationale regler om forbud mod dobbeltydelser, idet det dog er en betingelse, at viser den nationale lovgivning sig at være mindre gunstig for arbejdstageren end ordningen med sammenlægning og forholdsmæssig beregning, skal denne sidste anvendes som foreskrevet i artikel 46, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71.«
— Where a worker is in receipt of invalidity benefits converted into an old­age pension by virtue of the legislation of a Member State and of invalidity benefits not yet converted into an old­age pension under the legislation of another Member State, the old­age pension and the invalidity benefits are to be regarded as being of the same kind, the provisions of Chapter 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 are applicable for the purpose of determining the rights of the worker, and, by virtue of the last sentence of Article 12 (2) of the regulation, the application of national rules against overlapping Is precluded.
Viser den nationale lovgivning sig dog at være mindre fordelagtig end ordningen med sammenlægning og forholdsmæssig bereg­ning, skal den sidstnævnte anvendes«.
The Cour du Travail [Labour Court], Mons, requested a preliminary ruling on the following questions:
I forbindelse med sag 22/77 (Mura) anerkender Domstolen i sine præmisser ikke den pågældende rets antagelse om, afvandrende arbejdstagere er gunstigere stillet end arbejdstagere, som aldrig har forladt deres land, idet den bemærker, at disse to arbejdstagerkategoriers retsstilling ikke erens, og at eventuelle forskelle i den vandrende arøejdstagers favør ikke skyldes en fortolkning af fællesskabsretten, men at der Ikke findes en fælles ordning for social sikring eller nogen harmonisering af de eksisterende nationale ordninger, hvilke mangler den nugældende enkle koordination ikke er i stand til at afhjælpe.
In applying national rules agalnstthe overlapping of benefits, it ¡s for the national court to classify the supplement for a dependent spouse and the '13th month', in accordance with the applicable national legislation, regard being had to the rules relating to the conflict of laws, since the Community provisions are not relevant. However, if the application of the relevant national legislation is less favourable than that of the system of aggregation and apportionment, the latter system must be applied.'
4203-7 — Sag 4/80, d'Amico mod ONPTS (dom af 15. oktober 1980).
4203­7 — Case 4/80 (Remo d'Amico ν National Pensions Office for Employed Persons, ONPTS).
Tribunal du travail i Charleroi fandt det fornødent at udsætte denne sag og anmodede Domstolen om at træffe præjudiciel afgørelse af følgende spørgsmål:
The Tribunal du Travail (Labour Tribunal) of Charleroi, before deciding on the matter, referred the following questions to the Court of Justice, asking for a preliminary ruling:
Er artikel 25 I Arrêté Royal nr. 50 af 24. oktober 1967 (som ændret ved lov af 27. juli 1971, artikel 10) om alders- og efterladtepension til arbejdstagere forenelig med formålet med artiklerne 12, 46 og 50 i Rådets forordning nr. 1408/71 ?
Must Article 51 of the Treaty of Rome and Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 be interpreted as meaning that it isin accordance with the aims ofthe Treaty for a migrant worker to be prohibited from receiving both unemployment benefit in a Member State of the Community (in which he fulfils the conditions of that State's legislation as to the state of incapacity denied by the authorities of that State) and a pro rata invalidity pension (type Β legislation) payable by another Member State for incapacity for work accepted by the authorities of that State, when both social security benefits do not cover the same injury, the amount of the invalidity benefit is much lower than the unemployment allowance and the two medical authorities of the competent institutions have adopted different attitudes as to the claimant's state of inca­pacity?
Er artikel 25 i Arrêté Royal af 24. oktober 1967 (som ændret ved lov af 27. juli 1971, artikel 19) forenelig med artiklerne 4851 i Rom-Traktaten?
Is Article 25 of the Arrêté Royal of 24 October 1967 (as amended by Article 10 of the Law of 27 July 1971) compatible with Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty of Rome?
Er artklerne 12, 46 og 50 i Rådets forordning nr.1408/71 forenelig med artiklerne 4851 i Rom-Traktaten?
Are Articles 12, 46 and 50 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible with Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty of Rome?
I præmisserne har Domstolen påpeget følgende:
In its grounds of the judgment the Court argued as follows:
— Artikel 43, stk. 1, bestemmer, at ydelser ved alderdom i givet fald skal træde i stedet for ydelser ved Invaliditet på de betingelser, der er fastsat I den eller de lovgivninger, hvorefter de pågældende ydelser er tilkendt, og i overens­stemmelse med bestemmelserne i kapitel 3;
— Article 43 (1) provides that invalidity benefits shall be converted into old­age benefits, where appropriate, under the conditions laid down by the legislation or legislations under which they were granted, and ¡n accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3.
Derfor afsagde Domstolen to enslydende domme, der ligeledes var en gentagelse af dommen I Greco-sagen, idet den kendte for ret: »Oppebærer en arbejdstager pension udelukkende I henhold til national lovgivning, er forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke til hinder for, at den nationale lovgivning i sin helhed finder anvendelse på ham, herunder de nationale regler om forbud mod dobbeltydel­ser, idet det dog er en betingelse, at viser den nationale lovgivning sig at være mindre gunstig for arbejdstageren end ordningen efter artikel 46 i forordning nr.1408/71, skal denne artikel anvendes«. (Se 4819 nedenfor.)
— Paragraph (2) of the same article provides that any institution of a Member State which ¡s responsible for providing Invalidity benefits shall, where a person receiving invalidity benefits can by virtue of the provisions of Article 49, establish a claim to old­age benefits under the legislation of other Member States,
FÆLLESSKABSBESTEMMELSER OM SOCIAL SIKRING indtil det tidspunkt, da bestemmelserne 1 stk. 1 kommer til anvendelse for denne institutions vedkommende.
COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY the regulation does not provide the security required by Article 51 of the Treaty and is contrary to the objectives of the Treaty?
Det må derfor kunne antages, at invaliditetsydelser, der er afløst af en alderspension, og invaliditetsydelser, der endnu ikke er afløst i denne forstand, er af samme art, hvorfor bestemmelserne I kapitel 3 finder anvendelse.
In the legal grounds for the judgment of 23 March 1982, the Court of Justice considered that: , do not prevent the application to him of only that national legislation in its entirety, including the national rules against overlapping benefits.
Under diesse betingelser udelukker forordningens artikel 12, stk. 2, sidste punktum, at nationale antikumulationsregler finder anvendelse.
If, however, the application of that national legislation proves to be less favourable to the worker than application of the conditions laid down in Article 46 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the provisions of that Article must be applied.
Arbejdstageren kan ikke nægtes arbejdsløshedsdagpenge med den begrundelse, at vedkommende fra en anden medlemsstat oppebærer en efter sammenlægning og forholdsmæssig bereg­ning fastsat Invalidepension i medfor af fællesskabsreglerne.
In the latter circumstances, paragraph 3 of Article 46 is applicable to the exclusion of the rules against overlapping benefits contained in the national legislation.