natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
dels i betragtning af, at artikel 42, stk. 5, har til formål at fastslå, at det alene er lovgivningen i den stat, som det påhviler at udbetale renteerstatning i anledning af en arbejdsulykke, der skal anvendes på betaling af børnetil skud i de omhandlede tilfælde, dels i betragtning af, at børnetilskud til børn efter en afdød arbejdstager efter bestemmelsens ordlyd ikke blot omfatter de tilskud, som udbetales i de tilfælde, hvor et barn, der har mistet en eller begge forældre, erhverver et krav på en løbende renteerstatning, men også de tilskud, som udbetales i tilfælde, hvor der opstår et krav på pension eller rente i anledning af en persons død, herunder enkepension;
In its reply to this question, the Court of Justice, considering that the family allowances payable to the children of a deceased worker under Article 45 (5) of Regulation No 3 were not merely those awarded In the case of entitlement to any pension payable as the result of the death, in particular the pension awarded to the widow, and that the wording of the paragraph showed that its aim was to determine the legislation of the State which was liable to pay the pension for accidents at work as the sole legislation applicable with regard to the payment of family allowances in the case to which it refers, ruled as follows:
5422 — Dersom erhvervelse, bevarelse eller generhver velse af ret til ydelser afhænger af forsikrings- eller beskæftigelsesperiodernes længde, anvendes, alt efter omstændighederne, de sammenlægningsregler, der gælder for ydelser ved alderdom (ovenfor nr. 4792, 4793 og 4798) eller for familieydelser (ovenfor nr. 5915).
5413 — Where, after the award of benefits referred to in ' No 5410, the death of this pensioner gives rise to the award of orphans' benefits, the legislation of the Member State which was responsible for the provision of the first benefits remains so in respect of orphans' benefit.
følgende dom: »Artikel 42, stk. 5, i forordning nr. 3 skal fortolkes således, at den fastslår, hvilken lovgivning der skal anvendes ved betalingen af børnetilskud til børn efter en arbejdstager, som er død ved en arbejdsulykke, og at disse børns ret til børnetilskud ikke er betinget af, at de modtager renteerstatning i anledning af dødsfaldet.«
'Article 42, paragraph 5 of Regulation No 3 must be interpreted as determining the legislation applicable to the payment of family allowances to the children of a worker who died as a result of an accident at work and as meaning that the right of the children of the deceased to family allowance is not linked to the award of an orphan's pension.'
5423 — Dersom ydelsernes størrelse beregnes på grund lag af pensionens størrelse eller afhænger af forsik ringsperiodernes længde, skal det teoretiske beløb, der anvendes ved fastsættelsen af ydelser ved alderdom, lægges til grund for beregningen.
5414 — The provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 described above fill a lacuna In Regulation No 3; Article 42 (5) and (6) of this regulation in fact only referred to family allowances for orphans which sometimes meant that only the payment of reduced benefit could be authorized or, on the other hand, could entail an overlapping, partial or whole, of benefits according to the country of residence of the orphan where the deceased worker during his career, had been subject, to legislations some of which provided for the payment of pensions and others for the award of family allowances in respect of orphans.
B — Regler, der skal anvendes i tilfælde af samtidig ret til ydelser efter flere medlemsstaters lovgivning
— the expression 'has been subject to the legislation' contained ¡n Article 4 paragraphe, letter (a) of Regulation No 3 (Regulation No 1408/71, Article 78, uses the same expression), must be understood ¡n the sense that the deceased worker can only be considered as having been subject to the legislation if he actually met the conditions giving rise to entitlement to benefit for him self or for those deriving benefit from him;
5424 — Retten til ydelserne stilles i bero, hvis der i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse består ret til familieydelser eller børnetilskud for de pågældende børn efter en medlems stats lovgivning.
— where the orphan resides in the territory of a Member State where the deceased worker has completed insufficient insurance periods to have gained entitlement to the benefits provided by the legislation of the country of residence, the competent institu tion of the country from which the pension or allowance is due must pay the family allowances to the persons deriving benefit from him.
I så fald anses de for en arbejdstagers eller en selvstændig erhvervsdrivendes familiemedlem mer.
C — Special implementation procedures for the legislation of certain Member States
— når barnet er bosat på en medlemsstats område, hvor den afdøde arbejdstager ikke har tilbagelagt tilstrækkeligt lange forsik ringsperioder til at berettige ham til ydelser efter lovgivningen i bopælslandet, skal den kompetente ¡nstitution i det land, som det påhvilede at udbetale pensionen eller ren ten, udbetale børnetilskud til de berettigede.
The dispute concerned the interpretation of Article 42 (5) of Regulation No 3 which laid down the legislation on family allowances applicable on the death of an employed person or a person treated as such in respect of whom a pension for an accident at work or an occupational disease was payable under the legislation of a Member State.
5425 — Ved anvendelsen af den foranstående regel anses familieydelser eller børnetilskud, der ydes i kraft af enhver erhvervsudøvelse, hvad enten den er lønnet eller
In order to determine under German legislation whether there is a child in receipt of an orphan's pension, the fact of being in receipt of one of the benefits mentioned in Article 78 of Regulation No 1408/71 (No 5410 supra), or of some other family benefit awarded under French
På grundlag af bl. a. følgende præmisser: tive Kommission.
See first part, I­1A (Regulation No 1408/71), No 1464.
5427 — Det modsatte er dog tilfældet, hvor der udøves en erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse på bopælslandets område, idet det er præciseret, at den pågældende, udover familieydelser eller børnetilskud i den medlems stat, på hvis område børnene er bosat, i givet fald har ret til andre ydelser end børnetilskud efter forordningens artikel 77 eller 78 for den stats regning, der er kompetent i den i disse artikler omhandlede forstand.
5427 — However, the opposite solution is adopted where paid employment is pursued in the territory of the country of residence, It being understood that in addition to family benefits or allowances of the Member State in whose territory the children reside, the person concer­ned receives, as appropriate, benefits other than family allowances due in application of Articles 77 or 78 of the regulation from the competent State in the sense of those articles.
— det ville stride mod målet med de fælles skabsretlige regler om forbud mod dobbeltydelser inden for social sikring, hvis omfanget af en ydelse til en ydelsesberettiget kan formindskes ved, at en anden ydelsesberettiget oppebærer en ydelse; afsagde Domstolen sålydende dom:
5420 — Benefits for dependent children of pensioners or for orphans are provided by the institution of the State whose legislation is found to be applicable in accordance with the provisions referred to in Nos 5402 and 5411 supra. They are at the expense of that institution as if the pensioner or deceased worker had only been subject to the legislation of that State.
Man vil bemærke, at suspensionen af retten i det under nr. 5427 omhandlede tilfælde er begrænset til kun at omfatte børnetilskud efter artikel 77 eller artikel 78 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
It should be noted that in the contingency referred to in No 5427, suspension of entitlement is limited only to family allowances due in application of Article 77 or 78 of Regulation No 1408/71.
5428 — Anvendelsen af forordningens artikel 79 har givet anledning til tre afgørelser fra Domstolen.
5428 — The application of Article 79 of the regulation has given rise to three decisions by the Court of Justice.
»Retten til de i artikel 79, stk. 3 i Rådets forordning nr. 140871 omhandlede ydelser stilles kun i bero i medfør af denne bestemmelse for at undgå dobbeltydelser, for så
See first part, III, Case­law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Cases 115/77, 100/78, 9/79.
Se tørsfe del, III, Domme afsagt af De europæiske Fællesskabers vidt som disse ydelser sammenlægges med ydelser af Domstol, sag 115/77, 100/78 og 9/79. samme art, som består i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse.«
5422 — Where the acquisition, maintenance or recovery of entitlement to benefit depends on the duration of periods of insurance or employment, use is made, where necessary, of the aggregation rules laid down for retire­ment benefits (Nos 4792, 4793, 4798 supra), or family benefits (No 5915 supra).
5428-1—Sag 11577, Gert Laumann og Anja Laumann mod Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz; dom af 16. marts 1978.
5428­1 —Case 115/77 (Gert Laumann and Anja Laumann ν Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz— Judg­ment of 16 March 1978).
I forbindelse med denne sag havde Kommissionen »rejst tvivl om, hvorvidt forordning nr. 140871 kan anvendes i den foreliggende sag, fordi hverken sagsøgernes far, mor eller stedfar er flyttet fra en medlemsstat til en anden på grund af erhvervsudøvelse«.
5423 — Where the amount of benefit is calculated on the basis of the amount of the pension or depends on the duration of periods of insurance, this calculation is made by reference to the theoretical amount applicable in the determination of retirement benefits.
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 Belgien på deres mors og stedfars bopæl.
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.
Problemet var, om børnene eventuelt kunne modtage rente som børn, der har mistet begge forældre eller én af dem, fra den tyske ¡nstitution samtidig med børnetilskud, der tilkendes efter den belgiske sociale sikringsordning på grundlag af de beskæftigelsesperioder, børnenes stedfar har tilbage lagt i Belgien.
The point at Issue was to what extent the persons concerned might receive an orphan's pension provided by the German institution which overlapped with family allowances awarded under the Belgian social security scheme in respect of periods of employment completed in Belgium by the stepfather of the appellants.
For at løse dette problem forelagde en tysk domstol De europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol følgende spørgsmål:
A German Court remitted the case to the Court of Justice with the following questions:
5428-2 —Sag 10078. Claudino Rossi mod Caisse de compensation pour allocations familiales des régions de Charleroi et Namur (dom af 6.3.1979).
See No 823.
»Skal artikel 79, stk. 3, i forordning (EØF) nr. 140871 forstås således, 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? Dvs.: Krav på ovennævnte rente over for forsikringsinstitutioner i to medlemsstater medfører, at et af de to krav stilles i
'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 ?
Den holdning, Domstolen gav udtryk for i sag 13477 Ragazzoni (ovenfor nr. 4743) vedrørende anvendelsen af reglen om forbud mod dobbeltydelser i artikel 76 i forordning nr. 140871, er blevet bekræftet i en lignende
5426 — Where benefits are due for the same period for the same member of the family in application of Arti­cles 77 and 78 of the regulations, on the one hand and under the legislation of a Member State according to which the acquisition of entitlement to these benefits is not subject to insurance or employment conditions on
FÆLLESSKABSBESTEMMELSER OM SOCIAL SIKRING at en arbejdstager eller dennes ydelsesberettigede pårørende fratages en del af ydelserne efter en medlemsstats lovgivning; sag, hvor en italiensk arbejdstager, som siden den 11. december 1967 havde oppebåret en pension fra en belgisk institution for social sikring for en permanent uarbejdsdygtighed på 100 %, fra den 28. februar 1973, da han vendte tilbage til Italien med sin hustru og to børn, ophørte med at få udbetalt børnetilskud efter belgisk lovgivning.
COMPENDIUM OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY ces was based on the reasoning that the wife of the person concerned exercised a professional or trade activity in Italy which was capable of opening an entitle ment to family allowances under Italian legislation.
— en sådan undtagelse er indeholdt i artikel 79, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 140871, der bestem mer, at retten til ydelser til børn, over for hvilke pensionisten har forsørgerpligt, stilles i bero, såfremt der i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse kan kræves udbetalt familieydelser eller bør netilskud fo de pågældende børn efter en medlemsstats lovgivning;
legislation under which orphans' benefits must be granted, included family allowances and orphans' pensions, those two types of benefits were of a clearly different kind and this was further recognized in Articles 1 (u) (ii) and 4 (1) of the regulation;
Den belgiske institution stillede udbetalingen af børnetil skuddene i bero med den begrundelse, at arbejdstagerens ægtefælle i Italien havde lønnet arbejde, der i medfør af italiensk lovgivning gav ret til børnetilskud.
— in the system established by Regulation No 1408/71, family allowances were generated by an actual occupation (even if the worker was no longer engaged in such an occupation), and the direct and sole recipient was the worker himself;
— 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.
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 unem ployed.
Den italienske institution, INPS, afviste imidlertid en ansøgning fra hustruen om børnetilskud med den begrundelse, at retten til børnetilskud efter gældende italiensk lovgivning tilkom faderen i dennes egenskab af familieforsørger, og at denne status ikke kunne overføres til en anden person, idet faderen hverken var invalid eller arbejdsløs.
— on the other hand, the direct and sole recipient of the orphan's pension was the orphan himself and the pension, like other survivors' benefits, constituted the projection in time of a prior occupation, pursuit of which ceased on the death of the worker;
»Artikel 79, stk. 3, gælder kun for det beløb, der faktisk udbetales i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse.«
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 under the legislation of the State where the professional or trade activity was exercised.
Domstolen påpegede, at reglen om forbud mod dobbelt ydelser i artikel 79, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 140871 (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.
Such was not the case when a right existed in 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.
I den pågældende sag drejede det sig om fortolkningen af artikel 10, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 574/72, hvorefter retten til børnetilskud, som en pensionist mod tager 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. tigelse.
'The right to the benefits referred to in Article 79 (3) of Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council isto 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.'
»Efter artikel 79, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning nr. 140871 stilles retten til børnetilskud for børn, over for hvem faderen, der er pensionist efter en medlemsstats lovgiv ning, har forsørgerpligt, ikke i bero, såfremt moderen ikke faktisk har erhvervet ret til 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.'
Den nederlandske version af artikel 10, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 57472 benytter ordet »echtgenote« (ægtehustru), hvorimod alle de andre versioner anvender et udtryk, som omfatter såvel mandlige som kvindelige arbejdstagere.
The Commission of the European Communities had questioned whether Regulation No 1408/71 was applicable to the present case since neither the father, the mother, nor the stepfather of the appellants had moved from one Member State to another in connection with work.
I samme sag havde Domstolen fået forelagt følgende spørgsmål:
In the same case the Court of Justice was also asked to decide the question:
»Såfremt det antages, at den italienske myndigheds opfattelse ikke længere er berettiget på grund af princip perne 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 regula tion also applied when the residence in another Member State was not that of the worker himself but of his survivor.
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). 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. 57472 med den begrundelse, at sagsøgerens ægtemand udøvede erhvervsmæssig virksomhed i Tyskland og dér oppebar børnetilskud.
'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?'
I denne forbindelse fremførte Domstolen følgende:
In this respect the Court stated:
— Forordningerne har ikke indført en fælles social sikringsordning, men har ladet selv stændige ordninger bestå, der hjemler be stemte krav mod bestemte institutioner, over for hvilke den ydelsesberettigede har direkte rettigheder enten i medfør af national ret alene eller i medfør af national ret om nødvendigt suppleret med fællesskabsretten;
— the regulations did not set up a common scheme of social security, but allowed different schemes to exist, creating different claims on different institutions against which the claimant possesses direct rights by virtue either of national law alone or of national law supplemented, where necessary, by Community law;
— Nødvendigheden af en ensartet fortolkning af fællesskabsforordningerne udelukker imidlertid, at den pågældende bestemmelses ordlyd betragtes isoleret, hvorfor bestem melsen må fortolkes og anvendes på baggrund af versionerne i de andre officielle sprog;
The position of the Court expressed In Case 134/77 (Ragazzoni—No 4753 supra), which was linked to the application of the overlapping provisions set out in Article 76 of-Regulation No 1408/71, was confirmed in a related case concerning a former worker of Italian nationality who after having been admitted to the benefit of an allowance from a Belgian social security institution because of a 100 % permanent incapacity for work since 11 December 1967, had his family allowances under Belgian legislation suspended as from 28 February 1973 which was the date he returned to Italy his wife and two children.
— bortset fra udtrykkelige undtagelser i over ensstemmelse med traktatens formål kan Fællesskabets regler ikke anvendes således,
— the Community rules could not, In the absence of an express exception consistent with the aims of the Treaty, be applied in such a way as to deprive a migrant worker or his dependents of the benefit of a part of the legislation of a Member State;
— denne fortolkning bestyrkes dels af bestem-
— one such exception is established by Arti-
5428 ydelser i henhold til ovennævnte bestemmelser, når der i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse kan kræves udbetalt familieydelser eller børnetilskud for de pågældende børn efter en medlemsstats lovgivning).
5428 dered in isolation and requires that It should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions established in the other official languages; cie 79 (3) of Regulation No 1408/71 which provides that entitlement to benefit for dependent children of pensioners should be suspended if children become entitled to family benefits or family allowances under the legislation of a Member State by virtue of the pursuit of a professional or trade activity;
melsens formål, som er at undgå dobbelte børnetilskud til samme børn, og dels af princippet om en lige behandling af mandlige og kvindlige arbejdstagere på det sociale sikringsområde; afsagde Domstolen sålydende dom:
— 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.