natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter belgisk og nederlandsk lovgivning erhverves der først ret til ydelser efter en foreskreven uarbejds­dygtighedsperiode.
Under Belgian and Dutch legislation the right to such a benefit can only be acquired after specified periods of incapacity for work.
Efter disse bestemmelser kan der med henblik på erhvervelse af ret til ydelser efter disse lovgivninger ske ligestilling af perioder, hvor den pågældende har haft ret til sygedagpenge eller ydelser ved invaliditet I en anden medlems­stat.
Under these provisions, entitlement to these benefits may be acquired by taking account of periods during which the person concerned received cash sickness or invalidity benefits under the legislation of another Member State.
Endvidere var afslaget på pension begrundet med, at den pågældende ikke havde været og ikke kunne anerkendes som berettiget til ydelser ved sygdom i de 168 dage, der er foreskrevet i den britiske lovgivning som forudgående betingelse for ret til invalidepension.
— possesses entitlement to benefit without needing to have recourse to periods of insurance completed under Type B legislation;
Ud fra følgende betragtninger:
— does not possess entitlement under a Type B legislation.
Endvidere tages der ved disse bestemmelser hensyn til, at den fortsatte udbetaling af løn i flere medlemsstater træder i stedetfor oppebæreise af sygedagpenge, og at der efter lovgivninger af typen B kan erhverves rettil Invalidepension efter en kort periode med oppebæreise af sygedagpenge, eller endog uden at uarbejdsdygtigheden har givet anledning til en sådan oppebærei­se.
Moreover, these provisions take account of the fact that in several Member States the wage or salary continues to be paid in lieu of sickness benefits and that under Type B legislations entitlement to an invalidity pension may be acquired on sickness benefits having been provided for a short time or even if no benefits were provided in respect of incapacity for work.
— når en arbejdstager successivt har været omfattet af to medlemsstaters lovgivninger, hvoraf mindst én er af typen B, finder forordningens artikel 45 således tilsvarende anvendel­se på invaliditetsydelser;
4693 — Additionally, so as to determine entitlement to benefits in a Member State under a legislation based on the materialization of the risk insured against (Type A legislation), where the award of invalidity benefits is conditional on the award, for a specified period, of cash sickness benefits or on the person concerned having been incapable of work, if a worker had first been subject to a Type A legislation and became incapable of work whilst subject to a Type B legislation, account is taken of:
Efter de pågældende lovgivninger kan der først erhverves ret til ydelser, når den forud fastsatte periode udløber, og tidligst når ret til sygedagpenge efter lovgivningen af typen B ophører, eller når der erhverves ret til ydelser ved invaliditet i henhold til denne sidsnævnte lovgivning.
Lastly, in compliance with the legislations concerned, entitlement to benefits may be acquired only after the expiry of the preliminary period laid down and at the earliest when entitlement to cash sickness benefit provided under Type B legislation has expired or when the entitlement to invalidity benefits is acquired under such legislation.
— i medfør af forordning nr. 1408/71 medregnes de i Forbundsre­publikken Tyskland tilbagelagte forsikringsperioder i fornø­dent omfang ved erhvervelsen af retten til ydelser ved sygdom efter britisk lovgivning samt til invaliditetsydelse, som om det drejede sig om perioder, der var tilbagelagt efter britisk lovgivning; afsagde Domstolen den 9. november 1977 følgende dom:
(a) any period during which he had received, underthe legislation of the latter Member State, cash sickness benefits for that incapacity for work, or, alternatively, if he had continued to receive his wage or salary;
»Artikel 45, I forordning nr. 1408/71 skal fortolkes således, at hvor en medlemsstats lovgivning gør erhvervelse af ret til ydelser ved Invaliditet betinget af, at den pågældende person I medfør af
4700 — Article 40 (4) of Regulation No 1408/71 provides that the decision taken by the institution of a Member State on the subject of the condition of invalidity must be accepted by the institution of any other Member State concerned whenever concordance of conditions relating to the state of invalidity is established between
4700 — I artikel 40, stk. 4, præciseres det, at en afgørelse, der er truffet af en medlemsstats institution angående en ansøgers invaliditet, er bindende for institutionen i enhver anden berørt medlemsstat, i alle tilfælde, hvor det er anerkendt i de bilag V til forordning nr. 1408/71 indeholdte tabeller, at der er overensstem­melse mellem de i disse medlemsstaters lovgivning fastlagte kriterier for invaliditet.
(b) any period during which he received under the legislation of the second Member State, invalidity benefits in respect of invalidity following that incapacity for work.
FÆLLESSKABSBESTEMMELSER OM SOCIAL SIKRING samme lovgivning har været berettiget til ydelser i anledning af sygdom i en given periode i det umiddelbart foregående tidsrum — idet det er forudsat, for så vidt som det er relevant, at denne betingelse erknytteta) til tilbagelæggelse af forsikringsperioder; b) til fremsættelse af en begæring i den henseende i den krævede form og inden for den krævede frist; i) skal den kompetente Institution i den pågældende medlems­stat medregne forsikringsperioder, der er tilbagelagt under en hvilken som helst medlemsstats lovgivning, som om de var tilbagelagt under den lovgivning, som gælder for denne institution; udtrykkeligt er nævnt.
4701 — As regards the interpretation to be given to this provision, reference should be made to the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 10 March 1983 in Case 232/82 (Baccini (a)):
Det er i alle tilfælde lige nodvendigt at beskytte de· rettigheder, som tilkommer den pågældende udelukkende i medfør af den nationale lovgivning uden anvendel­se af sammenlægning eller forholdsmæssig beregning og at bevare de fordele, som muligvis følger af denne ordning.
'Article 45 of Regulation No 1408/71 must be understood to mean that where the legislation of a Member State makes the acquisition of a right to invalidity benefit conditional upon the person concerned having been entitled to sickness benefit under that legislation for a given period in the immediately preceding period — that condition being subject, as far as material, (a) to the completion of periods of insurance, φ) to the making of a claim therefor in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed time:
En systematisk fortolkning af forordningens bestemmelser forer derfor til, at artikel 40, stk. 1, finder tilsvarende anvendelse på tilfælde som detforeliggende.
(i) the competent institution of the said Member State shall take into account periods of insurance completed under the legislation of any Member State as though they had been completed underthe legislation which it administers;
Såfremt denne losning ikke lægges til grund, måtte det antages, at Rådet ikke fuldstændigt havde opfyldt sin forpligtelse efter Traktatens artikel 51 til at træffe de foranstaltninger vedrørende social tryghed, der er nødvendige for at gennemføre arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed.
'Article 40 (4) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the 'decision ... concerning the degree of invalidity' to which that provision refers covers exclusively a decision recognizing invalidity and not a decision establishing that there is no invalidity at a later date'.
Domstolen afsagde derfor følgende dom: ii) skal betingelsen om fremsættelse af en begæring på en foreskreven måde og inden for en foreskreven tid anses for opfyldt, for så vidt en sådan begæring behørigt er blevet indgivet i overensstemmelse med bopælslandets lovgivning.«
(il) the condition that a claim must be made in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed time shall be regarded as satisfied in so far as such a claim has been duly made in accordance with the legislation of the State of residence'.
Det bør bemærkes, at denne dom blev afsagt på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af det nye stk. 3 i artikel 40, som har til formål at udfylde den lakune, som gav anledning til denne dom.
4703 — The implementation of Article 40 has given rise to several decisions by the Court of Justice.
I denne sag blev der forelagt følgende spørgsmål :
Several questions were raised in this case concerning the point of knowing:
4703­4 — Sag 150/82. Coppola mod Insurance Officer (dom af 12. januar 1983).
4703­1 — Case 41/77 (The Queen ν National Insurance Com­missioner ex parte Warry — Judgment of 9 November 1977), concerned a British national who had been insured in Great Britain from 1933 to 1971 and ¡n the Federal Republic of Germany from August 1971 to June 1973, when he fell ill.
I tvisten mellem ansøgeren og de britiske institutioner havde den henvisende instans især stillet følgende spørgsmål:
1. whether when examining the entitlement of the person concerned it was possible to take account of the legislation of a Member State (Type Β Invalidity Insurance legislation), by which the applicant had formally been covered, but which was no longer In force at the time the invalidity was certified as the scheme was now an A Type.
Domstolen svarede bekræftende på dette spørgsmål.
The Court of Justice did not consider this a valid reason on the grounds that:
På dette spørgsmål svarede Domstolen, at indretningen af den ordning med harmonisering af nationale lovgivninger, som er indført ved forordningen, er baseret på princippet om, at en arbejdstager ikke må fratages retten til ydelser alene på grund af den omstændighed, at en medlemsstats lovgivning har ændret type. Jf. ligeledes om denne sag nr. 4795.
In its reply to this question, the Court of Justice stated that the structure of the system of coordination of the national legislation established by the regulation was based on the principle that a worker must not be deprived of the right to benefits merely because of an alteration in the type of legislation in force in a Member State.
4703­3 — Sag 180/78. Fru Brouwer­Kaune mod Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor het Kledingsbedrijf (dom af 19. juni 1979).
ν Bestuur van de — Judgment of
Retstvisten vedrørte en nederlandsk institutions beregning af en invalidepension til en kvindelig arbejdstager, som efter at have arbejdet i Tyskland mellem 1928 og 1950, flyttede til Nederlan­dene, hvor hun udøvede lønnet beskæftigelse fra 1951 til 1972.
The litigation concerned the calculation by a Dutch Institution of an invalidity pension payable to a female worker who after having worked ¡n Germany between 1928 and 1950, took up residence in the Netherlands where she undertook salaried employment between 1951 and 1972.
Fra den 1. august 1970 havde den pågældende I Tyskland fået udbetalt en uarbejdsdygtighedspension, som med virkning fra den 1. august 1973 ændredes til en førtidspension. Hun fik i Nederlandene fra den 2. oktober 1973 tildelt en uarbejdsdygtig­hedsydelse, som altså tildeltes fra en senere dato end den, daden tyske invalidepension blev ændret til en alderspension.
On the other hand, the refusal of the pension depended on the fact that the person concerned had not had his entitlement to sickness benefit recognized for a period of 168 days as provided for under British legislation and which under the said legislation constituted a prerequisite to the award of invalidity pension.
På grund af den rækkefølge, hvori ydelserne blev tildelt, fandt den nationale ret, at forordning nr. 1408/71, artikel 43, om overgang fra invaliditetsydelser til ydelser ved alderdom ikke, eller i hvert fald ikke direkte, kunne finde anvendelse på forholdet, og den forelagde derfor det præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af artikel 40 i forordningen under hensyntagen til antikumulations­reglerne i nederlandsk lovgivning.
As from 1 August 1971 the person concerned had been awarded an allowance for incapacity for work which had been converted into an early retirement pension with effect from 1 August 1973. A benefit in 'espect of incapacity for work was awarded to her in the Netherlands as from 2 October 1973, that is to say, on a date subsequent to the transformation of the German allowance Into a retirement pension.
Problemet i sagen var, om en anden løsning skal gælde, for det ene tilfælde, hvor ændringen i en medlemsstat af invaliditets­ydelsen har fundet sted, inden fastsættelsen af invaliditets­ydelsen i en anden medlemsstat.
— where a worker has been successively subject to the legislations of two Member States, of which at least one is of Type B, the provisions of Article 45 of the regulation are applicable by analogy to invalidity benefits;
4740 er tilstrækkeligt til, at han eller hans familiemedlemmer alene i den pågældende medlemsstat opfylder bidragsvilkårene for en sådan ydelse, eller iii) under sådanne andre af De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol angivne omstændigheder.
(a) only if on the occurrence of the contingency of sickness at that time his contributions in the Member State of the institution are such that by virtue of those contributions alone he satisfies the contribution conditions for sickness benefit either at the full rate or at some reduced rate; or
4723 — Ved vedtagelsen af forordning nr. 1408/71 blev det præciseret, at bestemmelserne i artikel 41, i forordning nr. 1408/71 ligeledes finder anvendelse, når den pågældende, samtidig med at han efter en medlemsstats fastsættelse af pensionen ikke er omfattet af lovgivningen i en anden medlems­stat, på grund af forværringen af sin invaliditet opfylder de foreskrevne betingelser i en lovgivning, hvoraf han tidligere har været omfattet.
The problem in fact was that of knowing whether a different solution should be retained only for the case where the transformation of the invalidity benefit in one Member State took place before the payment of the invalidity benefit by another Member State.
Endelig ønskes det oplyst, hvorvidt en ansøger, der har ret til Invaliditetsydelse i en medlemsstat — uden støtte I bestemmel­serne i artikel 45 og artikel 46 om sammenlægning og forholdsmæssig beregning, men alene som følge af hans krav på ydelse I anledning af sygdom ved hjælp af artikel 18 (uden hensyn til om artikel 40, stk. 3, anvendes) i nævnte forordning — kan få en sadan ydelse reguleret i medfør af nævnte forordnings artikel 46, stk. 3, eller om denne bestemmelse er ugyldig i det omfang, hvori den i øvrigt medfører, at der sker regulering af en sådan ydelse.
Whether a claimant who is entitled to invalidity benefit in a Member State without recourse to the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 relating to aggregation and apportionment but only as the result of his making title to sickness benefit with the aid of Article 18 (with or without recourse to Article 40 (3)) of the said Regulation, is liable by virtue of Article 46 (3) of that Regulation to have such benefit adjusted or whether the said Article 46 (3) is invalid in so far as it would otherwise subject such benefit to such adjustment.
4724 — Dersom den for den oprindelige uarbejdsdygtighed kompetente institution i det under nr. 4722 ovenfor omhandlede tilfælde er en nederlandsk institution, skal denne institution fortsat efter den indtrådte forværring udrede den oprindelige ydelse, som derefter skal fradrages i den ydelse, der skal udredes I en stat, af hvis lovgivning den pågældende senest har været omfattet, forudsat at følgende betingelser er opfyldt:
There was no objective reason for subjecting this case to a different system than that which applied in respect of cases for which express provision had been made. The protection of entitlement which the person concerned derived by virtue of national legislation alone, without having recourse to the system of aggregation and proratization, as well as respect for the benefits which might result from that system, applied equally in all situations.
Ved dom af 12. januar 1983 har Domstolen truffet følgende afgørelse:
The consistent interpretation of the provisions of the regulation permit as a result, an application by analogy of Article 40 (1) to cases such as that under consideration.
— den lidelse, der har forårsaget forværringen, skal være den samme, som har begrundet tilkendelse af den nederlandske ydelse;
In a judgment of 12 January 1983, the Court ruled:
Kun den medlemsstats lovgivning, på hvis område arbejds­tageren er eller senest har været beskæftiget, finder i medfør af artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 anvendelse på ydelser i anledning af sygdom.
Only the legislation ofthe Member State in whose territory the worker is or was last employed is applicable with regard to sickness benefit by virtue of Article 13 (2) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971.
Den eller de kompetente Institutioner I denne medlemsstat har kompetencen til at foretage sammenlægningen af forsikrings­perioderne i medfør af forordningens artikel 18.
The competent institution or institutions of the Member States are competent to aggregate the insurance periods pursuant to Article 18 of that Regulation.
— den eller de lovgivninger, hvoraf den pågældende har været omfattet, efter at han har opnået en nederlandsk ydelse, skal være af typen A.
'Article 40 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 must be Interpreted as meaning that ¡t relates to the award of invalidity benefit in a Member State in which the right to such benefits has been awarded to an employed person on the basis of legislation of the type referred to in Article 37 (1) including the case in which the person concerned, before the acquisition of such right, has already become entitled, by virtue of the legislation of another Member State not being of that type, to an old­age benefit resulting from the transformation of an earlier invalidity benefit.'
Det har været nødvendigt at indføre disse bestemmelser, idet den nederlandske lovgivning om uarbejdsdygtighed ikke foretager nogen sondring mellem årsagerne (erhvervssygdom eller ikkeerhvervssygdom) til de lidelser, der har forårsaget invaliditeten.
4703­4 — Case 150/82 (L. Coppola ν Insurance Officer), judgment of 12 January 1983.
De invaliditetsydelser, der består et krav på efter en medlemsstats lovgivning som følge af en uarbejdsdygtighedsperiode, hvorunder arbejdstageren for den samme uarbejds­dygtighed har oppebåret ydelser, herunder ydelser fra en anden medlemsstat, der i medfør af artikel 40, stk. 3, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 skal tages i betragtning, kan efter omstændighederne gyldigt nedsættes i medfør af samme forordnings artikel 46, stk. 3.
Invalidity benefit due under the legislation of a Member State following a period of incapacity for work during which the worker received benefits in respect of that incapacity, including benefit from another Member State, which is to be taken into account pursuant to Article 40 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 may, where appropriate, be validly reduced pursuant to Article 46 (3) of that Regulation'.
4725 — Såfremt den pågældende ikke efter forværringen har ret til ydelser fra en anden medlemsstats institution, skal institu­tionen i den første stat afholde ydelserne efter den for denne institution gældende lovgivning under hensyntagen til forværrin­gen.
In the dispute between the claimant and the UK Institutions, the Office making the reference asked for a preliminary ruling on the following questions:
4704 — Det bør bemærkes, at når den samlede længde af de forsikrings- eller bopælsperioder, der er tilbagelagt efter en medlemsstats lovgivning, er under ét år, er institutionen, der anvender denne lovgivning, ikke forpligtet til at udrede ydelser, medmindre der efter den nævnte lovgivning er ret til ydelser alene på grundlag af disse perioder.
4704— It isto be noted that where the total duration ofthe periods of insurance or residence completed under the legislation of a Member State is less than one year, the institution which applies that legislation is not required to make an award corresponding to that benefit unless an entitlement is opened under that legislation by virtue of those periods alone.
4705-4719 åben.
4705 to 4719 not used.
Forværring af en invaliditet
Agraviation of invalidity
4720 — Denne artikel fastsætter, hvilke bestemmelser der skal finde anvendelse, når arbejdstageren eller den selvstændige erhvervsdrivende modtager ydelser enten I medfør af en enkelt medlemsstats lovgivning (stk. 1) eller i medfør af to eller flere medlemsstaters lovgivning (stk. 2).
4720 — This article determines the provisions which are applicable in the case where the employed or self­employed person derives benefits by virtue either of the legislation of a single Member State (paragraph 1) or by virtue of the legislations of two or more Member States (paragraph 2).
A — Forværring af en invaliditet, for hvilken en tager eller en selvstændig erhvervsdrivende kun ger ydelser efter lovgivningen i en medlemsstat
A — Aggravation of invalidity in respect of which the worker is in receipt of benefit under the legislation of a single Member State
4721 —Såfremt den pågældende, efteråt han har opnået ydelser i en medlemsstat, ikke har været omfattet af en anden medlems­stats lovgivning, skal institutionen i den førstnævnte stat afholde udgifterne ved ydelserne, under hensyntagen til den indtrådte forværring, efter den for denne institution gældende lovgivning.
Whether a claimant for contributory sickness benefit in any MemberState is entitled under Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to require the competent Institution of that Member State to take account of insurance period completed under the legislation of another Member State: (a) in every case; or (b) only if he is at the time of his claim subject to the legislation of the first mentioned MemberState within the meaning of Article 13 of the above Regulation ; or (c) only if the competent institution of the first mentioned Member State is an institution with which the claimant is insured at the time of his application for benefit within the meaning of Article 1 (o) (i) of the above Regulation; or (d) only if the competent institution of the first mentioned Member State is such an institution as is mentioned in (¡ii) or is an institution from which the claimant is entitled or would be entitled to benefits if he or a Member of his family were residing in the territory of that Member State within the meaning of Article 1 (o) (ii) of the said Regulation ; or (e) only in such other circumstances as may be indicated by the Court.
Når udredelsen af ydelserne genoptages, efter at de har været stillet i bero, skal de, medmindre der er grund til at lade Invalidepensionen afløse af en alderspension, udredes af den eller de institutioner, som det påhviler at udrede dem på ny.
4721 — If the person concerned, since receiving benefit, has not been subject to the legislation of another Member State, the institution of the first State shall assume the charge of benefit, based on the aggravation, in accordance with the legislation which it applies.
4722 — Såfremt den pågældende, efteråt han har opnået ydelser i en medlemsstat, har været omfattet af lovgivningen I en eller flere af de øvrige medlemsstater, skal der foretages en fornyet fastsættelse af ydelserne efter de anvisninger, der er givet henholdsvis under nr. 4680, 4690 og 4692 ovenfor, som om der ikke tidligere var fastsat nogen invalidepension.
4722 — If the person concerned, since receiving benefit, has been subject to the legislation of one or more other Member States, a new award of benefit is undertaken in accordance with the indications given, depending on the case concerned, in Nos 4680.
4782 — Ved vedtagelsen af denne bestemmelse, blev det præciseret, at denne bestemmelse udelukker enhver forpligtelse for den pågældende til at acceptere fastsættelse af en førtidig alderspension eller aldersrente, som han eventuelt kunne gøre krav på.
Conversion of invalidity benefit into retirement benefit advantageous to the person concerned : a differential supplement at the expense of the previous debtor institution is paid if the benefit which he received prior to the aggravation of his condition was higher.