natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— ordet »erhvervet«, der forekommer i arti­kel 10, stk. 1, i forordningerne nr. 3 og nr. 1408/71, skal forstås derhen, at den beskyttelse, der sikres ved denne bestem­melse, også omfatter ydelser, der er en følge af særlige ordninger i henhold til den natio­nale lovgivning, og som giver konkret udtryk i en forhøjelse af den ydelse, som ellers ville tilkomme modtageren.
sions, due account having been taken of the application of the agreements for Community rights and especially the principle of non-discrimination between nationals of other Member States ; the word ' acquired ' which appears in Article 10 (1) of Regulation No 3 and Regulation No 1408/71 should be understood here to mean that the protection insured by this provision extends to the advantages result ing from individual schemes of national entitlement, and which are passed on by means of an increase in the level of the benefit which would otherwise revert to the beneficiary.
I denne sag, som vedrørte et søgsmål, der var anlagt af en italiensk arbejdstager, der er bosat i Italien, mod en belgisk institution for social sikring med påstand om ophævelse af denne institutions afslag på at tildele sagsøgeren invaliditetsydelser på grundlag af forsik­ringsperioder, tilbagelagt i det tidligere belgiske Congo, nu republikken Zaïre, blev der stillet spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt artikel 10, stk. 1, første afsnit i forordning nr. 1408/71 om ophævelse af bopælsbestemmelser fin­der anvendelse på modtageren af ydelser, som er erhver­vet i henhold til lønnet beskæftigelse, der udelukkende er udøvet på et associeret territorium, når denne modtager, der er statsborger i en medlemsstat, er bosat i en anden medlemsstat end den, som skal betale de pågældende ydelser.
In this case, in which an Italian worker who resided in Italy appealed against the decision of a Belgian social security institution's refusal to grant him invalidity benefits in respect of periods of insurance he had completed in the former Belgian Congo, now the Republic of Zaire, the following question was asked as to whether the waiving of residence clauses provided for in the first sentence of Article 10 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71 was applicable to a recipient of benefits acquired in respect of gainful employment exercised exclusively in an associated territory when such a recipient, who was a national of a Member State, resided in the territory of a Member State other than that which was responsible for payment of the relevant benefit.
Den belgiske institution havde i det væsentlige begrun­det sit afslag med, at sådanne ydelser i henhold til den nationale lovgivning, der finder anvendelse, kun tilken­des personer, der har faktisk og sædvanlig bopæl i Belgien eller i en af de tidligere belgiske kolonier.
The Belgian institution had based its refusal to grant benefit on the ground that under the competent national legislation, the relevant benefits were awarded only to persons who actually and usually resided in Belgium or in a former Belgian colony.
Dette var ikke tilfældet I denne sag, da sagsøgeren var bosat i Italien.
That was not the case here, as the applicant resided in Italy.
— at bilag A til forordning nr. 3 i dets tidligere formulering indebærer, at de franske institu­tioner skal respektere de rettigheder, der er erhvervet i Algeriet af en vandrende arbejds­tager før 19. januar 1965,
In this case concerning a German national who had been covered successively by social insurance schemes in Germany, France and Algeria, and who had obtained, as from 1 November 1962, a disability pension from an Algerian Fund, the Court of Justice gave judgment that :
Som svar på dette spørgsmål og i betragtning af, at forordningen ikke indeholder nogen bestemmelse, som fraviger artikel 10, stk. 1, første afsnit, i forordning nr. 1408/71 med henblik på sådanne tilfælde, har Dom­stolen afsagt følgende dom:
In reply to this question, and having regard to the fact that the Regulation did not contain any provisions derogating from the first sentence of Article 10 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71 in cases such as this, the Court of Justice ruled as follows :
— at den omstændighed, at sådanne rettighe­der er anerkendt af en algiersk kasse før 19. januar 1965, ikke fritager de franske in­stitutioner for deres forpligtelser, heller ikke når disse institutioner først har modtaget anmodningen om overførslen efter ikrafttræ­delsen af forordning nr. 109/65,
— ' Annex A of Regulation No 3, in its original wording, indicates that entitlement acquired in Algeria before 19 January 1965 by a migrant worker must be honoured by French institutions.
— at en vandrende arbejdstager, som før 19. januar 1965 har været bosat på fransk område i den i bilag A til forordning nr. 3
— The fact that such rights may have been recognized by an Algerian Fund before 19 January 1965 does not release the French institution from the obligations even if application for transfer has only been made to those institutions after the bringing into force of Regulation No 109/65.
»I mangel af anden udtrykkelig, modstående bestem­melse omfatter ophævelsen af bopælsbestemmelser i artikel 10, stk. 1, første afsnit, i forordning nr. 1408/71 det tilfælde, at en person er tilsikret ydelser efter en medlemsstats lovgivning på grund af en beskæftigelse,
' In the absence of express provisions to the contrary, the waiving of residence clauses provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 10 paragraph (1), of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 applies to the situation of a recipient of benefits guaranteed by the legislation of a Member State in respect of employment exclusively in the territory which had at that time a special relationship with a Member State, when such recipient who is a national of a Member State, resides in the territory of a Member State other than that which is responsible for payment of the social security benefit in respect of employment in the said territory '.
Se ligeledes sag 144/78 (Tinelli), nr. 4064 ovenfor.
Vide also Case 144/78 (Tinelli) supra 4064.
4192 — For så vidt angår anvendelsen af disse bestemmelser på dansk, irsk og britisk lovgivning, anses invalide-, alders- og enkepensioner for ydelser af samme art (forordning nr. 1408/71, bilag V B 11, E 6, I 13).
— A migrant worker having resided on French territory as defined in Annex A of Regulation No 3 before 19 January 1975 is justified in submitting his request for a pension to the last French institution with which he had previously been registered. '
§ 2 — Præcisering af bestemmelserne i artikel 10, stk. 2
§ 2 — Explanations concerning the provisions of Article 10 (2)
Disse bestemmelser er tilføjet ved forordning nr. 1392/74 for at tage hensyn til særregler i dansk, irsk og britisk lovgivning.
4167-3 —Case 24/74 of 9 October 1974 (Giusseppina Biason v. Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie de Paris). '
Eftersom pensionsalderen varierer mellem de enkelte lande, og reglerne om forbud mod dobbeltydelser er forskellige, måtte man søge at undgå, at koordineringen af de nationale lovgivninger skulle medføre en fordeling af udgifterne ved ydelserne og en nedsættelse af ydel serne til enker og invalider, som ikke har været tilsigtet ved forordningernes udarbejdelse.
An insured person, the holder of a disability sickness pension acquired by virtue of his paid employ ment in a single Member State where he was residing, and receiving because of this pension a supplementary benefit (in this particular case it was in fact the supplementary benefit from the national solidarity fund established in France by the Act of 30 June 1956 (fonds national de solidarité)), retains this benefit in a case of transfer of residence to the territory of another Member State, so long as this benefit comes within the scope of Regulation No 3, and this remains valid even if this supplementary benefit is reserved by national law only for persons residing on national territory. '
4168 — I sag 104/76 (Gerda Jansen mod Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz), har Domstolen i sin dom af 5. maj 1977 fastslået, at den særlige bestemmelse i artikel 10, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke kan udvides til tilfælde, der ligger uden for denne forordnings anvendelsesområde i tiden; i artikel 10, stk. 2, bestemmes det, at »såfremt refusion af bidrag efter en medlems stats lovgivning er betinget af, at den pågældende ikke længere er omfattet af en tvungen forsikring, anses denne betingelse ikke for opfyldt, så længe den pågæl dende som arbejdstager er omfattet af en tvungen forsik ring i henhold til en anden medlemsstats lovgivning«.
4168-1 — In Case 104/76 (Gerda Jansen v. Landesvereicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz — Judgment of 5 May 1977), the Court of Justice had stated that the specific rule in Article 10 (2) of Regulation No 1408/71, which provided that ' where under the legislation of a Member State reimbursement of contributions is conditional upon the person concerned having ceased to be subject to compulsory insurance, this condition shall not be considered as satisfied as long as the person concerned is subject to compulsory insurance asa worker under the legislation of a Member State ', must remain limited to the period covered by that Regulation.
Tvisten om refusion af bidrag vedrørte faktisk en periode, der ligger før ikrafttrædelsen af forordning nr. 1408/71 og var omfattet af forordning nr. 3 (om denne sag se ligeledes 4043-2).
The action for reimbursement of contributions related to a period before the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71 and came within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 3. (In regard to this case vide also 4043-2).
4169-4179 åben.
Article
4180 — Alle de ydelser, der i henhold til forordningen udredes efter en medlemsstats lovgivning, skal eventuelt reguleres i det omfang og under de betingelser, der er fastsat i denne lovgivning.
4180 — All benefits due under the legislation, in accor dance with the Regulation, may be revalorized to the
Denne regel fandtes ikke i forordning nr. 3.
This rule did not appear in Regulation No 3.
Det drejer sig således om en ny bestemmelse, som stadfæster en i øvrigt gældende praksis.
It is therefore a new provision which confirms a current practice.
4181-4189 åben.
4181 to 4189 not used.
Forbud mod dobbeltydelser
Overlapping of benefits
4193 c— Reglerne til gennemførelse af bestemmelserne om undgåelse af dobbeltydelser i forbindelse med ydel ser ved invaliditet, alderdom og dødsfald (pensioner) er fastsat i artikel 7 i forordning nr. 574/72 (se 4822-4832 nedenfor).
4193c— So as to take account of the special features of Dutch legislation, it is made clear at Article 12 (4) that where a Dutch institution which is called upon, under national legislation, to pay an invalidity pension, is also obliged to participate in the cost of an occupational disease benefit awarded under the legislation of another Member State, this invalidity pension is reduced by the amount due from the institution responsible for paying the occupational disease benefit.
4190 — Der kan ikke med hjemmel i forordningen rejses eller opretholdes krav på flere ydelser af samme art på grundlag af samme forsikringsperiode tilbagelagt efter en tvungen forsikring, undtagen hvor det drejer sig om ydelser ved invaliditet, alderdom, dødsfald (pensioner) eller erhvervssygdom, der fastsættes af institutionerne i to eller flere medlemsstater i overensstemmelse med reglerne i artikel 41, artikel 43, stk. 2 og 3, artiklerne 46, 50 og 51 eller artikel 60, stk. 1, litra b).
4193d—The rules for applying overlapping provisionsto benefits in respect of invalidity, old age and death (pensions) are laid down at Article 7 of Regulation No 574/72 (vide infra 4822 to 4832).
4194— Reglerne til gennemførelse af artikel 12 i tilfælde af samtidig ret til ydelser ved sygdom eller moderskab efter lovgivningen i flere medlemsstater er fastsat i artikel 8 i forordning nr. 574/72. (Se ligeledes 4580 nedenfor, artikel 34 i forordning nr. 1408/71.)
4190 — Except as regards benefits for invalidity, old age, death (pensions) or occupational diseases paid by the institutions of two or more Member States in compliance with Articles 41, 43 (2) and (3), 46, 50 and 51 or Article 60 (1) (b) of the Regulation, the latter may neither confer, nor maintain, entitlement to several benefits of the same nature in respect of the same period of compulsory insurance (Article 12 (1)).
4195-4199 åben.
4195 to 4199 not used.
4200 —Artikel 9 i forordning nr. 574/72 indeholder regler om samtidig ret til ydelser ved dødsfald efter lovgivningen i flere medlemsstater.
4200 — Article 9 of Regulation No 574/72 determines the rules applicable in the event of the overlapping of entitlement to death benefits under the legislation of several Member States.
4191 —Anvendelsen af bestemmelser i en medlemsstats lovgivning om, at en ydelse skal nedsættes, stilles i bero eller bortfalde, når modtageren samtidig får udbetalt andre sociale sikringsydelser eller modtager andre ind tægter, gælder tillige for ydelser eller indtægter, der er opnået efter en anden medlemsstats lovgivning eller på dennes område, undtagen hvor det drejer sig om ydelser af samme art ved invaliditet, alderdom, dødsfald (pensioner) eller erhvervssygdom, der er fastsat af institutio nerne i flere medlemsstater i overensstemmelse med
4191 —Clauses for reduction, suspension or withdrawal, provided for under the legislation of a Member State may also be invoked against a beneficiary who acquires social security benefits or revenues in another Member State.
4201—Artikel 10 i forordning nr. 574/72 indeholder regler om samtidig ret til familieydelser eller børnetil skud, eller når arbejdstageren successivt har været omfattet af lovgivningen i flere medlemsstater i den samme periode eller del af denne periode. (Se ligeledes
The application of national overlapping provisions is not, however, admitted where benefits of the same type in respect of invalidity, old age, death (pensions) or occupa­tional diseases are concerned and paid by two or more Member States in compliance with the provisions of Articles 46, 50 and 51 or Article 60 (1) (b) of the Regu­lation (Article 12 (2)).
FÆLLESSKABSBESTEMMELSER OM SOCIAL SIKRING
See first part, 1-1A (Regulation No 1408/71), No 132.
5380 nedenfor, artiklerne 76 og 79 i forordning nr. 1408/71).
4201 —Article 10 of Regulation No 574/72 lays down the rules applicable in the event of the overlapping of family benefits or allowances or when the worker is subject successively to the legislation of several Member States during the same period or part-period (vide also infra 5380, Articles 76 and 79 of Regulation No 1408/71).
ringsydelse, udgør en bestemmelse om sus­pension eller nedsættelse i den betydning, der er forudsat i forordning nr. 3, artikel 11, stk. 2.
4192 — For the application of these provisions to Danish, Irish and United Kingdom legislations, pensions in res­pect of invalidity, old age and widowhood are considered as pensions of the same type (Regulation No 1408/71 Annex V Β II, E 6, I 13 ; paragraphs added by Regu­lation No 1392/74).
4201 a — En arbejdstager, der er delvis eller periodisk arbejdsløs, kan ikke gøre krav på ydelser efter lovgivnin­gen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område han er bosat, så længe han har krav på ydelser efter den kompetente stats lovgivning.
This last point was added by Regulation No 1392/74 so as to take account of the special features of Danish, Irish and United Kingdom legislations.
(Se ligeledes 5296 nedenfor, artikel 71, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1408/71.)
4201a — The worker who is partially or intermittently unemployed may not claim unemployment benefits under the legislation of the Member State on whose territory he resides so long as he has an entitlement to benefits under the legislation of the competent State (vide also infra 5296, Article 71 (2) of Regu­lation No 1408/71).
— 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.
Retirement age varies among countries and since the overlapping rules differ, it is right to prevent the coordi­nation of national legislations from producing a division of benefit costs and a reduction in advantages payable to widows and invalids ; such was not the intention of the authors of the regulation.
4202 — Med henblik på anvendelsen af reglerne om forbud mod dobbeltydelser skal den dato, der skal tages i betragtning ved bestemmelsen af vekselkursen for beregningen af de forskellige ydelser, fastsættes under de betingelser, der er foreskrevet i Den administrative Kommissions afgørelse nr. 101 af 29. maj 1975 (EFT C 44 af 26.2.1976).
4202 — In view of the application of overlapping rules, the date to be taken into consideration for the determina­tion of the exchange rates for the purpose of the calculation of the various benefits is fixed under the conditions set out in Administrative Commission Deci­sion No 101 of 29 May 1975 (OJ C 44 of 26 February 1976).
Β — Domme afsagt af De europæiske Fællesska­bers Domstol
B — Case-law of the Court of
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 EØF­medlemsstaterne, dels i henhold til lovgivningen i et tredjeland.
4193 — Reduction, suspension or withdrawal clauses applicable in Member States in the event of the pursuit of a professional activity may be invoked against a recipient of benefits in respect of invalidity or early retirement benefit even if the person concerned is pursuing his activity in the territory of another Member State.
4203 — Domstolen har flere gange skullet træffe afgø­relse om fortolkningen af bestemmelserne i artikel 11 i den tidligere forordning nr. 3 og artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1408/71 ved fastsættelse af ydelser i overensstem­melse med bestemmelserne i artikel 27 og artikel 28 i den tidligere forordning nr. 3 og artikel 46 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
4203 — The Court of Justice has on several occasions been requested to provide an interpretation on the provisions of Article 11 of the former Regulation No 3 and Article 12 of Regulation No 1408/71 in cases concer­ning the payment of benefits in compliance with the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of the former Regulation No 3 and Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71.
Domstolens retspraksis inden for dette område bør ses i sammenhæng med retspraksis vedrørende bestemmel­serne om invalide­ og alderspension.
The Court's case-law must be examined together with the provisions relating to pensions in respect of invalidity
I dette kapitel er imidlertid kun anført de afgørelser af præjudicielle spørgsmål, som udtrykkeligt henviser til artikel 11 i den tidligere forordning nr. 3 og artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
However, in the present Chapter mention is made of judgments delivered on questions for prelimi­nary rulings which deal explicitly with Article 11 of the former Regulation No 3 and Article 12 of Regulation No 1408/71.
Som svar på dette spørgsmål fastslog EF­Domstolen 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 forordningens 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 ikke­medlemsstat.
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 vedrørende denne sag 4707 og 4813.
In regard to this case vide also 4707 and 4818.
Bestemmelser i en medlemsstats lovgivning om, at en ydelse skal nedsættes eller stilles i bero, når modtageren samtidig får udbetalt andre sociale sikringsydelser, gæl­der i medfør af artikel 11, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 3 kun for forsikrede, for så vidt de modtager ydelser, som de har opnået ved anvendelsen af den nævnte forordning.
The reduction or suspension clauses set out by the legislation of a Member State in case of overlapping of one benefit with other social security benefits cannot be used under Article 11 (2) of Regulation No 3 against insured persons except to the extent that they are in receipt of benefits acquired by virtue of the application of the said Regulation.
Uden en sådan modregning »ville denne begrænsning ikke være rimelig, idet den ville stille arbejdstageren mindre gunstigt, end det — i mangel af forordningerne — ville være tilfældet efter anvendelsen af den nationale lovgiv­ning eller af særlige overenskomster afsluttet mellem medlemsstater«.
Apart from such a case ' this type of limitation cannot be justified since it would have the effect of placing the worker in a situation less favourable than that which, in the absence of the Regulations, would arise from the application of the national law or indivi­dual conventions concluded between Member States '.
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 19.11.1970) fratrukket den franske og italienske pension, der var blevet tilkendt af de kompetente institutioner i disse to lande, fra den belgiske pension (som de pågæl­dende var berettiget til alene i kraft af de forsikringsperio­der, der var tilbagelagt i Belgien).
In both cases, the competent Belgian institution had applied the national rules against the overlapping of benefits (Art. 23 (1) of the Royal Decree of 19 November 1970), and deducted the amount of the Italian and French pensions, awarded by the institutions of those countries, from the Belgian pension (to which the persons con­cerned were entitled on the basis of periods of insu­rance completed in Belgium).
De pågældende retter havde henvist sagen til De euro­pæiske Fællesskabers Domstol og anmodet den om at træffe præjudiciel afgørelse i spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt de pensionsnedsættelser, som den belgiske institution havde foretaget, var gyldige.
The Court of Justice was seised of the question by the national jurisdiction of whether reductions to pensions operated by the Belgian institution were valid with regard to Article 12 of Regulation No 1408/71.
I den første sag (sag 22/77, Mura) var Domstolen blevet anmodet om at udtale sig om spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt »artikel 12 i EØF­forordning 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«?
In the first case (Case 22/77, Mura), the Court was requested to rule on whether 'Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 authorizing the overlapping of benefits must take precedence over national rules against overlapping in cases in which the Community provisions result in a migrant worker being placed in a more favourable position than a non­migrant worker'.