natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
marokkanske statsborgerskab før aftalens indgåelse.
ocean nationality prior to the conclusion of that Agreement.
b) Tab af det marokkanske statsborgerskab efter samarbejdsaftalens indgåelse
(b) Loss of Moroccan nationality after the Cooperation Agreement was concluded
Det er ganske vist tvivlsomt, om dette også gælder for hans familie.
However, it is uncertain whether that also applies to his family.
Familiemedlemmerne har et selvstændigt krav på handicapydelser via »omvejen« i artikel 41 og arbejdstagerens marokkanske statsborgerskab.
The members of his family have a personal right to disability allowance via the 'roundabout route' pro vided by Article 41 and on account of the Moroccan nationality of the worker, who is a member of their family.
Også selv om det herved ikke drejer sig om en afledt, men om et selv stændigt krav, imødekommes kravet kun, fordi de som familiemedlemmer til en marokkansk arbejdstager bor sammen med ham i Belgien.
Even though it is not only a derived but also a personal right, it is granted only because they live together with a Moroccan worker in Belgium as members of his family.
Såfremt arbejdstageren frivilligt træffer den afgørelse, at han nu kun vil behandles som belgier ifølge belgisk ret, ses det ikke, hvorfor aftalen stadig skulle gælde for familiemedlemmerne.
If he now decides voluntarily to be treated only as a Belgian in accordance with Belgian law, it is not clear why the Agreement should still apply to the members of his family.
Det er spørgsmålet, om arbejdstageren, henholdsvis familiemedlemmerne kan påberåbe sig aftalen, når arbejdstageren på tidspunktet for aftalens ikrafttræden var marokkansk statsborger, men denne betin gelse imidlertid ikke længere er opfyldt på tidspunktet for ansøgningens indgivelse, henholdsvis i det tidsrum, i hvilket handicapydelsen skal betales.
It is uncertain whether the worker or the members of his family can rely on the Agreement where the worker was a Moroccan national when the Agreement entered into force but where that condition was no longer fulfilled at the time the application was submitted or during the period when the disability allowance was to be paid.
Efter Det Forenede Kongeriges opfattelse gælder samarbejdsaftalens ligebehandlingskrav også i dette til fælde for at hindre en eventuel forskelsbehandling af arbejdstageren og hans familie på grund af det tidligere bestående marok kanske statsborgerskab.
The United Kingdom takes the view that the rule of nondiscrimination in the Agreement also applies in that case, so as to prevent possible discrimination against the worker and his family on the ground of his previous Moroccan nationality. lity.
Der ses heller ikke at foreligge nogen forskelsbehandling i forhold til belgiske statsborgere.
Furthermore, is not possible to detect any discrimination in relation to Belgian nationals.
Såfremt indstævnte som ikke-belgier og ikke-EF-borger nægtes en handicapydelse efter belgisk ret, selv om hun er svigermoder til en belgisk stats borger, er dette foreneligt med fællesskabs retten.
It is consistent with Community law for the plaintiff to be denied disability allowance in accordance with Belgian law as a non-Belgian and a non-national of a Member State, even though she is the mother-in-law of a Belgian national.
I Taghavi-dommen fastslog Dom stolen, at også en statsborger i et tredje land, som er ægtefælle til en arbejdstager med statsborgerskab i en medlemsstat, ikke har krav på den handicapydelse, som i de nationale retsforskrifter er hjemlet som et selvstændigt krav, der ikke er begrundet i, at den pågældende har status som familie medlem til en arbejdstager19.
In its judgment in Taghavi the Court ruled that even a national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State cannot claim a handicapped person's allowance which is provided for by national legislation as a personal right and not on account of membership of a work er's family.19 That means that Belgian law applies to the plaintiff in the same way as it
Det betyder, at belgisk ret finder anvendelse på ind-
19 — Judgment in Case C-243/91 (cited in footnote 9), para graph 11 et seq.
Dette kan ikke tiltrædes.
I cannot concur with that.
Vedrørende arbejdstageren selv er det ikke længere nødvendigt at påberåbe sig ligebehandlingskravet i samarbejdsaftalen, da han er belgisk statsborger og hermed er ligestillet med de belgiske arbejdstagere.
The worker himself no longer has any need to rely on the requirement of equal treatment con tained in the Cooperation Agreement since he possesses Belgian nationality and is therefore treated in the same way as Belgian workers.
Herved skal der lægges mærke til, at han frivilligt
In that respect it should be borne in mind that he voluntarily
stævnte på samme måde som på alle svigermødre til belgiske arbejdstagere, der ikke er statsborgere i en medlemsstat.
For that reason no analogy may be drawn with the case of Krid.20That case does to all mothers-in-law of Belgian work ers who do not possess the nationality of a Member State.
Ganske vist ville hun ifølge aftalens arti kel 41, stk. 1, som marokkaner have krav på ligebehandling med de belgiske stats borgere, men kun med sin status som familiemedlem, der indgår i husstanden for en marokkansk arbejdstager.
As a Moroccan she would be entitled to the same treatment as Belgian nationals under Article 41(1) of the Agree ment, but only on account of her member ship of the household of a Moroccan worker.
Da denne imidlertid frivilligt har opgivet sit marok kanske statsborgerskab, kan indstævnte ikke længere gøre gældende, at hun udsættes for forskelsbehandling i forhold til belgiske statsborgere.
However, since he has voluntarily renounced his Moroccan nationality, the plaintiff can no longer claim that she is discriminated against in relation to Belgian nationals.
Den sag drejede sig om, at enken efter en algerisk arbejdstager, der havde boet med ham i Frankrig, også efter arbejdstagerens død kunne påberåbe sig det principielle diskrimineringsforbud i samarbejdsaftalen med Algeriet.
related to the widow of an Algerian worker who had lived with him in France who was able to rely on the principle of non discrimination contained in the Cooperation Agreement with Algeria even after his death.
I den sammenhæng udtalte Domstolen, at reglerne i artikel 41 i samarbejdsaftalen med Marokko og den til svarende regulering i samarbejdsaftalen med Algeriet er enslydende, og at retspraksis vedrørende artikel 41 i samarbejdsaftalen med Marokko gælder tilsvarende for diskrimineringsforbuddet i aftalen med Algeriet21.
In that context the Court of Justice also ruled that Article 41 of the Cooperation Agreement with Morocco and the corresponding provision of the Cooperation Agreement with Algeria are identical and that the caselaw relating to Article 41 of the Cooperation Agreement with Morocco is consequently applicable by analogy.
Dette må også gælde omvendt, således at Krid-dommen kan anvendes på samarbejdsaftalen med Marokko.
21 That must also apply conversely, so that the judgment in Krid may be applied to the Cooperation Agreement with Morocco.
I det foreliggende tilfælde ville der dog kun blive tale om en analog anvendelse, da faktum ikke er helt identisk.
However, in the present case only an application by analogy could be possible, since the situation is not exactly the same.
Imidlertid er der i denne sag ikke plads til en sådan analog anvendelse.
None the less, there is no scope in this case for such application by analogy.
Her er der ikke tale om, at familien til en marokkaner, som aldrig har opgivet sit statsborgerskab, efter dennes død fortsat ikke er udsat for forskelsbehandling. Tværtimod er der tale om, at en marokkansk arbejdstager frivilligt og med alle konsekvenser for sine familiemedlem mer har opgivet sit marokkanske statsborgerskab for at blive belgier.
The present case does not concern the family of a Moroccan who never renounced his nation ality remaining free from discrimination after his death.
Herved bemærkes, at opgivelsen konkret fandt sted, da indstævnte endnu ikke boede i Belgien.
In that respect it should be noted that he renounced it when the plaintiff was still
Af den grund kan Det Forenede Kongeriges opfattelse heller ikke hjælpe videre, da der her ikke er tale om en mulig forskelsbehandling, hvis grundlag er, at arbejdstageren oprindelig var marokkaner.
For that reason the view of the United Kingdom is of no avail as this case does not concern possible discrimination on the ground that the worker was originally a Moroccan.
Tværtimod er der tale om, at svigermoderens forhold muligvis er blevet dårligere, da svigersønnen nu er belgier og ikke længere marokkaner.
It concerns instead the possibility that the position of the mother-in-law may have changed for the worse because her son-in-law is now Belgian rather than Moroccan.
Hun kan som svigermoder til en tidligere marokkansk statsborger ikke påberåbe sig aftalen.
She cannot rely on the Agree ment as the mother-in-law of a former Moroccan national.
Det gælder så meget desto mere, som den pågældende arbejdstager ikke først opgav sit marokkanske statsborgerskab, da indstævnte allerede befandt sig i hans husstand i Belgien.
That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the worker concerned renounced his Moroccan nation ality before the plaintiff came to live in his household in Belgium.
Det vil sige, at hun i dette tilfælde aldrig har levet som familiemedlem til en marokkansk arbejdstager i Belgien.
That means that in that case she has never lived in Belgium as the member of the family of a Moroccan worker.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT ALBER — SAG C-179/98
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-179/98 therefore formally rely on the requirement of equal treatment in Article 41.
Hendes status har således ikke ændret sig, for hun kom til Belgien som svigermoder til en belgier.
Therefore, her status has never changed, as she came to Belgium as the mother-in-law of a Belgian.
Af Belgien anses indstævntes svigersøn for at have den egenskab, at han kun har belgisk statsborgerskab og ikke (tillige) marokkansk statsborgerskab.
However, Belgium considers that the plaintiff's son-in-law possesses only Belgian nationality and not (also) Moroccan nationality.
Det er imidlertid tvivlsomt, om dette er muligt, dvs. om Belgien på denne måde kan afskære arbejdstageren, henholdsvis dennes familie medlemmer fra at påberåbe sig aftalen.
However, it is uncertain whether that is possible, that is to say whether Belgium can refuse the worker and the members of his family the right to rely on the Agreement in that way.
Der skal tillige henvises til, at Dom stolen i Krid-sagen udvidede anvendelsesområdet for aftalen til efterladte, da arti kel 39, stk. 2, udtrykkeligt tager hensyn til efterladtepensionen i relation til sammen lægningen af forsikringsperioderne.
Furthermore, it should be noted that in Krid the Court extended the scope of the Agreement to survivors since Article 39(2) expressly refers, in connection with the aggregation of periods of insurance, to pensions and annuities in respect of death.
Des uden er der mulighed for at overføre efter ladtepensionen til Algeriet.
Moreover, provision is made for the transfer to Algeria of pensions and annuities in respect of death.
Af denne grund anser Domstolen samarbejdsaftalens arti kel 39 for at være gyldig også for familie medlemmerne til en algerisk vandrende arbejdstager, som efter arbejdstagerens død bliver boende i den medlemsstat, i hvilken han var beskæftiget 22.
For that reason the Court held that Article 39 of the Cooperation Agreement also covers members of the family of an Algerian migrant worker who continue, after the worker's death, to live in the Member State in which he was employed.22
Undersøgelse for det tilfælde, at arbejdstageren har beholdt sit marokkanske stats borgerskab om spørgsmålet, hvorvidt fællesskabsbestemmelserne på området for etableringsfriheden afskærer en medlemsstat fra at nægte denne frihed over for en statsborger i en anden medlemsstat, som tillige er stats borger i en tredje stat, med den begrundelse, at han efter tilflytterstatens regler anses for statsborger i et tredjeland.
Examination in the event that the worker has retained his Moroccan nationality nality judgment related to the question whether the provisions of Community law concern ing freedom of establishment preclude a Member State from withholding that free dom from a national of another Member State who at the same time possesses the nationality of a nonmember country, on the ground that the legislation of the host State deems him to be a national of the nonmember country.
Dom stolen udtalte herom: »Fastlæggelsen af kriterierne for erhvervelse og fortabelse af statsborgerskab hører efter folkeretten under medlemsstaternes kompetence«24. Denne kompetence skal udøves under over holdelse af fællesskabsretten.
In that respect the Court of Justice held that '[u]nder international law, it is for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality.'24 That competence is to be exercised in conformity with Community law.
Domstolen fortsætter således:
The Court then added:
»Derimod må en medlemsstat i sin lov givning ikke begrænse virkningerne af en
'However, it is not permissible for the legislation of a Member State to restrict
I det tilfælde, at arbejdstageren ved siden af det belgiske har beholdt sit marok kanske statsborgerskab, ville betingelserne i artikel 41, stk. 1, ifølge ordlyden være opfyldt.
In the event that the worker has retained his Moroccan nationality along side his Belgian nationality, the conditions contained in Article 41(1) would be fulfilled in terms of the wording thereof.
Indstævnte ville være familiemedlem til en marokkansk arbejdstager og boede med ham i hans husstand i Belgien.
The plaintiff would be a member of the family of a Moroccan worker and living with him in his household in Belgium. She could
MESBAH af det dobbelte statsborgerska27. En sådan mulighed for Belgien kunne man dog afvise i analogi med Micheletti-dom-men.
BELGIAN STATE V MESBAH him from being able to derive benefit from both nationalities.27However, Belgium could be denied the ability to do so by analogy with the judgment in Micheletti.
anden medlemsstats tildeling af statsborgerskab ved at kræve yderligere betingelser for anerkendelse af dette statsborgerskab, når det drejer sig om udøvelse af de i traktaten hjemlede grundlæggende frihe der«25.
the effects of the grant of the nationality of another Member State by imposing an additional condition for recognition of that nationality with a view to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms provided for in the Treaty.'25
I Micheletti-dommen var forholdet det, at man indrømmede statsborgerskab i et tredjeland forrang i forhold til statsborger skabet i en medlemsstat, således at man afskar vedkommende statsborger fra status som statsborger i en medlemsstat.
The judgment in Micheletti related to the nationality of a nonmember country being given precedence over the nationality of another Member State with the result that the national concerned was denied the status of a national of a Member State.
Det er ikke tilfældet her.
That is not the case here.
Belgien anerkender ind stævntes svigersøn som belgier — men netop kun som belgier.
Belgium recognises the plaintiff's son-in-law as a Belgian — but only as a Belgian.
Hermed afskærer Belgien den pågældende fra at påberåbe sig sit marokkanske statsborgerskab.
In doing so it denies him the right to rely on his Moroccan nationality.
I det foreliggende tilfælde er det først og frem mest afgørende, at Belgien samtidig afskæ-
In this case the most crucial factor is that in doing so it denies
I denne situation må man gå ud fra, at indstævntes svigersøn stadig er marok kansk statsborger.
In this case it must be assumed that the plaintiff's son-in-law still possesses Moroccan nationality.
Belgien har vel tildelt ham belgisk statsborgerskab uden at for lange af ham, at han opgiver det marok kanske statsborgerskab.
Belgium has probably granted him Belgian nationality without requiring him to renounce his Moroccan nationality.
Det vil sige, at Belgien ikke bestrider, at han er statsborger i begge lande.
That means that Belgium does not dispute that he possesses both nationalities.
Belgien har heller ikke hindret et sådant dobbelt statsborgerskab.
Nor did it prevent such dual nationality.
Man vil blot hindre, at han kan drage nytte
It simply wishes to prevent
27 — Belgien påberåber sig herved i en skrivelse, fremlagt efter den mundtlige forhandling, »overenskomst vedrørende enkelte spørgsmål opstået på grund af manglende uoverensstemmelse statsborgerskabslovene imellem«, som ved taget på den internationale kodifikationskonference af 1930 i Haag, der er gennemfort af Belgien ved lov af 1939.
27 — In that respect Belgium relied on the Agreement on certain issues arising from the non-conformity of nationality laws, resolution of the Hague international codification con ference of 1930 — adopted by Belgium by a Law of 1939 — which it submitted in a letter written after the hearing.
Bortset fra, at dette anbringende vel må anses for forsinket indgivet, skal jeg fremsætte følgende bemærkninger herom.
Apart from the fact that that submission must probably be regarded as too late, the following should be noted in that connection.
Ifølge Domstolens faste praksis tilsigtes det via EF-traktatens artikel 234, stk. 1 (efter ændring nu arti kel 307, stk. 1, EF), i overensstemmelse med folkerettens principper at præcisere, at traktatens anvendelse ikke berører den pågældende medlemsstats forpligtelse til at respektere tredjestaters rettigheder, som følger af en tidligere konvention, og at overholde sine deraf følgende forpligtelser (sag 812/79, Burgoa, Sml. 1980, s. 2787, præmis 8).
The Court of Justice has consistently held that the purpose of the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 307 EC) is to lay down, in accordance with the principles of international law, that the application of the Treaty does not affect the duty of the Member State concerned to respect the rights of nonmember countries under a prior agreement and to perform its obligations thereunder (Case 812/79 Attorney General v Burgoa [19801 ECR 2787, paragraph 8).
Dette gælder dog kun tredjelandes rettigheder og medlemsstaternes forpligtelser (sag C-158/91, Levy, Sml. 1993 I, s. 4287, præmis 12).
However, that applies only to the rights of nonmember countries and the obligations of the Member States (Case C- 158/91 Levy [1993] ECR I - 4287, paragraph 12).
Hermed kan Belgien på ingen måde udlede ret af en tidligere overenskomst til at give sit eget statsborgerskab forrang i forhold til stats borgerskab i et tredjeland.
Consequently, Belgium can by no means derive from a previous agreement the right to give precedence to its nationality over the nationality of a nonmember country.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT ALBER — SAG C-179/98 ham. I den forbindelse skal man imidlertid tage hensyn til familiemedlemmernes ret tigheder, der fremgår af samarbejdsaftalens artikel 41.
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-179/98 members of his family stemming from Article 41 of the Cooperation Agreement.
Udøvelsen af dem kunne være begrænset, såfremt man afskar fra en påberåbelse af aftalen.
The exercise thereof might be restricted if they are denied the right to rely on the Agreement.
rer svigermoderen som familiemedlem fra at påberåbe sig arbejdstagerens, svigersøn nens marokkanske statsborgerskab.
the mother-in-law, as a member of his family, the right to rely on the Moroccan nationality of the worker, her son-in-law, at the same time.
Herved giver man netop sit eget — belgiske — statsborgerskab forrang i forhold til et andet med den virkning — som i tilfældet med Micheletti — at den pågældende afskæres fra en bestemt ret.
Consequently, however, a country's own — Belgian — nationality is specifically given precedence over that of another with the result — as in the case of Micheletti — that the person concerned is denied a certain right.
I Micheletti-dommen fastslog Domstolen, at en medlemsstat ikke må begrænse virkningerne af en anden medlemsstats tildeling af statsborgerskab ved at kræve yderligere betingelser for anerkendelse af dette statsborgerskab, når det drejer sig om udøvelse af de grundlæggende friheder.
In Micheletti the Court of Justice ruled that the effects of the grant of the nation ality of another Member State may not be restricted by the imposition of an additional condition for the recognition of that nationality with a view to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms.
I sagen her anerkender man ganske vist svigersønnen som belgier, og hermed side stilles han med Belgiens egne statsborgere, også hvad angår udøvelsen af de grund læggende friheder.
It is true that in the present case the son-in-law is recognised as a Belgian and thus treated in the same way as other Belgian nationals, also in respect of the exercise of fundamental freedoms.
På den anden side kunne virkningerne af hans marokkanske stats borgerskab med henblik på udøvelsen af rettighederne være begrænset, altså hvad angår de rettigheder, der tilkommer ham som marokkaner på grundlag af samarbejdsaftalen. bejdsaftalen.
However, the effects of his Moroccan nationality might be restricted with a view to the exercise of the rights vested in him as a Moroccan by the Cooperation Agreement.
Familie medlemmerne til en marokkansk arbejdstager, der bor sammen med ham, har ifølge samarbejdsaftalen hermed ret til ligebehandling med de belgiske statsborgere, henholdsvis med statsborgerne i medlems staterne.
right to the same treatment as Belgian nationals or the nationals of other Member States.
Herved er det uvigtigt, om den ansøgte ydelse tilstås som en selvstændig ret eller på grund af en status som familie medlem29.
In that respect it is irrelevant whether or not the benefit applied for is awarded to a beneficiary as a personal right or in that person's capacity as a member of the family.
Efter aftalens artikel 41, stk. 1, kan man således ikke nægte et familiemedlem en ydelse inden for den sociale sikring på grund af den pågældendes statsborger-
29 Therefore, in accordance with Article 41(1) of the Agreement, a member of the family who satisfies all the conditions laid down by national legislation for
28 — Dom af 3.10.1996, sag C-126/95, Hallouzi Choho, Sml. I, s. 4807, præmis 35 ff.
28 — Judgment in Case C-126/95 Hallouzi-Choho v Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank [1996] ECR I-4807, para graph 35 et seq.
29 — Vedrørende samarbejdsaftalen med Algeriet se dom af 15.1.1998, sag C-113/97, Babahenini, Sml. I, s. 183, præmis 25.
29 — In respect of the Cooperation Agreement with Algeria, see the judgment in Case C-113/97 Babahenini v Belgian State [1998] ECR I-183, paragraph 25.
Hvad angår ham selv ses der umiddelbart ikke at foreligge en sådan begrænsning, da han ikke er udsat for forskelsbehandling længere, når hans belgiske stats borgerskab anerkendes og kan påberåbes af
As far as he himself is concerned, no such restriction is initially apparent since he is not subject to discrimination if his Belgian nationality is recognised and he may rely on it. However, in that context note should be taken of the rights of the
marokkansk arbejdstager på grund af det i samarbejdsaftalen knæsatte diskrimineringsforbud.
BELGIAN STATE V MESBAH the purposes of entitlement may not be refused a benefit in the field of social security on the ground of his nationality.30 whereas the Moroccan mother-in-law of a Moroccan worker has such a right on account of the principle of non-discrimination contained in the Cooperation Agree ment.
Denne merbegunstigelse frem går imidlertid af aftalen selv, som Fælles skabet har indgået med Marokko.
However, that more favourable treat ment is a consequence of the Agreement itself which the Community has concluded with Morocco.
År sagerne hertil er ikke, at arbejdstageren gør begge statsborgerskaber gældende.
It is not due to the fact that the worker invokes both nationalities.