natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forordning nr. 222/77 bestemmer, at de af medlemsstaterne fastsatte forbud eller begrænsninger vedrørende indførsel, udførsel og transit finder anvendelse 1 det omfang, de er forenelige med Traktaterne.
A Member State which, on the ground of public security, makes the export of certain goods to a number of non-member States subject to the grant of a licence, is not precluded by Council Regulation No. 222/77 from requiring such a licence to be obtained in respect of goods which come from another Member State and which arrived in the first State under cover of a transit declaration drawn up pursuant to that regulation.
Artikel 36 skal fortolkes således, at dens virkninger ikke må strækkes videre end nødvendigt for at beskytte de interesser, som bestemmelsen skal garantere.
Article 1 of Council Regulation No. 2603/69 must be interpreted as prohibiting national measures which have the effect of precluding the export of certain categories of goods to non-member States.
Foranstaltninger, der er truffet på baggrund af artikel 36, kan således kun være retmæssige, såfremt de er egnede til at sikre de interesser, som beskyttes af artiklen, og ikke påvirker vareudvekslingen inden for Fællesskabet mere end absolut nødvendigt.
Nevertheless, where the purpose of such measure is to control the export of strategically important goods or technology to States which are thought by the Member State concerned to pose a military threat, they must in principle be regarded as justified on the ground of public security under Article 11 of that regulation.
Begrebet "den offentlige sikkerhed" i Traktatens artikel 36 omfatter såvel en medlemsstats indre sikkerhed som dens ydre sikkerhed.
Case C-15/90 D. Maxwell Middleburgh ν Chief Adjudication Officer
Det er imidlertid klart, at indførsel, udførsel og transitforsendelse af varer, der kan anvendes strategisk, kan true en medlemsstats offentlige sikkerhed, som staten herefter er berettiget til at beskytte i henhold til Traktatens artikel 36.
(Social security - Status as an employed person - Regulation No. 1408/71 -Child benefit - Residence clause - Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC Treaty) (Full Court)
Det følger heraf, at medlemsstaterne for at kunne kontrollere varer, der betragtes som strategisk materiel, i medfør af Traktatens artikel 36 kan kræve en særlig tilladelse til transitforsendelse af sådanne varer.
By order of 25 July 1989, which was received at the Court on 19 January 1990, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty three questions on the interpretation of Articles 1 and 73 of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
Det skal fremhæves, at beslaglæggelse eller konfiskation kan anses for ikke at stå i rimeligt forhold til det mål, som forfølges, og dermed være 1 strid med Traktatens artikel 36, såfremt det ville være tilstrækkeligt at tilbagevise varen til den medlemsstat, som den kommer fra.
Mr Middleburgh, who is a British national, worked in Ireland between January 1981 and August 1982. During that period he entered into a relationship with an Irish national, and a child was born of that relationship.
Det tilkommer Imidlertid den nationale ret at vurdere, om der ved den indførte ordning, som krævet efter proportionalitetsprincippet, tages hensyn til samtlige omstændigheder 1 hver sag.
In October 1983 he returned alone to the United Kingdom, where he was employed in hospitals from 15 November 1983 to 13 April 1984.
Domstolen besvarede spørgsmålet således:
Between 16 April and 29 April 1984 he was unemployed, and from 30 April until 29 July 1984 he was self-employed.
"Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 222/77 af 13. december 1976 om fællesskabsforsendelse skal fortolkes således, at den Ikke er til hinder for, at en med lemsstat kan have regler, hvorefter der af hensyn til statens ydre sikkerhed kræves en særlig tilladelse til transitforsendelse via statens territorium af varer, der betragtes som strategisk materiel, selv om der foreligger et fællesskabsforsendelsesdokument udstedt af en anden medlemsstat.
The Adjudication Officer refused to pay child benefit from 16 April 1984 onwards on the ground that Mr Middleburgh's son was not in Great Britain, and Mr Middleburgh appealed against that decision to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal.
De foranstaltninger, som medlemsstaten træffer i tilfælde af, at kravet ikke opfyldes, skal dog stå i rimeligt forhold til det mål, som forfølges."
That appeal and the subsequent appeal to the Social Security Commissioners were dismissed with regard to the period during which Mr Middleburgh was self-employed and the period during which he pursued a vocational training course; Mr Middleburgh therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal, which stayed the proceedings and referred the several questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
"Jeg finder derfor, at det Domstolen forelagte spørgsmål bør besvares således:
However, during the period in issue it was only as a self-employed person that the appellant contributed to a social security scheme.
Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 222/77 er ikke er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat, som af hensyn til den offentlige sikkerhed kræver licens ved udførsel af visse varer til visse tredjelande, også kan kræve indhentelse af en sådan licens for så vidt angår varer fra en anden medlemsstat, som er bragt til førstnævnte stat ledsaget af en transi tangi vel se udstedt i overensstemmelse med den nævnte forordning.
In its second question the national court sought in substance to determine whether Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC Treaty precluded the application to one of its nationals of legislation of a Member State which restricted child benefits to children residing on the territory of that State, during a period where, after having been employed in another Member State and had a child there, that person returned alone to his Member State of origin and worked there as a self-employed person.
Artikel 1 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2603/69 skal fortolkes således, at den forbyder nationale foranstaltninger, som medfører, at udførsel af visse kategorier af varer til tredjelande forhindres.
The Court observed, in the first place, that a person who has worked only as a self-employed person in the Member State concerned before becoming unemployed could not be classified as a "worker" within the meaning of Article 48 of the Treaty and could not therefore rely on that provision.
4.10.1991 (Præjudiciel) "Sodai sikring - arbejdstager - forordning nr. 1408/71 - børnet i ískod -bopælsbestemmelse - EØF-Traktatens artikler 48 og 52" (Domstolens plenum)
The Court also observed that, during the period in question, the Community legislature had not yet adopted the measures necessary to ensure, in the context of freedom of establishment, the payment of dependent child allowances to persons residing in the territory of the Member States.
Ved kendelse af 25. juli 1989, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 19. januar 1990, havde Court Of Appeal, London, i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artiklerne 1 og 73 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for fællesskabet, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1390/81 af 12. maj 1981 om udvidelse *f forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 til også at omfatte selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer (EFT L 143, s. 1), og EUF-Traktatens 'artikler 48 og 52.
It followed that the legislation of a Member State which excluded the payment of dependent child allowances for the children of a self-employed person who were resident in another Member State was not incompatible with Article 52 of the Treaty so long as the said measures had not been adopted by the Council.
Han indledte 1 denne periode et forhold til en irsk stats borger, og de fik et barn.
The Court held as follows:
Middleburgh indbragte denne afgørelse for Social Security Appeal Tribunal, men fik ikke medhold i anken og den efterfølgende anke til Social Security Commissioners, for så vidt angår de perioder, hvor han havde været bestøftiget som selvstændig og deltaget i det erhvervsfaglige kursus.
Article? 48 and 52 of the Treaty do not apply to situations which are wholly internal to a Member State, such as that of a national of a Member State who, after first being unemployed and then working as an employed person in that Member State, works there for a certain period as a self-employed person."
Han indbragte herefter sagen for Court of Appeal, der besluttede at udsætte sagen og forelægge tre præjudicielle spørgsmål for Domstolen.
Mr Advocate General Jean Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 16 Aoril 1991
Første spørgsmål
He concluded as follows:
Domstolen bemærkede, at Middleburgh i den omhandlede periode kun havde betalt bidrag til en social sikringsordning som selvstændig erhvervsdrivende.
If a worker from Member State A resides in Member State Β for a period and during that period (a) works as an employed person and (b) lives with and has a child by a national of Member State B, it is not a breach of Article 52 of the Treaty for Member State A to refuse to pay family benefit in respect of the child on the sole ground of the child's absence from Member State A during a period when the national has returned to Member State A and is self-employed there, but the child remains in Member State B.
Andet spørgsmål
4 October 1991
Domstolen bemærkede for det første, at en person, der 1 vedkommende med lemsstat kun har været beskæftiget som selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, før han blev arbejdsløs, ikke kan anses for "arbejdstager" 1 henhold til Traktatens artikel 48 og derfor ikke kan påberåbe sig denne bestemmelse.
(Social security - Invalidity pensions) (Sixth Chamber)
For det andet bemærkede Domstolen, at fællesskabslovgiver på det 1 sagen omhandlede tidspunkt endnu ikke havde vedtaget de foranstaltninger med hensyn til arbejdskraftens fri bevægelighed, der var nødvendige for at sikre betaling af børnetilskud til personer, der har bopæl på medlemsstaternes område.
By order of 6 October 1987, which was received at the Court on 16 November 1987, the Sozialgericht Stuttgart referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EEC Treaty and on the interpretation and validity of Regulation No. 1408/71 of the Council on the application of social security schemes to workers and their families moving within the Community (Official Journal English Special Edition 1971 (II) p.
Heraf følger, at så længe Rådet ikke havde truffet sådanne foranstaltninger, var Traktatens artikel 52 ikke til hinder for, at der 1 henhold til en medlemsstats lovgivning ikke udbetaltes børnetilskud, for så vidt angår en selvstændig erhvervsdrivendes børn, der har bopæl 1 en anden medlemsstat.
The question was raised in four actions brought by Mrs Pougaridou, Mrs Paraschi, Mr Papanikolaou and Mr Portale against the Landesversicherungsanstalt (Social Security Fund) Württemberg ("the defendant"), following the letter's refusal to grant them invalidity pensions.
EØF-Traktatens artikel 52 er ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstats lovgivning, hvorefter der kun ydes børnetilskud til børn, der har bopæl på statens område, finder anvendelse på en statsborger i denne stat, for så vidt angår et tidsrum, hvorunder vedkommende - efter at have haft lønnet beskæftigelse i en anden medlemsstat, hvor han har fået et barn - udøver selvstændig virksomhed 1 oprindelsesmedlemsstaten, hvortil han er vendt tilbage alene.
The Court had consistently held that it was for the legislation of each Member State to lay down the conditions for entitlement to or the
Geperaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 16. april 1991.
Obligation to be a member of a social security scheme, provided that there was no discrimination between its own nationals and those of other Member States.
"Jeg foreslår herefter, at de spørgsmål, som Court of Appeal, London, har stillet, besvares således:
The Court observed that Regulation No. 1408/71 contained no provisions governing circumstances of the kind at Issue in the main proceedings.
Når en person er selvstændig erhvervsdrivende og (i henhold til national lovgivning) har ret til ydelser ved arbejdsløshed, såfremt hans beskæftigelse som selvstændig ufrivilligt bringes til ophør, og han har erhvervet denne ret, fordi han har betalt eller er blevet godskrevet bidrag, mens han var arbejdstager, er vedkommende Ikke arbejdstager 1 henhold til artikel 73, jf. artikel 1, 1 Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sodale sikringsordninger.
It had nevertheless consistently held that the purpose of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty would not be attained if, following the exercise of their right to freedom of movement, migrant workers lost the social security benefits which the legislation of a Member State provided for them.
Såfremt en arbejdstager eller selvstændig erhvervsdrivende fra medlemsstat A 1 en vis periode har bopæl i medlemsstat Β og i denne periode a) er beskæftiget som arbejdstager og b) bor sammen med en statsborger 1 medlemsstat B, og de får et barn sammen, er Traktatens artikel 52 Ikke til hinder for, at medlemsstat A nægter at betale børnetilskud for dette barn, alene fordi barnet ikke opholder sig i medlemsstat A 1 et tidsrum, hvorunder statsborgeren fra medlemsstat A er vendt tilbage dertil og dér er beskæftiget som selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, mens barnet forbliver 1 medlemsstat 8.
That consequence might arise if the national legislature laid down conditions for access to or maintenance of entitlement to benefits in such a way that in fact they could be fulfilled only by nationals or if it lay down conditions for the loss of suspension of such entitlement in such a manner that in fact they could more easily apply to nationals of other Member States than to nationals of the Member State where the competent institution was situated.
Som følge af besvarelsen af det andet spørgsmål er det tredje spørgsmål uden genstand."
Consequently, such legislation had the effect of dissuading migrant workers from exercising their freedom of movement.
Retssagerne beroede på, at sidstnævnte havde afslået at tilkende de pågældende invalidepension.
"In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court reply as follows to the questions referred to it by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart:
Fru Paraschi havde 1 1978 og 1980 ansøgt om tysk invalidepension, hvilket den kompetente institution imidlertid afslog med den begrundelse, at fru Paraschi's erhvervsevne ikke var forringet 1 en sådan grad, at hun efter tysk lov kunne anses for erhvervsudygtig.
Community law does not prohibit a national legislature from making entitlement to a benefit conditional upon the completion of a minimum insurance period within a reference period preceding materialization of the insured risk.
Den 16. maj 1985 ansøgte fru Paraschi for tredje gang om tysk invalidepension, Idet hendes helbred var blevet yderligere forringet. Selv om det ved denne lejlighed blev fastslået, at fru Paraschi, 1 hvert fald midlertidigt, af helbredsmæssige grunde ikke længere var 1 stand til at arbejde, afslog L an des Vers i c h er u n g s anstalt Württemberg ansøgningen under henvisning til, at hun Ikke opfyldte betingelserne 1 de tyske lovregler, der i mellemtiden var blevet Indført.
If the legislation of a Member State makes entitlement to a benefit conditional upon completion of a minimum insurance period within a reference period preceding the materialization of the insured risk and provides that the arising of given events or circumstances will extend that reference period, Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EEC Treaty prohibit the application of such rules in such a manner that no account is taken, in calculating the reference period, of events and circumstances arising in another Member State.
Fru Paraschi anlagde herefter sag ved Sozi algericht Stuttgart til prøvelse af afslaget.
Article 9a of Regulation No. 1408/71 is invalid in so far as it does not provide that, for extension of the reference period preceding the materialization of the insured risk, account is to be taken of events and circumstances arising in another Member State.
Herom henviste Domstolen til sin faste praksis, Ifølge hvilken det tilkommer hver medlemsstat selv, ved udstedelse af retsforskrifter, at fastsætte betingelser for retten eller pligten til at tilslutte sig en social sikringsordning, dog således at statsborgere fra andre medlemsstater Ikke forskelsbehandles 1 forhold til indenlandske statsborgere.
Pending the adoption of new provisions, the competent national authorities are required to interpret the scope of the obligation imposed on them by Article 9a of Regulation No. 1408/71 in the manner indicated above".
Dette kan nemlig ske, såfremt den nationale lovgiver udformer betingelserne for at erhverve eller bevare retten til ydelser på en sådan måde, at de reelt kun kan opfyldes af indenlandske statsborgere, eller udformer dém således, at statsborgere fra de andre medlemsstater lettere rammes af betingelserne om suspension eller bortfald end statsborgere fra den stat, hvorunder den kompetente myndighed henhører.
Van Loon and Others applied to the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank (District Court), Zwolle, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, for authority to enforce in the Netherlands the judgment delivered by the Belgian Cantonal Court. By decision of 23 January 1987, the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank granted that authorization.
Herved vil vandrende arbejdstagere nemlig blive afholdt fra at gøre brug af deres ret til fri bevægelighed.
Against that decision, Van Dalfsen and Others Instituted appeal proceedings on 2 April 1987 before the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Zwolle, pursuant to Article 36 of the Convention.
Domstolen kendte for ret:
They also stated that their alternative claim for payment had been upheld in principle.
"EØF-Traktatens artikel 48, stk. 2, og artikel 51 skal fortolkes således, at de Ikke afskærer medlemsstaterne fra at skærpe betingelserne for at til dele invalidepension, på en sådan måde, at der for fremtiden alene tilkendes pension, såfremt den forsikrede har udøvet en forsikringspligtlg virksomhed og Inden for de sidste 60 kalendermåneder forud för for si krigsbegivenhedens Indtræden (referenceperioden) mindst har Indbetalt bidrag i 36 måneder.
By judgment of 13 April 1988, the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Zwolle, dismissed the request that proceedings be stayed, on the ground that, in support of their application, Van Dalfsen and Others did not rely on any submission other than those which the foreign court could have considered in its decision.
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (S.iette Afdeling) den 6. iuni 1991.
Van Dalfsen and Others brought an appeal in cassation against that judgment, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention, before the Hoge Raad of the Netherlands.
Hans konklusion lød således:
If that were not the case, the appeal in cassation by Van Dalfsen and Others would be inadmissible.
"På grundlag af det anførte skal jeg derfor foreslå Domstolen at besvare de af Sozialgericht Stuttgart forelagte spørgsmål på følgende måde.
On the other hand, in the event of an affirmative reply to that question, it would be necessary to consider the merits of the appeal, so that the problem then arose of the scope of the powers which Article 38 of the Convention confers upon "the court with which the appeal ... is lodged".
Når retten til en ydelse efter en medlemsstats lovgivning gøres betinget af, at der er tilbagelagt en minimumsforsikringsperiode inden for den referenceperiode, som går forud for forsikringsbegivenhedens indtræden, og referenceperioden forlænges, såfremt â & t indtræffer vissé omstændigheder, udelukker EØF-Traktatens artikel 48, stk. 2, og artikel 51 medlemsstaten fra at anvende ordningen, hvis ikke der ved beregningen af referenceperioden tages hensyn til de tilsvarende omstændigheder, som måtte være indtruffet 1 én anden medlemsstat.
In the first two questions, which the Court considered it appropriate to consider together, the National Court sought essentially to determine whether the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention had to be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted under Article 38 of the Convention, in which the court before which the appeal was brought against the authorization to enforce a judicial decision given in another contracting state refused to stay the proceedings and required the lodgement of a security by the person to whom authority to enforce was granted, constitutes a "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention and may therefore be the subject of an appeal in cassation or similar application. The National
Artikel 9a i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 er ugyldig, for så vidt som det ikke er foreskrevet i bestemmelsen, at der ved forlængelsen af den referenceperiode, som går forud for forsikringsbegivenhedens indtræden, skal tages hensyn til omstændigheder indtruffet i en anden medlemsstat.
Court also asked whether the reply to that question would differ according to whether the decision adopted under Article 38 of the Convention and the "judgment given on the appeal", within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention, did or did not appear in the same judgment.
Det påhviler de nationale kompetente myndigheder 1 perloden indtil de nye reglers vedtagelse at udvide anvendelsesområdet for den forplig telse, som er indeholdt i artikel 9a i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, på en sådan måde, at også de førnævnte omstændigheder omfattes heraf."
The Convention gave no definition of a "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37.
(Præjudiciel) "Bruxelles-konventionen - fortolkning af artiklerne 37 og 38" (Sjette Afdeling)
Even where a decision based on Article 38 of the Convention was contained in the same judgment as the decision dealing with the merits of the appeal brought against the authority for enforcement, such a decision was not to be regarded as a "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention and consequently could not be the subject of an appeal in cassation.
Ved dom af 21. oktober 1986 havde fredsdommeren i Kanton Herentals (Belgien) under en sag, der var anlagt af Van Dalfsen m.fl. mod Van Loon m.fl., ikke taget sagsøgerens principale påstand om ophævelse af en lejekontrakt mellem sagens parter til følge, hvorimod der blev givet dom, uden beløbsfastsættelse, i overensstemmelse med Van Dalfsen m.fl.'s subsidiære påstand om, at Van Loon m.fl. skulle godtgøre sagsøgerne udgifterne til de varige forbedringer, de havde foretaget i den lejede ejendom.
In its third question, the national court seeks essentially to determine whether the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the court seized of the appeal brought against the authorization to enforce a judicial decision given in another contracting State may take into consideration, in Its decision on an application for proceedings to be stayed under that provision, only submissions which the appellant was not in a position to make before the court in the State in which judgment was given, or whether that court may also take account, in such a decision, of submissions which had already been made before the foreign court, and also submissions of which the latter court had no notice when giving its decision by reason of the fact that the appellant failed to put them forward on that occasion.