natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter loven behandles de tyske statsborgere, som ikke har gjort brug af deres ret til fri bevægelighed, og vandrende arbejdstagere dermed forskelligt, og den sidstnævnte gruppe stilles ringere, eftersom det først og fremmest er
However, according to the terms of Annex I, point I, C, (b), to which Article l(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 refers, only workers compulsorily insured under one of the schemes mentioned therein are entitled to German family benefits in accordance with Chapter 7 of Title III
Da der ikke i de foreliggende sager er oplysninger, der objektivt kan begrunde, at de to grupper behandles forskelligt, må dette betegnes som diskriminerende og dermed anses for at være uforeneligt med traktatens artikel 52.
In so far as the case-files contain no material capable of providing objective justification for that difference in treatment, it must be regarded as discriminatory and hence as incompatible with Article 52 of the Treaty.
»Artikel 73 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af Ζ juni 1983, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3427/89 af 30. oktober 1989, skal med hensyn til udbetaling af børnetilskud i henhold til tysk lovgivning fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen kun omfatter selvstændige erhvervsdrivende, som opfylder betingelserne i artikel 1, litra a), nr. ii), jf. afsnit I, afdeling C, litra b), i bilag I til forordningen.
'For the purposes of the payment of family benefits under German legislation, Article 73 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 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989, must be interpreted as covering only selfemployed persons complying with the definition provided by the combined provisions of Article l(a)(ii) and point I, C, (b) of Annex I of that regulation.
EF-traktatens artikel 52 er imidlertid til hinder for en national lovgivning, hvorefter der ved beregningen af børnetilskud ikke tages hensyn til børn af en selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, medmindre de har bopæl i denne medlemsstat.*
However, national rules which cause the taking of a selfemployed person's children into account when calculating family allowances to be dependent upon their residing in that Member State are contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty.'
Generaladvokat A. La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 6. juni 1996.
Advocate General A La Pergola delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 6 June 1996.
»Bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 6 og 52 skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for en national lovgivning, som betinger tildeling af familieydelser til en selvstændig erhvervsdrivende af, at de pågældende medlemmer af dennes familie har bopæl i den kompetente medlemsstat.«
'Articles 6 and 52 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the grant of family benefits to a resident selfemployed worker subject to the condition that the members of his family actually reside in the territory of the Member State in question.'
»Direktiv 76/207¡EØF og 79/7/EØF — ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — godskrivning af pensionsbidrag* (Femte Afdeling) i medfør af ordene »eventuelle følger heraf for andre ydelser« i artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), kun den forskelsbehandling, som forekommer i de andre ordninger vedrørende ydelser, for så vidt forskelsbehandlingen nødvendigvis og objektivt er knyttet til den pågældende forskel i pensionsalder.
A statutory earlyretirement scheme such as that under consideration here discriminates against women in the manner in which their earlyretirement benefits are calculated and, consequently, in the amount of their retirement pension.
Ved kendelse af 19. april 1995 indgået til Domstolen den 2 maj 1995 har Pretura circondariale di Genova forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår og af Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978.
The national court is seeking to ascertain in substance whether it is compatible with the principle of equal treatment for men and women to take account, in the calculation of earlyretirement benefits, of age limits which differ according to sex and, more specifically, whether, when a Member State has, pursuant to Article 7(l)(a) of Directive 79/7, fixed pensionable ages that differ according to sex, that provision also allows the Member State to provide that employees of an undertaking declared to be in critical difficulty are entitled to a maximum of five years' credit of supplemental retirement contributions calculated from the date on which they took early retirement until the date on which they reach the age entitling them to a retirement pension, that is to say 55 for women and 60 for men.
Dette er grunden til, at det, når en medlemsstat i medfør af ovennævnte bestemmelse har fastsat pensionsalderen for kvinder til 55 år og for mænd til 60 år, må undersøges, om den forskelsbehandling af mænd eller kvinder, der sker efter en anden ordning med ydelser end pensionsordningen, nødvendigvis og objektivt er knyttet til forskellen i pensionsalder.
With regard to the discrimination at issue in the main proceedings, it is objectively linked to the setting of pensionable ages which differ for women and men in so far as it ensues directly from the fact that those pensionable ages are set at 55 for women and at 60 for men.
Spørgsmålene er stillet under en sag mellem Livia Balestra, tidligere lønmodtager i en virksomhed, der var erklæret kriseramt, og INPS (det italienske sociale sikringsorgan) vedrørende godskrivning af yderligere pensionsbidrag, som INPS har foretaget i medfør af den ved lov fastsatte førtidspensionsordning.
The rule applicable to both men and women is that they may rely on their right to early retirement no more than five years before the date on which they reach the age at which they become entitled to a retirement pension and that they are entitled to credit for retirement contributions in respect of the period between their entry into retirement and the date on which they reach that age.
Det er tilfældet, såfremt denne forskelsbehandling er objektivt nødvendig med henblik på at undgå, at den økonomiske Ugevægt i den sociale sikringsordning forstyrres, eller med henblik på at sikre sammenhængen mellem ordningen vedrørende arbejdsophørspensioner og ordningen vedrørende andre ydelser.
With regard to that directive, sex discrimination, in the context of the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment between men and women, can be justified only temporarily and under Article 7(l)(a).
Det må fastslås, at en ved lov fastsat førtidspensionsordning som den, der omhandles i hovedsagen, indebærer en forskelsbehandling af kvinder med hensyn til beregningen af deres ydelser ved førtidspensionering og dermed også med hensyn til alderspensionens størrelse.
The Court has consistently held that where, pursuant to Article 7(l)(a) of Directive 79/7, a Member State prescribes different pensionable ages for men and women for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions, the scope of the permitted derogation, defined by the words 'possible consequences thereof for other benefits', contained in Article 7(l)(a), is limited to the forms of discrimination existing under other benefit schemes which are necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable age.
Ifølge dette direktiv kan forskelsbehandling mellem de to køn som led i den gradvise gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder kun begrundes midlertidigt og kun i henhold til direktivets artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a).
It is for that reason that where, pursuant to that provision, a Member State has set the pensionable age at 55 for women and at 60 for men, it is necessary to examine whether discrimination existing against men or women under a benefits scheme other than that of retirement is objectively and necessarily linked to the difference in retirement ages.
For så vidt angår den forskelsbehandling, der omtvistes i hovedsagen, må det fastslås, at den er objektivt forbundet med fastsættelsen af en pensionsalder, der er forskellig for mænd og kvinder, idet forskelsbehandlingen er en umiddelbar følge af, at pensionsalderen er 55 år for kvinder og 60 år for mænd. Reglen er for såvel mænd som for kvinder, at de tidligst kan gå på førtidspension 5 år før det tidspunkt, hvor de når den alder, hvor de kan gå på alderspension, og at de kan få godskrevet pensionsbidrag for perioden mellem det tidspunkt, hvor de fratræder, og det tidspunkt, hvor de når pensionsalderen.
The next question to be considered is whether the denial to women, who are entitled to work until the age of 60, of the right to be credited with contributions for the period after the date on which they reach the age of 55, when they may claim a retirement pension, is necessary in order to preserve this linkage.
Det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at såfremt en medlemsstat i medfør af artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), i direktiv 79/7 for så vidt angår ydelse af aldersog arbejdsophørspensioner fastsætter en pensionsalder, der er forskellig for mænd og kvinder, omfatter den undtagelse, der kan gøres
That will be the position where such forms of discrimination are objectively necessary in order to avoid disturbing the financial equilibrium of the social-security system or to ensure coherence between the retirement-pension scheme and other benefit schemes.
For så vidt angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den pågældendeforskelsbehandlingogsånødvendigvis er forbundet med den nævnte forskel i
If women taking early retirement at an age between 50 and 55 were credited with five years' contributions, without account being taken of the ordinary retirement age, the closer their entry
Sigtet med førtidspensionen er således at sikre den, der forlader arbejdsmarkedet inden at have nået den alder, hvor den pågældende har ret til alderspension, en indkomst.
takes early retirement during the five years prior to the date on which she qualifies for a retirement pension would, as a matter of course, be entitled to a credit of five years' contributions.
Mens mandlige arbejdstagere, der går på førtidspension på et tidspunkt, hvor de er mellem 55 og 60 år, kun har ret til at få godskrevet bidrag for perioden mellem det tidspunkt, hvor de går på førtidspension, og indtil de når pensionsalderen, vil kvindelige arbejdstagere, som går på førtidspension mindre end 5 år før det tidspunkt, hvor de kan få alderspension, uden videre have ret til at få godskrevet 5 års bidrag.
into early retirement was to the ordinary pensionable age, the clearer it would become that those women would be receiving a definitive pension higher than that of women who had paid contributions until they reached the age of 55 and then retired, without being able to claim a credit of contributions.
Det må herefter undersøges, om den omstændighed, at kvinder, som faktisk har ret til at arbejde, indtil de fylder 60 år, ikke godskrives bidrag for perioden efter, at de er fyldt 55 år, hvor de kan få udbetalt alderspension, er nødvendig for at opretholde dennesammenhæng. sammenhæng.
Consequently, even though women are entitled to work until they reach the age of 60, denying them a credit of contributions in respect of the period after the date on which they reach the age of 55, the age at which they are entitled to a retirement pension, is necessary in order to preserve the linkage between the retirementpensions scheme and the earlyretirement scheme in question.
I den forbindelse må det for det første bemærkes, at hvis kvinder, der går på førtidspension, mens de er mellem 50 og 55 år, blev godskrevet 5 års bidrag, uden at der blev taget hensyn til den aldersgrænse, pensionsalderen udgør, ville
Whereas a man taking early retirement at an age between 55 and 60 is only entitled to a credit of contributions covering the period from the date on which he takes early retirement until he reaches the ordinary pensionable age, a woman who also
»Såfremt en medlemsstat i medfør af artikel 7, stk 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978 om gradvis gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring har fastsat en pensionsalder, der er forskellig f or de to køn, kan medlemsstaten efter bestemmelsen også fastsætte, at arbejdstagere i en virksomhed, der er erklæret kriseramt, har ret til godskrivning af ydertigere pensionsbidrag i højst 5 år regnet fra det tidspunkt, hvor de går på førtidspension, og indtil de når den alder, som giver ret til alderspension, dvs. 55 år for kvinder og 60 år for mænd, idet den kønsbetingede forskel med hensyn til beregningen af førtidspensionen nødvendigvis og objektivt er forbundet med fastsættelsen af en forskellig pensionsalder f or mænd og kvinder.*
'Where, pursuant to Article 7(l)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, a Member State has set pensionable ages which differ according to sex, that provision aho allows it to provide that employees of an undertaking declared to be in critical difficulty may be credited with a maximum of five years' supplemental retirement contributions starting from their entry into early retirement until the date on which they reach the age at which they are entitled to a retirement pension, that is to say 55 years in the case of women and 60 years in the case of men, since the difference relating to sex in the method of calculating earlyretirement benefits L· objectively and necessarily linked to the setting of pensionable ages which differ for men and women.'
Generaladvokat M.B.Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 17. oktober 1996.
Advocate General M.B.Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 17 October 1996.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare de stillede spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
»Artikel 1, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse,
'Article 1(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, and Articles 3(l)(a) and 7(l)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as not precluding a national earlyretirement scheme under which male and female employees in an undertaking declared to be in critical difficulty are entitled to be credited with up to five years' pension contributions from the date on which they cease work until they reach the age at which they are entitled to a retirement pension, which is 60 for men and 55 for women.'
Præjudiciel »Strukturel sanering af indlandsskibsfarten — særligt bidrag — undtagelse for 'specialiserede fartøjer* — kommissionsbeslutning hvorved en begæring om fritagelse afslås — beslutning som ikke er blevet anfægtet i medfør af traktatens artikel 173 — tilfælde hvor beslutningens gyldighed bestrides for en national ret* (Femte Afdeling) forordningens artikel 8, stk. 3, litra c), for ibrugtagning af et bunkerfartøj ved navn motortankskibet »Smaragd«.
Preliminary ruling (Structural improvements in inland waterway transport — Special contribution — Exclusion of 'specialized vessels' — Commission decision rejecting an application for exemption — Decision not contested under Article 173 of the Treaty — Validity of the decision then contested before the national court) (Fifth Chamber) subject to the Regulation. It had therefore decided, on the basis of Article 8(3)(c) of the Regulation, to refuse to grant the requested exemption and to send a copy of the letter to the authorities managing the Belgian Scrapping Fund.
Ved dom af 6. juni 1995, indgået til Domstolen den 8. juni 1995, har Rechtbank van koophandel, Antwerpen, forelagt fem præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1101/89 af 27. april 1989 om strukturel sanering inden for indlandsskibsfarten (EFT L 116, s. 25, herefter »forordningen«) og om gyldigheden af en af Kommissionen truffet beslutning af 6. maj 1993 om afslag på en begæring om fritagelse for betaling af et særligt bidrag i henhold til forordningens artikel 8, stk. 1, litra a), til ophugningsfonden.
By order of 6 June 1995, received at the Court on 8 June 1995, the Rechtbank van Koophandel (Commercial Court), Antwerp, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling five questions on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland waterway transport (hereinafter 'the Regulation') and on the validity of a Commission decision of 6 May 1993 rejecting an application for exemption from the special contribution to the Scrapping Fund set up by Article 8(1)(a) of the Regulation.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under behandlingen af en sag mellem Wiljo NV (herefter »Wiljo«) og den belgiske stat om indbetaling af det nævnte særlige bidrag til den belgiske ophugningsfond.
By application of 6 April 1995, Wiljo brought an action against that decision before the Rechtbank van Koophandel.
Ved en skrivelse af 6. maj 1993, som var rettet til Wiljo og underskrevet af et kommissionsmedlem, meddelte Kommissionen, at den fandt, at fartøjet teknisk set var egnet til transport af alle former for flydende ladninger og, for så vidt angik sin konstruktion og sit udstyr, ikke adskilte sig væsentligt fra konventionelle tankskibe og derfor bidrog til at forøge tonnagen i den flåde, der var omfattet af saneringsforanstaltningerne efter forordningen.
In the light of those arguments, the Rechtbank van Koophandel has referred questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Kommissionen havde derfor i medfør af forordningens artikel 8, stk. 3, litra c), besluttet at afslå fritagelsesbegæringen og at sende en genpart af skrivelsen til de myndigheder, der forvalter den belgiske ophugningsfond.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Wiljo NV ('Wiljo') and the Belgian State concerning payment of the abovementioned special contribution into the Belgian Scrapping Fund.
Wiljo's virksomhed består i bu n kring af søgående skibe.
Wiljo is an undertaking engaged in the bunkering of sea-going vessels.
Som følge af beslutningen afkrævede de belgiske myndigheder Wiljo et særligt bidrag til ophugningsfonden.
On 19 January 1993 it submitted to the Commission, under Article 8(3)(c) of the Regulation, an application for exemption for the bringing into service of a bunkering vessel, the Smaragd.
Den 19. januar 1993 indgav Wiljo begæring til Kommissionen om fritagelse i henhold til
This rule, which applies to the addressees of a decision, such as Wiljo, was reiterated in the judgment in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf ν Federal Republic of Germany [1994] ECR 1-833, in which the Court held that the principle established in the cases could, in certain circumstances, also apply to a recipient of State aid forming the subject-matter of a Commission decision addressed directly to the Member State alone in which the recipient was established.
Ved stævning af 6. april 1995 anlagde Wiljo sag ved Rechtbank van koophandel til prøvelse af de belgiske myndigheders afgørelse.
Koophandel, first, that the Smaragd was used solely for the bunkering of sea-going vessels and was not comparable with an ordinary tanker vessel so that the Commission's decision was incompatible with the general aim of the Regulation, and, second, that it did not contain any proper technical analysis of the vessel's characteristics and equipment.
På baggrund af Wiljo's argumentation har Rechtbank van koophandel forelagt Domstolen nogle præjudicielle spørgsmål.
Clearly, therefore, Wiljo is contesting before the national court the validity of the Commission's decision, on the ground that it is contrary to the Regulation.
Herefter skal der tages stilling til, om de præjudicielle spørgsmål kun er stillet for at sætte den nationale ret i stand til at træffe afgørelse om gyldigheden af Kommissionens beslutning af 6. maj 1993, eller om de også angår fortolkningen af de bestemmelser, hvori forordningens anvendelsesområde afgrænses.
In the present case, it is not disputed that Article 8(3)(c) of the Regulation gives the Commission sole power to exempt specialized vessels, that Wiljo requested it to adopt a decision pursuant to that provision, that Wiljo did not apply under Article 173 of the Treaty for annulment of the Commission's decision of 6 May 1993 which was addressed to it, even though it could undoubtedly have done so, and that it has instead brought proceedings before the national court challenging the implementation of the Commission's decision by the Belgian authorities.
Det bemærkes, at en af fællesskabsinstitutionerne truffet beslutning, der ikke er anfægtet af adressaten inden for den i EF-traktatens artikel 173 fastsatte frist, efter fast praksis bliver endelig i forhold til denne.
Thus it is clear that the national court's questions, which are identical to those set out by Wiljo in its application, are in fact designed to enable that court to appraise that argument and to rule on the validity of the Commission's finding, arrived at in its decision, that the Smaragd did not qualify as a specialized vessel within the meaning of Article 8(3)(c).
Heraf fremgår det klart, at Wiljo for den nationale ret bestrider gyldigheden af Kommissionens beslutning med den begrundelse, at beslutningen er i strid med forordningen.
It follows from all those considerations that, by virtue of the principle of legal certainty, the national court is bound by the Commission's decision of 6 May 1993 addressed to Wiljo, according to which the Smaragd is not a specialized vessel within the meaning of Article 8(3)(c) of the Regulation.
Denne retspraksis, der gælder for en beslutnings adressater, som i dette tilfælde Wiljo, er der henvist til i dommen af 9. marts 1994 i sagen TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, hvori Domstolen har fastslået, at det princip, der er opstillet i denne praksis, tillige, under visse omstændigheder, kan gælde for modtageren af en statsstøtte, som er omhandlet i en kommissionsbeslutning, der umiddelbart kun har været rettet til den medlemsstat, hvorunder modtageren hører.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether the sole purpose of the questions referred to this Court is to enable the national court to resolve the question of the validity of the Commission's decision of 6 May 1993, or whether those questions also relate to the interpretation of the provisions defining the scope of the Regulation.