natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ud fra den betragtning, at bestemmelsen om undgåelse af dobbeltydelser i artikel 11, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 3 »fortolket i lyset af traktatens artikler 48­51 er mod­stykket til de fordele, som forordningerne nr. 3 og 4 giver arbejdstagerne ved at sætte dem i stand til at påberåbe sig en samtidig anvendelse af flere medlemsstaters sociale sikringslove, og dens formål er at forhindre, at de ved denne anvendelse opnår fordele, som i den nationale lovgivning bliver betragtede som ugrundede«, afsagde Domstolen følgende dom:
Considering that the provisions against overlapping laid down in Article 11 (2) of Regulation No 3 was ' in the light of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty, the counterweight to the advantages which Regulations Nos 3 and 4 pro­cure for workers by enabling them to claim benefits simultaneously under the social security laws of several Member States, and its purpose is to prevent them deriving from that claim advantages which the national legislation considers excessive ', the Court of Justice ruled as follows :
— En national retsnorm, hvis formål er at for­byde den kumulative oppebæreise af en sygeforsikringsydelse og en invalideforsik­
— ' A provision of national law intended to forbid the simultaneous receipt of sickness benefit and benefit for insurance against incapacity to work constitutes a provision for suspension or reduction within the meaning of Article 11 (2) of Regulation No 3.
I den anden sag (sag 37/77, Greco) var spørgsmålet blevet stillet med næsten samme ordlyd.
In the second case (Case 37/77, Greco), the question put was somewhat different.
Det var formule­ret således: »Er det foreneligt med artikel 12, stk. 2, i
It was worded as follows : ' Is Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible with the reduction of an invalidity pension granted by a Member State under Article 46 (1) on the ground that similar benefits are awarded by the competent institution of another Member State, where such reduction is effected on the basis of provisions of the internal law of the first Member State ? '
EØF-forordning nr. 1408/71, at en af en medlemsstat i henhold til artikel 46, stk. 1, bevilget invalidepension nedsættes på grundlag af ydelser af samme art, som udbetales af en institution i en anden medlemsstat, når denne nedsættelse sker i medfør af nationale retsregler i den førstnævnte stat?«
' So long as a worker is receiving a pension by natio­nal legislation alone, the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 do not prevent the national legislation, in­cluding the national rules against the overlapping of benefits, from being applied to him in its entirety, provided that if the application of such national legisla­tion proves less favourable than the application of the rules regarding aggregation and apportionment those rules must, by virtue of Article 46 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71 be applied '.
Domstolen besvarede disse spørgsmål identisk, idet den i to domme af 13. oktober 1977 kendte følgende for ret:
In this case, in the framework of the scope of Regulation (EEC) Nos 3 and 4, the action concerned accumulating invalidity pensions acquired, on the other hand, under the legislation of Member States of the EEC, concurrent­ly with those acquired under the legislation of a third State.
Som i sag 83/77 (Naselli, 4203-3 ovenfor) angik retstvisten en belgisk institutions beregning af en invalidepension til en italiensk statsborger, der havde arbejdet i Italien og i Belgien, og som fra det sidstnævnte land (Belgien) havde fået tilkendt invalidepension efter national lovgivning og fra Italien en pro rata pension i henhold til bestemmel serne i forordning nr. 3.
In Case 22/75 (Mura), the Court of Justice dismissed, in its grounds for judgment, the charge by the referring court that migrant workers obtained an advantage over workers who had never left their own country by pointing out that the legal situation of these categories of workers were not comparable, and that any difference which might exist to the benefit of migrant workers did not result from the interpretation of Community law but rather from the lack of any common social security system or of any harmonization of the existing national schemes.
Der blev stillet spørgsmålet om, i hvilket omfang den belgiske institution kunne nedsætte sin pension i hen hold til bestemmelserne om forbud mod dobbeltydelser i artikel 70, § 2, i belgisk lov af 9. august 1963, og nærmere bestemt om forhøjelsen af den pension for forsørgelsesberettiget ægtefælle og den årlige forhøjelse i anledning af julen, der var ret til efter italiensk lovgivning, ved anvendelsen af reglerne om sammenlægning af ydelser var en integrerende del af invalidepensionen.
Belgian Law of 9 August 1963, and more specifically whether for the application of the rules against the overlapping of benefits, the pension supplements for a dependent spouse and the annual supplement awarded at Christmas, provided for by the Italian legislation, were an integral part of the invalidity pension.
Kunne med andre ord den pension, som den pågældende var berettiget til alerte i medfør af belgisk lovgivning nedsættes ikke blot med den italienske pensions grund beløb, men også med de forhøjelser af pensionen, der er fastsat i italiensk lovgivning.
In other words, could the pension to which the person concerned was entitled under Belgian legislation only be reduced not only by the amount of the Italian basic pension but also by the amount of supplements to that pension provided under Italian legislation ?
Under henvisning til præmisserne og dommen i sag 83/77, Naselli, og sag 140/73, Manuso, fremførte Domstolen som begrundelse for sin afgørelse bl.a. følgende:
Referring to the grounds for judgment given and the judgments delivered in Cases 83/77 (Naselli) and 140/73 (Mancuso), the Court of Justice in support of its decision, reasoned that :
I forbindelse med sag 22/77 (Mura) anerkender Domstolen i sine præmisser ikke den pågældende rets antagelse om, at vandrende arbejdstagere er gunstigere stillet end arbejdstagere, som aldrig har forladt deres land, idet den bemærker, at disse to arbejdstagerkategoriers retsstilling ikke er ens, og at eventuelle forskelle i den vandrende arbejdstagers favør ikke skyldes en fortolkning af fælles skabsretten, men at der ikke findes en fælles ordning for social sikring eller nogen harmonisering af de eksisterende nationale ordninger, hvilke mangler den nugældende enkle koordination ikke er i stand til at afhjælpe.
The point at issue in these two cases was the calculation by two Dutch institutions of, respectively, an invalidity pension for a Dutch national who had worked and acquired pension rights first in Germany and then in the Netherlands (Case 98/77), and a survivor's pension for a Dutch national whose husband had completed periods of insurance in the Netherlands and in Germany (Case 105/77). These two cases are basically analogous to Case 37/77 (Greco) (supra 4203-4).
— De begrænsninger, der omhandles I forord ningens artikeln, stk. 2, kan kun gøres gældende over for de forsikrede, for så vidt angår de ydelser, der er erhvervet ved anven delse af forordning nr. 3 og 4, og ingen af bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 3 er til hinder for, at nationale forbud mod dobbeltydelser finder anvendelse på ydelser, der er erhvervet alene i henhold til national lovgiv ning;
The Court of Justice therefore delivered two identical judgments, the texts of which were the same as that in the Greco Case, namely ' So long as a worker is receiving a pension by virtue of national legislation alone, the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 do not prevent the national legislation, including the national rules against the overlapping of benefits, from being applied to him in its entirety, provided that if the application of such national legislation proves less favourable than the application of the rules laid down by Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71 the provisions of that Article must be applied '.
— anvendelsen af forordningens bestemmelser om forholdsmæssig beregning medfører, at det for at erhverve ret til ydelser er nødvendigt først at sammenlægge de perioder, der er tilbagelagt under de forskellige lovgivnin ger.
— applying the rules on apportionment laid down by the Regulation implied that a prior aggregation of periods completed under the legislation of various Member States was necessary to acquire entitlement to benefits.
I disse to sager angik retstvisten to nederlandske institu tioners beregning af henholdsvis en invalidepension til en nederlandsk statsborger, der havde arbejdet og er hvervet pensionsrettigheder først i Tyskland og dernæst i Nederlandene (sag 98/77), og en efterladtepension til en nederlandsk statsborger, hvis mand havde tilbagelagt forsikringsperioder i Nederlandene og i Tyskland (sag 105/77). Disse to sagers faktiske omstændigheder svarede i realiteten til sag 37/77 Greco (4203-4 ovenfor).
4203-6 —In Case 26/78 (Institut National d'Assurance Maladie Invalidité et Union Nationale des Fédérations Mutualistes Neutres v. Antonio Viola — Judgment of 5 October 1978) as in Case 73/77 (Naselli, vide supra 4203-3), the dispute concerned the calculation, by a Belgian institution, of an invalidity pension for an Italian national who had worked in Italy and Belgium, who had been awarded, in the latter country (Belgium), an invalidity pension in accordance with the legislation of that country, and an Italian pension which was apportioned in accordance with Regulation No 3.
Ved anvendelse af nationale regler om forbud mod dobbeltydelser tilkommer det den nationale domsmyndighed, uafhængigt af fællesskabsretten, at bestemme forhøjelsen for forsørgelsesberettiget ægtefælle og den 13. månedlige betaling efter den nationale ret, der ud fra lowalgsregler skal finde anvendelse.
' In applying national rules against the overlapping of benefits, it is for the national court to classify the supplement for a dependent spouse and the ' 13th month ', in accordance with the applicable national legislation, regard being had to the rules relating to the conflict of laws, since the Community provisions are not relevant.
Viser den nationale lovgivning sig dog at være mindre fordelagtig end ordningen med sammenlægning og for holdsmæssig beregning, skal den sidstnævnte anvendes.
However, if the application of the relevant national legislation is less favourable than that of the system of aggregation and apportionment, the latter system must be applied '.
4205-4209 åben.
4204 to 4209 not used.
Afsnit II: Bestemmelse af, hvilken lovgivning der skal anvendes efter enhver anden medlemsstats lovgivning, medregnes i fornødent omfang.
Title II : Determination of legislation applicable
4210 — For at udelukke enhver mulighed for lovkon­flikter bestemmes det i forordningen — efter at man har fastlagt enhedsprincippet med hensyn til den lovgivning, der skal anvendes — hvilken lovgivning det skal være på grundlag af de forskellige foreliggende muligheder.
4210 — In order to avoid any possibility of conflicting laws, the Regulation, having established the principle of a single legislation applicable, determines for the various contingencies which legislation that should be.
Reglerne til gennemførelse af disse bestemmelser er præciseret i afsnit III.
The procedure for applying these provisions is set out in Title III.
4211—Arbejdstagere, der er omfattet af forordningen, er principielt alene undergivet lovgivningen i én medlemsstat, hvor det drejer sig om en tvungen forsik­ring.
4211 — Normally, workers who come under the Regulation can, with regard to compulsory insurance, be subject only to the legislation of only one Member State.
Denne ændring blev begrundet med en særegenhed i tysk lovgivning.
The reason for this amendment was based on a special feature of German law.
I Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland ligestil­les samvittighedsnægtere, som udfører civilt arbejde, med personer, der aftjener deres værnepligt, med hensyn til syge­ og arbejdsløshedsforsikring samt pensionsfor­sikring (invaliditet, alderdom og dødsfald).
In the Federal Republic of Germany conscientious objectors who carry out a civilian service are treated as persons who effect military service for the purposes of sickness and unemployment insu rance as well as for pension insurance (invalidity, old age and survivors).
4215­4216 åben.
4215 and 4216 not used.
4217 — Med hensyn til anvendelsen af artikel 12 i forord­ning nr. 3 og artikel 13 i forordning nr. 1408/71 er Dom­stolen, foruden den under nr. 4212 omtalte sag 92/63, fremkommet med følgende fortolkningsbidrag:
4217 — As regards the application of Article 12 of Regulation No 3 and Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, the Court of Justice, apart from Case 92/63 referred to above (4212), has given the following interpretations.
4212 — Denne regel er dog ikke til hinder for, at andre medlemsstater end den, på hvis område arbejdstagerne elier dermed ligestillede personer er beskæftiget, anven­der deres lovgivning om social sikring på disse.
4212 — However, this rule does not prevent Member States, other than that in whose territory employed persons or persons treated as such are occupied, from applying their social security to them.
Den eneste undtagelse er, at en anden medlemsstat end den, på hvis område arbejdstageren er beskæftiget, ikke kan pålægge denne at yde bidrag til finansieringen af en institution, som ikke ville yde ham fuld social beskyttelse for den samme risiko og den samme periode (sag 92/63 Nonnenmacher mod Bestuur der Sociale Verzekerings­bank) (dom af 9.6.1964).
It is only different if a Member State other than that in whose territory the worker is employed, compels him to contribute to the financing of an institution which would not provide him with any supplementary social security cover for the same risk and the same period (Case 92/63, Nonnenmacher v. Bestuur der Sociale Verzekeringsbank — Judgment of 9 June 1964).
— Arbejdsstedets lovgivning, selv om arbejds­tageren er bosat på en anden medlemsstats område, eller selv om den virksomhed, hvori han er beskæftiget, har sit hjemsted dér;
— of the place of work, even if the worker resides in the territory of another Member State or if the undertaking employing him has its registered office in another Member State ;
4217­1—Sag 19/67, Bestuur der Sociale Verzekerings­bank mod Van der Vecht (dom af 5.12.1967). »En arbejds­tager, der er beskæftiget på én medlemsstats område, men bosat på en anden medlemsstats område, og som for arbejdsgiverens regning befordres mellem bopæls­stedet og arbejdsstedet, er fortsat i medfør af artikel 12 i forordning nr. 3 (nu artikel 13, stk. 1, i forordning nr.1408/71) omfattet af lovgivningen i den førstnævnte stat, også for så vidt angår den del af befordringen, der foregår inden for den stat, hvor han er bosat, og hvor virksomheden er oprettet«.
' A worker who is employed in the territory of one Member State but who resides in the territory of another Member State and who is conveyed at his employer's expense between his place of residence and his place of employment remains subject to the legislation of the former Member State by virtue of Article 12 of Regulation No 3 (now Article 13 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71), even as regards that part of the journey which takes place in the territory of the State in which he resides and in which the undertaking is established. '
— for så vidt angår arbejdstagere, der er beskæftiget om bord på et skib, lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, hvis flag skibet fører, jf. dog det nedenfor anførte;
— covering the administration employing them in the case of civil servants and persons treated as such.
»Artikel 12 i forordning nr. 3 (nu artikel 13, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71) tillader ikke andre medlemsstater end den, på hvis område arbejdstageren er beskæftiget, at anvende deres lovgivning om social sikring på denne, når en sådan anvendelse for arbejdstagerne eller deres arbejdsgivere ville medføre en forøgelse af deres forplig­telser, som ikke modsvares af en tilsvarende forbedring af den sociale beskyttelse.«
'Article 12 of Regulation No 3 (now Article 13 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71), prohibits a Member State other than that in whose territory a worker is employed from applying its social security legislation to such a worker where to do so would lead to an increase in the charges borne by wage-earners or their employers, without any corresponding supplementary protection by way of social security. '
— for så vidt angår tjenestemænd eller dermed ligestillede personer, lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, i hvis administration' de er beskæftiget.
4214 — Workers called up or recalled for military service in the armed forces, or for civilian service of a Member State, shall retain the status of a worker and shall be subject to the legislation of that State.
4217­2 — Sag 102/76, Perenboom mod Inspecteur des Contributions directes de Nimègue (dom af 5.5.1977).
' Pursuant both to Article 12 of Regulation No 3 and Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 the state of resi-
4237 forhold er underlagt sidstnævnte stats sociallovgivning med bidragspligt.« forudsat at der i det tidsrum, i hvilket arbejdstageren er udsendt, består et organisk bånd mellem arbejdstageren og den pågældende virksomhed.
4239 board the vessel flying the flag of another Member State in so far as there exists an organic link between the worker and the undertaking during the period of his posting (Decision No 110 of the Administrative Commis­sion of 16 December 1977, OJ C 125 of 30 May 1978).
4232 — Denne lovgivning finder anvendelse, indtil arbejdet er afsluttet, når dets varighed på grund af uforudselige omstændigheder kommer til at overstige 12 måne der, forudsat at den kompetente myndighed eller det af denne udpegede organ giver sit samtykke hertil.
4232 — This legislation remains applicable up to the completion of the work when this extends beyond twelve months due to unforeseeable circumstances, provided that the competent authority or the designated body gives its consent.
Dette samtykke kan ikke meddeles for længere tid end 12 måneder, regnet fra udløbet af den første udstationeringsperiode. ringsperiode.
Such consent cannot be given for a period in excess of twelve months from the period of the expiry of the first period of posting.
Denne sag drejede sig om en nederlandsk statsborger, som i 1972, medens han havde bopæl hos sine forældre i Nimégue, og efter at have bestået realeksamen, i 142 dage havde udøvet lønnet virksomhed i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
This case concerned a Dutch national who lived with his parents in Nijmegen and who, after obtaining a secon­dary school-leaving certificate, was employed in Ger­many for 143 days in 1972.
Den pågældende blev under denne arbejdsperiode i Tyskland pålignet skat af indkomsten og socialsikringsbidrag, fordi han havde indtjent løn i denne stat.
During that period of work, Mr Perenboom had paid income tax and social security contributions in Germany in respect of his wages received in that State.
Da han i 1972, især på grund af sin alder (17 år) og sin bopæl i Nederlandene, opfyldte betingelserne for at blive optaget under den nederlandske ordning med »almindelig forsikring«, pålignede de nederlandske myndigheder den indtægt, der var indtjent i Tyskland, de socialsikringsbidrag, som er fastlagt ved den almindelige sikringsordning.
In 1972, principally on account of his age (17), and his residence in the Netherlands, he fulfilled the conditions for affiliation to the Netherlands' ' general insurance ' scheme. The Dutch authorities the­reupon assessed the wages earned in Germany for the social security contributions laid down by the general insurance scheme.
Myndighederne fastsatte med henblik herpå, og ud fra denne lønindtægt, en bidragspligtig indkomst svarende til de 217 dage (af 360), under hvilke den pågældende forblev i Nederlandene og ikke arbejdede i Tyskland.
For this purpose, those authorities had assessed these earnings for contributions corres­ponding to the 217 days out of 360 during which he remained in the Netherlands and did not work in Germany.
Som begrundelse for sin afgørelse anførte Domstolen blandt andet:
In support of Its ruling the Court had in particular considered that :
— Det forhold, at arbejdstageren for en og samme arbejdsløn pålignes sociale bidrag som følge af anvendelsen af flere nationale lovgivninger, medens vedkommende kun stilles som sikret efter en enkelt af disse lovgivninger, udsætter denne arbejdstager for dobbelt påligning af bidrag, hvilket er uforeneligt med de lovkonfliktregler, der er foreskrevet, både i artikel 12 i forordning nr. 3 og i artikel 13 i forordning nr. 1408/71;
— the fact that a worker was required to pay, in respect of the same earned income, social charges arising under the application of several national legislations, although he could be an insured person only in respect of one of those legislations, involved the worker in paying contributions twice over, contrary to Article 12 of Regulation No 3 and Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 ;
Denne attest udleveres til arbejdstage ren på dennes eller hans arbejdsgivers anmodning af den kompetente myndighed i den medlemsstat, hvis lovgiv ning fortsat skal anvendes.
This certificate is issued to the worker, at his request or that of his employer, by the competent authority of the Member State whose legislation remains applicable.
De institutioner, der er bemyndiget til at udstede udstationeringsattester, er anført i bilag 10 til forordning nr. 574/72.
The institutions qualified to issue certificates of posting are indicated in Annex 10 to Regulation No 574/72.
Udstationeringsattesten angiver navnlig, i hvilken periode den pågældende fortsat er omfattet af lovgivningen i det land, hvor virksomheden har sit hjemsted.
The certificate of posting states in particular the period during which the person concerned remains subject to the legislation of the country where the undertaking has its registered office.
Se anden del, II, Fortegnelse over blanketter.
See second part, II, list of forms.
En tilsvarende procedure finder anvendelse i forbindelse med aftaler indgået i henhold til forordningens artikel 17 (4290 nedenfor).
A similar procedure is applicable in the case of agree­ments concluded in application of Article 17 of Regula­tion No 1408/71 (infra 4290).
4235 — Udstationeringsattesten udstedes i en forenklet form i tilfælde af udstationeringer af ikke over 3 måne ders varighed (Den administrative Kommissions afgørelse nr. 97 af 15.3.1974, bekendtgjort i EFT C 126 af 17.10.1974).
4235 — The certificate of posting is drawn up in a simplified form in the case of postings not exceeding three months (Administrative Commission Decision No 97 of 15 March 1974 in OJ C 126 of 17 October 1974).
4236 — Tilladelsen til at forlænge udstationeringen skal indhentes af arbejdsgiveren.
4236 — Authorization to extend the posting must be requested by the employer.
Der skal hertil anvendes blanket E 102.
Form E 102 must be used.
4230 — En »udstationeret arbejdstager« i den i forord ningens artikel 14, stk. 1, litra a), omhandlede forstand er en arbejdstager, der på en medlemsstats område er beskæftiget af en virksomhed, hvortil han normalt er knyttet, og som på en anden medlemsstats område udfører et arbejde for denne virksomheds regning.
4230 — A 'posted worker' within the meaning of Arti­cle 14 (1) (a) of the Regulation means a worker employed in the territory of a Member State by an undertaking to which he is normally attached who is posted by that undertaking to the territory of another Member State to perform work there forthat undertaking.
Han er fortsat omfattet af lovgivningen i den førstnævnte stat, forudsat at varigheden af dette arbejde ikke påregnes at overstige et år, og at han ikke udsendes for at afløse en anden arbejdstager, hvis udstationeringsperiode er udløbet.
He continues to be subject to the legislation of the first Member State provided that the anticipated duration of that work does not exceed twelve months and that he is not sent to replace another worker who has completed his term of posting.