natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Følgelig finder forordningens artikel 73, stk. 1, i henhold til artikel 60 i tiltrædelsestraktaten for Kongeriget Spa nien og Republikken Portugal med virkning fra den nævnte dato anvendelse på spanske_arbejdstagere, der er beskæftiget i en anden medlemsstat end Spanien, og hvis familie bor i Spanien«.
in Case C­307/89 (application for a declaration that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga­tions under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self­employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community): Commission ν France
Bestemmelserne i artikel 73, stk. 2, er blevet ændret ved forordning nr. 3427/89 som følge af Domstolens dom i sag 41/84, Pinna mod Caisse d'allocations familiales de la Savoie (dom af 15.1.1986).
By making entitlement to the social security benefit referred to in Articles L 815.2 and L 815.3 of the new French Social Security Code subject to two condi­tions, the signing of reciprocal international agree­ments and prior residence on French territory, as regards nationals of other Member States who re­side in France and fall within the ambit of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self­employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) ofthat Regulation.
Udbetaling af ydelser (forordning nr. 1408/71)
Publication of the judgment: OJ C 180, 11.7.1991.
Det var inden da i artikel 73, stk. 2, bestemt, at beskæftigede og arbejdsløse personer, der var omfattet af fransk lovgivning, havde ret til børnetilskud fra institutionen på bopælsstedet efter den for denne gældende lovgivning for deres uden for Frankrig bosatte børn.
381 recipient resides in the territory of a Member State other than that in which the institution responsible for payment is situated.
Udgiften til disse børnetilskud afholdtes af Frankrig.
Publication of the judgment: 31.7.1991.
Reglerne om retten til børnetilskud til beskæftigede og arbejdsløse perso ner, der var omfattet af fransk lovgivning, var så ledes forskellige fra dem, der gælder for arbejdsta gere, der er omfattet af lovgivningen i en anden medlemsstat.
Judgment of 27 June 1991 in Case C-344/89 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amster­dam): Manuel Martinez Vidal ν Gemeenschappelij­ke Medische Dienst benefits or of the benefit supplement to which the recipient is entitled, the competent institution of the Member State from which the benefits are due must apply the relevant provisions of the legislation of that Member State as if the recipient and the mem­bers of his family, who reside in the same Member State as he, resided in the territory of the Member State from which benefits are due and received there the income which they receive in the Member State in which they reside; to this end, the compe­tent institution is to base itself on the information and evidence provided, at its request, by the recipi­ent and by the competent authorities of the Mem­ber State in which the recipient resides.
Familieydelser udredes af den kompetente in stitution i den stat, hvis lovgivning arbejdstageren eller den selvstændige erhvervsdrivende er omfattet af, eller, for arbejdsløse personers vedkommende, den stat, efter hvis lovgivning der ydes arbejdsløshedsunderstøttelse.
It is the duty of the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers to draw up, pursuant to Article 81(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, a list of institutions in the Member States which are responsible for providing the official in­formation referred to in Decision No 129 of 17 Octo­ber 1985 concerning the application of Articles 77, 78 and 79(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and of Article 10(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72.
Den pågældende institution anvender herved sine egne regler, uanset i hvilken medlemsstat den (fysiske eller juridiske) person, til hvem ydelserne skal betales, er bosat eller opholder sig.
Nevertheless, the competent institution of the Member State from which a benefit supplement is claimed may still apply to the Administrative Com­mission and to the authorities of the Member State in which the claimant resides in order to ascertain the name of the institution in the latter Member State which is competent to provide the official in­formation referred to in Decision No 129.
Dersom den person, til hvem familieydelserne normalt udbetales, ikke anvender dem til familie medlemmernes underhold, skal de - efter anmodning af og gennem institutionen på bopælsstedet eller det af den kompetente myndighed i bopælsstaten hertil udpegede organ - udbetales til den fysiske eller juridiske person, der faktisk forsørger familien.
Where an institution responsible for paying in­validity benefit exercises the power provided for in Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for imple­menting Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the appli­cation of social security schemes to employed per­sons, to selfemployed persons and to members of theirfamilies moving within the Community of hav­ing the recipient of the benefit residing in another Member State examined by a doctor of its choice, the person concerned may be required to go to the Member State where the competent institution is situated, provided that the travel and accommoda­tion expenses thereby incurred are borne by the competent institution and the person concerned is fit enough to make the journey without impairment of his health.
Det var på forslag af Kommissionen blevet be stemt i forordning nr. 1408/71's artikel 99, som er blevet ophævet ved forordning nr. 3427/89, at Rådet skulle tage spørgsmålet om familieydelser op til fornyet undersøgelse med henblik på at nå frem til en ensartet løsning for samtlige medlemsstater.
Where the institution at the place where the person concerned is staying or residing has deter­mined that that person is not fit enough to under­take the journey, there is nothing to prevent the institution responsible for payment or the authority responsible for medical examinations from verify­ing that circumstance on the spot.
Rådet er ikke nået frem til en sådan løsning.
Publication of the judgment: OJ C 203, 2.8.1991.
To eller flere medlemsstater kan, enten direkte eller gennem institutionen på familiens bopælssted, i henhold til bestemmelserne i forordningens artikel 8 aftale, at den kompetente institution udbetaler de familieydelser, der er ret til efter lovgivningen i disse stater eller en af disse stater, til den fysiske eller juridiske person, der faktisk forsørger familiemedlemmerne (forordning nr. 574/72, artikel 86, stk. 4). Den Administrative Kommission skal underrettes om sådanne aftaler.
Where an allowance for handicapped persons constitutes an invalidity benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, Article 10 of that Regulation precludes the with­drawal of that benefit on the sole ground that the
I sagen Pinna mod Caisse d'allocations familiales de la Savoie, har domstolen kendt artikel 73, stk. 2 for ugyldig, da den er i modstrid med Princip pet om ligebehandling og hindrer, at målsætningen i traktatens artikler 48-51 opfyldes.
A selfemployed person who, in the event of his involuntarily ceasing to work, is entitled to un­employment benefits by virtue of contributions paid or credited as an employed person is not an 'employed person' forthe purposes of Article 73(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1390/81 of 12 May 1981 ex­tending to selfemployed persons and members of their families Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, read in conjunction with Article 1(a)(i) and (ii) ofthat Regu­lation.
159 den enkle grund, at fru Salzano ikke havde ansøgt myndighederne om børnetilskud.
Compendium of Community provisions on social security
Hvis der i kraft af erhvervsudøvelse efter lov givningen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område familien er bosat, er ret til familieydelser for samme periode og for det samme familiemedlem, kan ret ten til familieydelser i beskæftigelsesstaten stilles i bero med det beløb, der ydes efter lovgivningen i den førstnævnte stat (artikel 76, stk. 1).
Article 52 of the EEC Treaty does not preclude the application to one of its nationals of legislation of a Member State which restricts child benefits to children residing in the territory of that State, dur­ing a period where, after having been employed in another Member State and having had a child there, that person returns alone to his Member State of origin and works there as a self­employed person.
(EØF) nr. 1408/71 ... skal fortolkes så ledes, at retten til ydelser efter denne forordnings artikel 73 ikke skal suspenderes, når der ikke længere er ret til familieydelser el ler børnetilskud i den medlemsstat, på hvis område familien er bosat, af den grund alene, at der ikke er indgivet ansøgning eller gentagen ansøgning herom.«
(Language of the case: French) in Case C­349/87 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Sozialgericht, Stuttgart): Paraschi ν Landesversicherungsanstalt Württemberg
Hvis der ikke indgives ansøgning om ydelserne i den medlemsstat, hvor familien er bosat, kan den kompetente institution i den anden medlemsstat anvende suspensionsreglen i artikel 76, stk. 1, som om der faktisk var udredt familieydelser I den først nævnte stat.
Article 1(c) of Council Regulation No 36/63/EEC of 2 April 1963 on social security for frontier work­ers must be interpreted as meaning that a frontier worker does not lose that status by virtue of the fact that he is wholly unemployed.
De ændringer af artikel 76, der er gennemført ved forordning nr. 3427/89, præciserer, at der af en medlemsstat, selv om der ikke er indgivet ansøgning i familiens bopælsmedlemsstat, kan forholdes, som om ydelserne faktisk var blevet tilkendt.
Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes the conditions for the grant of an in­validity pension stricter so that in future such a pen­sion will be payable only if the insured person exer­cised an activity subject to compulsory insurance and paid at least 36 monthly contributions during the 60 months preceding the occurrence of the in­validity (reference period).
Så ledes er spørgsmålet om suspension ikke afhængigt af ansøgeren alene.
Publication of the judgment: OJ C 294, 13.11.1991.
Om ydelser skal suspenderes vil afhænge af, om der objektivt består ret til dem, og ikke af, om de pågældende gør krav på ydelserne.
Judgment of 4 October 1991 in Case C­196/90 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Hof van Cassatie van België): Fonds voor Arbeidsongevallen ν Madeleine De Paep
Artikel 76 er blevet ændret ved forordning nr. 3427/89. I artikel 76's oprindelige ordlyd var det, skønt den omhandler suspension af ydelser i tilfælde af samtidig ret i bopælsmedlemsstaten på grundlag af erhvervsudøvelse, ikke angivet, at der er begrænsninger i det beløb, der kan stilles I bero.
The period of total unemployment of a frontier worker who is required, pursuant to Article 19(1) of Council Regulation No 36/63/EEC of 2 April 1963 on social security for frontier workers, to exercise his rights to unemployment benefit in the Member State of residence, although not recognized in that State as a period of insurance or a period treated as such, must be regarded as such a period in the Member State in which he was last employed, whose legislation, applicable at the material time, assimilated periods of unemployment spent on its territory to sickness insurance periods.
Skønt det nu i forordningens artikel 76 er be stemt, at ydelser anses for tildelt, selv hvis der ikke er indgivet ansøgning, skal der være ret til disse.
in Case C­186/90 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Durighello ν Instituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
Domstolen har imidlertid afgjort, at der består begrænsninger i det ydelsesbeløb, der kan stilles i bero i den ene medlemsstat, når der er adkomst i en anden medlemsstat på grundlag af erhvervsudøvelse: øvelse:
Article 14(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as in force in February 1980, must be interpreted as having the effect of rendering inoperative vis­à­vis the persons to which it refers or those claiming under them:
»Reglen i artikel 76 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 om, at retten til familieydelser eller børnetilskud i medfør af bestemmelserne i artikel 73 stilles i bero, finder ikke anvendelse, når faderen arbejder udenlands i en medlemsstat, mens moderen er arbejdstager i det land, hvor de øvrige familiemedlemmer har bopæl, og ikke ¡følge dette lands lovgivning har erhvervet ret til børnetilskud.« (sag 134/77 Ragazzoni mod Assubel; dom af 20.4.1978).
Articles 77 to 79 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self­employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as consoli­dated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, cannot be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which provides for
(EØF) 1408/71 skal fortolkes således, at retten til børnetilskud, som kan kræves udbetalt fra beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten af en af forældrene i medfør af forordningens artikel 73, alene stilles i bero med det beløb, der modsvarer de ydelser af samme art, som faktisk udbetales i den medlems stat, på hvis område børnene er bosat.
family allowances for a pensioner's dependent spouse from applying to a person in receipt of an old­age pension under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/ 71.
Såfremt de børnetilskud, der faktisk modtages fra bopælsmedlemsstaten, er lavere end de ydelser, der udbetales i henhold til lovgivningen i den anden medlemsstat, kan arbejdstageren fra den kompetente institution i sidstnævnte stat kræve udbetalt en supplerende ydelse, som er lig med forskellen mellem de to ydelser« (sag 153/84 Ferraioli mod Deutsche Bundespost; dom af 23.4.1986, sag 24/88 Georges mod Office national d'allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés; dom af 27.7.1986.
The prohibition of any discrimination based on na­tionality as regards remuneration and social advan­tages, as laid down in Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of move­ment for workers within the Community, precludes national rules which require a body responsible for recovering social security contributions to take into account, for a trainee worker who does not come under the national education system, a basis for calculating employers' social security contributions which is less favourable than that applied in re­spect of a trainee worker who comes under the na­tional education system.
605.1 artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), i forordning nr. 574/72 er der fastsat reglerfor de tilfælde, hvoren arbejdstager eller selvstændig erhvervsdrivende har ret til familieydelser eller børnetilskud efter en medlems stats lovgivning, hvorefter retten ikke er betinget af forsikringsperioder eller perioder med lønnet eller selvstændig beskæftigelse, og samtidig er berettiget til ydelserne efter lovgivningen i en anden med lemsstat.
However, that condition may be justified by the need to safeguard the cohesion of the applica­ble tax system. That need may exist, for example, where the tax system of a Member State is such that the deductibility of the contributions is offset by the taxation of payments made by insurers pur­suant to the contracts, and vice versa, and where it would be impossible to ensure that the deductions were offset by subsequent taxation of payments because payments arising from the deductible con­tributions were made by a foreign insurer estab­lished in another country where there would be no certainly of subjecting them to tax.
Artikel 76 er blevet ændret på baggrund af disse domme.
The application is dismissed.
Yderligere ændringer af artikel 76 er blevet nødvendige som følge af Domstolens praksis, ¡følge hvilken den anden medlemsstat, efter hvis lovgiv ning der består ret til ydelserne, Ikke kan suspendere disse i tilfælde af, at der ikke indgives ansøgning (og betingelserne således ikke er opfyldt) i familiens bopælsstat.
The application is dismissed. The case concerned an application for a declaration that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations by refusing to pay child benefit to employed persons who have taken early retirement and who live out­side the national territory but who remain subject to Netherlands law pursuant to Articles 73 and 75 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
Hvis den person, der har ret til familieydelser eller børnetilskud, udøver beskæftigelse på en så dan medlemsstats område, suspenderes imidlertid retten til familieydelserne eller børnetilskuddet ef ter artikel 73 og 74, og der udbetales kun familie ydelser eller børnetilskud efter lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område familien er bosat og til udgift for denne [forordning nr. 574/72, artikel 10, stk. 1, litra b)].
The case concerned an application for a declaration that by imposing a health insurance tax on persons in receipt of supplementary pensions and early­retirement benefits who reside in a Member State other than France and who are not insured against sickness or confinement under a French scheme,
»Retten til børnetilskud, der kan kræves udbetalt i medfør af arti kel 73 i forordning nr.
Compendium of Community provisions on social security
(EØF) 1408/71 i det land, hvor én af forældrene har beskæftigelse, stilles ikke i bero, når den anden af for ældrene bor med børnene i en anden medlemsstat og dér ud øver et erhverv dog uden at modtage børnetilskud for børnene, fordi betingelserne efter denne stats lovgivning for at oppebære de nævnte tilskud ikke er opfyldt.«
(e) the amount resulting from full application of the national law applicable, including its rules for the prevention of overlapping benefits, must be compared with the amount arrived at after the calculation pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the highest of those amounts to be take into consideration.
I det pågældende tilfælde var ansøgningsformaliteterne ikke opfyldt i bopælsmedlemsstaten af
Publication of the judgment: OJ C 81, 1.4.1992.
I sag 149/82, Robards mod Insurance (dom af 3.2.1983), har Domstolen udtalt:
(Language of the case: German)
Samling af fællesskabsbestemmelserne om social sikring
Publication of the judgment: OJ C 174, 10.7.1992.
»Suspensionsbestemmelsen i artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72 skal fortolkes således, at den finder anvendelse, når institutionen i en anden medlemsstat rent faktisk i medfør af artikel 73 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 har tildelt en arbejdstager familieydelser for samme barn, uden at det er nødvendigt at undersøge, om alle betingelserne for tildeling af disse ydelser er opfyldt i medfør af den anden medlemsstats lov givning.«
Article 18(1) to (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to em­ployed persons and their families moving within the Community must be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution, even where it is the employer and not a social security institution, is bound in law and in fact by the medical findings made by the institution of the place of residence or the place where the person concerned is staying as regards the commencement and duration of the in­capacity where it does not have that person exam­ined by a docter of its own choice, as is permitted by Article 18(5).
Hvis en arbejdstager, der er omfattet af en medlemsstats lovgivning, er berettiget til børnetilskud i kraft af forsikringseller beskæftigelsesperioder, han tidligere har tilbagelagt efter græsk lovgiv ning, suspenderes denne ret, hvis der i samme periode og for de samme børn består ret til børnetilskud efter lovgivningen i den førstnævnte med lemsstat i henhold til artiklerne 73 eller 74 i forordning nr. 1408/71 (forordning nr. 574/72, artikel 10, stk. 2).
Unemployment benefits constitute benefits of the same kind within the meaning ofthe first sen­tence of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/ 71 when they are intended to replace the salary lost by reason of unemployment so as to provide for the maintenance of a person, and when the differ­ences which exist between those benefits, particu­larly those relating to the basis of calculation and the conditions for their grant, are the result of struc­tural differences between the national schemes.
Artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), er igen blevet behandlet af Domstolen i sag 104/84, Kromhout mod Raad van Arbeid (dom af 4.7.1985).
The competent institution of a Member State under whose legislation the acquisition and dura­tion of a right to unemployment benefit are contin­gent on the completion of insurance periods must, in a situation under Article 71(1)(b)(ii) and Article 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 12(1) thereof, take ac­count, for the calculation of unemployment benefit entitlement, of the periods of insurance completed under the legislation to which the unemployed per­son was last subject.
Domstolen har i denne sag analyseret, hvad formålet i almindelig hed er med familieydelser samt med retten til at suspendere disse i de tilfælde af samtidig ret, der er nævnt i artikel 10 i forordning nr. 574/72:
On the other hand, for the purposes of determining the benefit due un­der Community law, the competent institution should nottake account ofthe national rules against overlapping pursuant to Article 12(2) ofthe Regula­tion, but, if necessary, adjust the amount of the ben­efit due, pursuant to Article 46(3). The worker is
Ydelser til børn, der forsørges af pensionister eller rentemodtagere, samt til børn, der har mistet begge forældre eller en af dem (artikel 77 i forordning nr. 1408/71)
The certified statement issued in accordance with Article 84(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 does not constitute irrefutable proof vis­à­vis the institution of another Member State which is com­petent for matters relating to unemployment or vis­à­vis the courts of that State.
»Det fremgår klart af disse bestemmelser, at familieydelser og børnetilskud har til formål at give en social lettelse til arbejdsta gere med forsørgerbyrder, i form af en ydelse til hjælp hertil, som gives af samfundet.
Neither Article 48 and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EEC Treaty, nor the provisions of Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the ap­plication of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, particularly Articles 3 and 84(4) thereof, apply to situations entirely confined within a single Member State.
Det er derfor formålet med de her omhandlede forbud mod dobbeltydelser at undgå, at der kompenseres dobbelt for forsørgelsesudgifterne, idet en ekstra udbetaling til arbejdstagerens familie ville være uretmæssig.
Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their fami­lies moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, must be interpreted as meaning that they cannot be relied on by a national of a nonmember coun­try, the spouse of a worker who is a national of a Member State, to claim a handicapped person's al­lowance which the national legislation grants as a personal right and not by reason of the status of member of a worker's family.