natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En vandrende arbejdstager bevarer sin status som arbejdstager i relation til de i artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 omhandlede rettigheder, når han afbryder sit arbejde for at påbegynde et studium, som gør det muligt for ham at forbedre sin situation inden for den erhvervssektor, hvor han sidst var beskæftiget i opholdsmedlemsstaten, eller hvis han pga. den aktuelle eller forudseelige udvikling inden for den omhandlede erhvervssektor er tvunget til at lade sig omskole til et andet erhverv for at få mulighed for at få beskæftigelse.
A migrant worker retains his capacity as a worker for the purpose of obtaining the advantages referred to in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 when he interrupts his work in order to take up a course of study intended to enable him to improve his standing in the employment sector in which he was last engaged in the host Member State or when he is compelled by current or foreseeable developments in the sector in question to re-train in a sector other than the one in which he has been working, so as to secure his employment prospects.
EØF-Traktatens artikel 7 er til hinder for, at en statsborger fra en anden medlemsstat, som er kommet til opholdsmedlemsstaten for at følge en uddannelse, skal have et opholdsbevis for at være omfattet af en ordning vedrørende dækning af studieudgifter for indenlandske studerende, for så vidt som ordningen omfatter immatrikulations- og undervisningsafgifter.
It is contrary to Article 7 of the EEC Treaty for a national of another Member State who has come to follow a training course in the host Member State to be required to hold a residence permit in order to qualify under a scheme for funding study expenses which is available to national students, in so far as the scheme covers enrolment and tuition expenses.
En statsborger i en medlemsstat, som har fået adgang til og er blevet optaget på en faglig uddannelse i en anden medlemsstat, har i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 7 ret til ophold og ret til at få udstedt et opholdsbevis, som bekræfter dette, hvilket er en følge af retten til uden forskelsbehandling at få adgang til en faglig uddannelse.
A national of a Member State who has been admitted and enrolled for an occupational training course in another Member State enjoys, by virtue of Article 7 of the EEC Treaty, a right of residence and a right to the issuance of a residence permit attesting that right of residence, and he does so as a consequence of his vested right to have access, free of discrimination, to professional training.
Retten til ophold (og det hertil hørende opholdsbevis) kan, med respekt af eventuelle andre fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser, der finder anvendelse, knyttes til visse betingelser, f.eks. gives for og begrænses til uddannelsens varighed, og kan også, for så vidt angår dækning af udgifter til underhold, undergives visse betingelser.
That right of residence (and the concomitant residence permit) may, without prejudice to the possible application of other provisions of
Ved kendelse af 22. december 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 5. januar 1990, havde College van Beroep Studiefinanciering stillet en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikel 48, samt af artikel 7, stk. 2, og artikel 12 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68.
By order of 22 December 1989, lodged at the Court Registry on 5 January 1990, the College van Beroep Studiefinanciering [Study Funding Appeals Committee] referred for a preliminary ruling a number of questions regarding the interpretation of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 7(2) and 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68.
Bernini, som er italiensk statsborger og datter af en vandrende arbejdstager, har boet i Nederlandene, siden hun var to.
Mrs Bernini, an Italian national and the daughter of a migrant worker, had lived in the Netherlands since the age of two years.
Hun fulgte en faglig uddannelse i dette land, i hvilken forbindelse hun havde et lønnet praktikantarbejde i seks uger på en fabrik.
She followed an occupational training course in the Netherlands, as part of which she worked for ten weeks in a factory as a salaried trainee.
Efter at have indledt en arkitektuddannelse i Italien ansøgte Bernini Det Nederlandske Ministerium for Undervisning og Videnskab om studiestøtte.
After beginning a course of architectural studies in Italy, Mrs Bernini applied to the Netherlands Ministry of Education and Science for a grant to fund her studies.
Ansøgningen blev afslået med den begrundelse, at hun ikke kunne ligestilles med en nederlandsk statsborger, fordi hun ikke var bosat i Nederlandene, men i Italien.
The application was rejected on the ground that she could not be treated as a Netherlands national since she was not resident in the Netherlands but in Italy.
Bernini klagede over denne afgørelse under henvisning til, at hun havde opnået status som arbejdstager i EØF-Traktatens artikel 48's forstand som følge af praktikantperioden, og at hun derfor kunne gøre krav på studiestøtte i medfør at forordning nr. 1612/68.
In challenging that decision Mrs Bernini argued that she had acquired the status of a worker within the meaning of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty by virtue of her period of traineeship and hence could claim funding for her studies under Regulation No 1612/68.
Hun gjorde endvidere gældende, at hun som barn af en vandrende arbejdstager havde ret til studiestøtte i medfør af artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68 og endelig, at betaling af studiestøtte til hende udgør en social fordel for hendes far efter betydningen i forordningens artikel 7, stk. 2.
She further maintained that Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 gave her a right to funding for her studies in her capacity as the child of a migrant worker, and finally that payment to her of a study grant would constitute a "social advantage" for her father for the purposes of Article 7(2) of the regulation.
Domskonklusionen besvarede spørgsmålene således:
The Court ruled as follows:
En statsborger i en medlemsstat, der som led i en uddannelse har arbejdet i en anden medlemsstat, skal anses for at være arbejdstager efter betydningen i EØF-Traktatens artikel 48 og i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet, såfremt han har udført lønnet beskæftigelse, hvorved det dog forudsættes, at han reelt og faktisk har udført arbejde.
A national of a Member State who has worked in another Member State within the framework of a course of vocational training must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community if he has provided services for which he has received payment provided that his activities are effective and genuine;
En vandrende arbejdstager, som efter et stykke tid frivilligt forlader sit arbejde for at gennemføre et fuldtidsstudium i det land, hvor han er statsborger, bevarer sin status som arbejdstager, såfremt der er forbindelse mellem hans tidligere arbejde og det pågældende studium.
A migrant worker who voluntarily leaves his employment in order to take up, after a certain lapse of time, a course of fulltime study in the country of which he is a national retains his status as a worker provided that there is a link between the previous occupational activity and the studies in question;
En medlemsstats studiestøtte til arbejdstageres børn udgør for en vandrende arbejdstager en social fordel som omhandlet i artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68, når arbejdstageren fortsat forsørger barnet. I et sådant tilfælde kan barnet påberåbe sig
Study funding granted by a Member State to the children of workers constitutes, for a migrant worker, a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 when the worker continues to provide for the maintenance of the child.
- 9 - artikel 7, stk. 2, for at få studiestøtte på de samme betingelser som indenlandske arbejdstageres børn, og der kan herved navnlig ikke stilles krav om bopæl også for barnet."
In such a case, the child may rely on Article 7(2) in order to obtain study funding under the same conditions as those applied to children of national workers and in particular without it being possible to impose upon him any further requirement relating to his residence."
Generaladvokat W. Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 11. juli 1991
Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the full Court on 11 July 1991
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare de stillede spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows.
En statsborger i en medlemsstat, som arbejder i en anden medlemsstat som praktikant som led i en uddannelse, skal anses for vandrende arbejdstager i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68, såfremt det arbejde, vedkommende har udført iht arbejdsgiverens anvisninger har en vis, ikke rent nominel, økonomisk værdi, og såfremt arbejdet som praktikant, når henses til dets konkrete indhold og praktikantens mulighed for at blive fortrolig med det udførte arbejde, varer tilstrækkeligt længe til, at det ikke kun anses for rent marginalt og underordnet.
A national of a Member State working in another Member State as a trainee, as part of a training course, must be regarded as a migrant worker within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 if the tasks he has performed under the supervision of the employer are of some economic value, for which he receives from the employer a remuneration that is more than merely nominal, and if duration of the traineeship is sufficiently long, regard being had to its particular characteristics and to the opportunities open to the trainee to become familiar with the job, so as to preclude its being considered merely marginal or incidental.
Ved kendelse af 28. juni 1990, indgået til Domstolen den 14. september 1990, havde Landgericht Köln forelagt Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 16, nr. 1, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager.
A person who has acquired the status of a worker retains that status - in cases where there must be, and actually is, a relationship between the previous occupation and the subsequent course of study -when that person has terminated his occupation with the intention of commencing those studies, and when the interval between the previous
Den nationale retsinstans ønskede oplyst, om der foreligger en lejekontrakt i Bruxelles-konventionens forstand, når en rejsearrangør og en kunde, som begge har hjemsted, henholdsvis bopæl i samme kontraherende stat, i denne stat indgår en aftale, hvorved rejsearrangøren over for kunden forpligter sig til for nogle uger at overlade denne brugen af en i en anden kontraherende stat beliggende feriebolig, som rejsearrangøren ikke er ejer af, og til at sørge for færgereservation.
A grant to fund studies, awarded in a Member State to the children of national workers, affords a migrant worker a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 when the worker continues to provide for the maintenance of the child, in which case the child derives an indirect right to full equality of treatment with the children of national workers, irrespective of his residence in a case such as this one, in which the national legislation in question imposes no residence condition on the children of national workers.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
Case C-280/90: Elisabeth Hacker ν Europ-Relais GmbH - 26 February 1992 (Brussels Convention (Article 16(1)) - Jurisdiction in proceedings concerning tenancies of immovable property) (Full Court)
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Domstolens plenum den 10. december 1991
By order of 28 June 1990, received at the Court on 14 September 1990, the Landgericht Köln [District Court, Cologne] referred for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Article 16(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, skal fortolkes således, at den ikke finder anvendelse på en aftale, der er indgået i en kontraherende stat mellem en rejsearrangør og en kunde, der begge har hjemsted, henholdsvis bopæl i denne stat, og hvorefter rejsearrangøren bl.a. forpligter sig til for nogle uger at overlade kunden brugen af en feriebolig, der er beliggende i en anden kontraherende stat, uanset om rejsearrangøren måtte være ejer af ferieboligen.
The national court wished to establish whether, when a professional travelorganizer and a customer, both of whom had their head office (or residence) in the same Contracting State, had concluded in that State a contract requiring the travelorganizer to provide for the customer a few weeks' use of holiday accommodation situated in another Contracting State - the holiday-organizer not being the owner of the property - and to make the travel bookings, the resultant contract is a "tenancy" contract within the meaning of the Convention.
Ved dom af 16. oktober 1990, indgået til Domstolen den 26. oktober s.a., havde Tribunal de paix de Luxembourg stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af vedtægten for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber.
"Article 16(1) of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as not applying to a contract concluded in a Contracting State whereby a professional travel organizer, which has its registered office in that State, undertakes to procure for a client domiciled in the same State the use for several weeks of holiday accommodation in another Contracting State which it does not own, and to book the travel."
Domstolen besvarede spørgsmålet således:
Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the full Court on 10 December 1991
Artikel 73, stk. 4, i tjenestemandsvedtægten og den seneste affattelse heraf i vedtægtens artikel 85a, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at Fællesskabernes indtræden i de rettigheder og søgsmålsrettigheder, som en person, der er omfattet af vedtægten, eller dennes erstatningsberettigede pårørende har mod den for ulykken ansvarlige tredjemand, sker på tidspunktet for den ansvarspådragende handling og inden for grænserne af de ydelser, der er udbetalt i henhold til de vedtægtsmæssige forpligtelser.
Article 16(1) of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as not applying to a contract concluded in a Contracting State between a travelorganizer and a customer, both of whom have their main office or place of residence in that State, under which the travelorganizer is obliged, together with the provision of other services, to secure for the customer a few weeks' use of holiday accommodation - whether or not the organizer owns it - situated in another Contracting State;
Indtrædelsen får først virkning i forhold til den ansvarlige tredjemand, når denne har modtaget en meddelelse, hvori institutionen underretter den pågældende om, at der findes en sådan ret, og at institutionen har til hensigt at udnytte den.
In the alternative, if Article 16 is held to apply to such a contract, it must also apply to claims for a price-reduction due to a defect in the holiday house, for damages on account of the need to rent additional accommodation, and for compensation for the disruption to the holidays.
En tjenestemand i Fællesskaberne er ansvarlig over for den institution, hvori han er ansat, såfremt han ved forlig eller på anden vis gør indgreb i retten til at indtræde.
Royale Belge ν Robert Joris - 26 February 1992 (Staff Regulations - Subrogation of the Communities) (Fifth Chamber)
I så fald kan institutionen fradrage det beløb, som tjenestemanden eller dennes erstatningsberettigede pårørende har modtaget, såfremt den endnu ikke har udbetalt det beløb, som de pågældende personer har ret til i henhold til vedtægten, eller foretage en tilbagesøgning af det med urette udbetalte beløb med henblik på tilbagebetaling af forskellen."
The national court wished to establish the moment, under the Staff Regulations, at which the automatic subrogation of the Communities to the rights, and rights of action, of their officials against third parties bearing liability took effect, and whether the liable third party might plead against the Community institution or its insurer an agreement concluded with an official before the Communities had paid that official benefits.
Sagerne C-5/90 og C-206/90
The Court ruled as follows:
Bremer Rolandmühle Erling & Co. samt Kurt A. Becher GmbH & Co. KG mod Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas 27.2.92 "Forudbetaling af eksportrestitutioner - eksporteret produkt med andet indhold end oplyst i betalingsangivel sen - virkninger" (Femte Afdeling) Ved kendelse af 21. november 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 8. januar 1990, havde Bundesfinanzhof forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af bestemmelser i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 798/80.
"The automatic subrogation of the Communities to the rights of redress of a Community official, provided for in Article 73(4) of the version of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities in force following the amendments made by Council Regulation (Euratom/ECSC/EEC) No 912/78 of 2 May 1978 and in Article 85a(l) of the version currently in force, takes effect immediately upon the event causing death, injury or sickness.
Generaladvokat Carl Otto Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 6. december 1991
Article 73(4) of the Staff Regulations and the new version created by Article 85a(l) of those regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the Communities' subrogation to the rights, including rights of action, of a person to whom the Staff Regulations apply (or those entitled under him), against the third party liable for the accident, up to the level of the benefits paid pursuant to obligations under those regulations, takes effect as soon as the harmful event occurs;
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare det forelagte spørgsmål - som var enslydende i de to sager - på følgende måde:
(b) the subrogation takes effect as against the third party bearing liability only when the institution concerned notifies that third party of the existence of that right and of the intention to make use of it;
Har angivelsen af et lavere askeindhold end det faktiske indhold hverken medført, at der er ydet en større forudbetaling end den skyldige eller betalt et større beløb end den samlede skyldige eksportrestitution, er eksportøren ikke forpligtet til, hverken helt eller delvis, at tilbagebetale de udbetalte restitutioner.
Cases C-5/90 and C-206/90 Bremer Rolandmühle Erling & Co. and Kurt A. Becher GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas - 27 February 1992 (Advance payment of export refunds - Exported product the characteristics of which are different from those given on the payment declaration -Consequences) (Fifth Chamber) By order of 21 November 1989, received at the Court Registry on 8 January 1990, the Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Finance Court] referred for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 798/80.
Har angivelsen af et lavere askeindhold ikke medført, at der er ydet en større forudbetaling end den skyldige, men dog at der er udbetalt e?t større beløb end den samlede eksportrestitution, er eksportøren forpligtet til at tilbagebetale forskelsbeløbet i henhold til nationale retsforskrifter, som gælder vedrørende tilbagesøgning af beløb, der er udbetalt med urette.
The questions arose in the context of a dispute between the abovementioned parties, concerning the decision of the Hauptzollamt to demand reimbursement from Bremer and Becher of the export refunds which those companies had obtained under advance financing arrangements, subject to the conditions laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80, inasmuch as those companies had undertaken to manufacture from specific quantities of wheat under customs supervision flour having an ash-content of from 0 to 520mg/100g, and to export the same, whereas the flour actually exported had, in the event, an ash-content considerably higher than 520mg/100g.
Subsidiært - det vil sige såfremt Domstolen ikke følger min konklusion under punkt 1 - skal jeg foreslå Domstolen at besvare det spørgsmål, som Bundesfinanzhof for dette tilfælde har forelagt som sit andet spørgsmål i sag C-5/90, på følgende måde:
"Where a trader has undertaken, pursuant to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 798/80 of 31 March 1980 laying down general rules on the advance payment of export refunds and positive monetary compensatory amounts in respect of agricultural products, to export flour with an ash content of 0 to 520 mg/100 g and it is found that for reasons other than force majeure he in fact exported flour with a considerably higher ash content, the amount of the sums which that trader must pay is fixed by the provisions of Article 10(4)(b) or (c) of Regulation No 798/80.
Gennemgangen af det andet spørgsmål, som er forelagt i sag C-5/90, har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af forordning nr. 1633/80, for så vidt som restitutionssatsen for eksport af hvedemel til USSR herved fastsættes til 0 ECU."
In order to calculate the actual refund to which the trader may claim entitlement under those provisions, the rate of refund laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products should be applied."
Sag C-377/90: Kommissionen mod Kongeriget Belgien
Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 6 December 1991
"Traktatbrud - EØF-direktiv - manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist"
He proposed that the Court should answer the question common to both cases in the following terms:
Ved stævning, indleveret til Domstolen den 21. december 1990, havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Belgien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 11 i Rådets direktiv 87/540/EØF samt EØF-Traktatens artikel 5 og artikel 189.
If an exporter has undertaken in a payment declaration under Article 2 of Regulation No 798/80 to export flour having an ash content of between 0 and 520 mg/100 g, and if, on the basis of that statement, he has received advance payment of a sum greater than the sum which would have been payable to him if the ash content stated in the payment declaration had matched the ash content of the flour actually exported afterwards (which lay between 521 and 600 mg/100 g), then he must - if the minimum increase is applied - refund the amount indicated in Article 10(4)(c) of that regulation, as amended by Regulation 3445/80.
Kongeriget Belgien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 11 i Rådets direktiv 87/540/EØF af 9. november 1987 om adgang til udøvelse af transportvirksomhed inden for godstransport ad indre vandveje i indenlandsk og international transport og om gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser inden for dette erhverv, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har meddelt Kommissionen teksten til de nationale retsforskrifter, som det har udstedt på det område, der er omfattet af direktivet.
If the statement citing a lower ash content than was actually found in the exported flour has not induced payment of an amount higher than was payable under the advance-financing transaction or payment of an amount higher than the total payable by way of export refund, then the exporter is not obliged to repay the amounts granted, in whole or in part.