natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Herefter er det min opfattelse, at til forskel fra Mosbæk­sagen, hvor det britiske selskabs tilstedeværelse begrænsede sig til et lejet kontorlokale og én ansat, skal en filial oprettet i en medlemsstat af et selskab stiftet og med hjemsted i en anden med­lemsstat betragtes som en insolvent arbejds­giver i direktivets forstand, i det omfang der i den første stat er fremsat en begæring om indledning af en procedure med henblik på at fastslå insolvensen, og hvori den kompetente myndighed har konstateret, at virksomheden er lukket endeligt, samt at de foreliggende aktiver ikke er tilstrækkelige.
For the reasons given above, I consider that, in contrast to the position in Mosbæk, where the presence of the United Kingdom company in Denmark was no more than a rented office and one employee, a branch opened in a Member State by a company incorporated and having its registered office in another Member State may be regarded as an insolvent employer for the purposes of the Directive provided that, in the first State, application has been made for the commencement of proceedings leading to a declaration of insolvency and the competent authority has established that it has been definitively closed down and that the available assets are insufficient. cient.
Jeg er enig i denne sidstnævnte opfat­telse.
I concur with that second contention.
Det fremgår af EF­traktatens arti­kel 52 (efter ændring nu artikel 43 EF), at det er en væsentlig del af etableringsretten, at en statsborger i en medlemsstat, der er bosat på en anden medlemsstats område, kan oprette agenturer, filialer eller datter­selskaber i en medlemsstat.
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) contemplates the setting up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries in a Member State by Community nationals established in another Member State as an essential feature of the right of establishment.
Følgelig må såvel et selskab, der er stiftet i en medlems­stat som et selskab, der — selv om det er stiftet i en anden medlemsstat — udøver sin etableringsret i den første stat, idet det opretter en filial på dens område, anses for at være etableret i fællesskabsretlig for­stand.
Consequently, for the purposes of applying Community law, a company which has been incorporated in a Member State is just as established in it as a company which, having been incorporated in another Member State, exercises its right of establishment in the first State by opening a branch there.
Β — Vigtigheden af, at arbejdsgiveren bidrager til finansieringen af garantiinstitu­tionen på det tidspunkt, hvor det afgøres, hvilken garantiinstitution der er kompetent
B. The importance, when identifying the competent guarantee institution, of the fact that the employer contributed to its financing cing
Det kan yderligere anføres, således som det fremgår af tredje betragtning til direktiv 89/666 om offentlighed vedrørende filialer oprettet i en medlemsstat af visse former for selskaber henhørende under en anden medlemsstats retsregler, at oprettelsen af en
Moreover, as stated in the third recital in the preamble to Directive 89/666, concern ing disclosure requirements to be met for branches set up by certain kinds of company subject to the law of another Member State, the opening of a branch, like the
I Mosbæk­dommen udtalte Domstolen desuden, at i henhold til direktivets arti­kel 5, litra b), finansieres garantiordningen af arbejdsgiverne, medmindre den sikres fuldstændigt af offentlige myndigheder, og da direktivet ikke indeholder bestemmelser om det modsatte, er det i overensstemmelse med dets opbygning, at den garantiinstitu­
In Mosbœk, the Court also ruled that under Article 5(b) of the Directive the guarantee system is to be financed by employers, unless it is fully covered by the public authorities, and that it accords with the scheme of the directive, in the absence of any contrary indication therein, for the
EVERSON OG BARRASS tion, der er kompetent med hensyn til betalingen af arbejdstagernes løntilgodeha vender, er den, som har opkrævet eller i det mindste burde have opkrævet bidrag fra den insolvente arbejdsgiver11.
EVERSON AND BARRASS guarantee institution responsible for employees' outstanding claims to be the one which levied, or at all events should have levied, the insolvent employer's con tributions.
kompetente garantiinstitution ikke kan være institutionen i den stat, hvori der er indbetalt bidrag for arbejdstagerne, efter som direktiv 80/987 tillader medlemsstaterne at finansiere garantiinstitutionen ude lukkende ved hjælp af offentlige midler.
11 be said that the competent institution is the one in the State in which contributions have been paid since Directive 80/987 allows the Member States to finance guar antee institutions entirely out of public funds.
Dette var ikke tilfældet med den danske garantiinstitution, da arbejdsgiveren — på trods af at arbejdstageren havde bopæl og arbejdede i Danmark — hverken var etableret eller registreret som en virksomhed i Danmark heller ikke hos told- og skattemyndighederne12, og desuden indeholdt arbejdsgiveren ingen skat, pensionsbidrag eller andre beløb i henhold til dansk lov givning.
That did not happen in the case of the Danish guarantee institution because, although the worker lived and had worked in Denmark, the employer was neither established nor registered there as a company or for any other purpose with the tax12 or customs administration, nor did it deduct from the salary it paid her any tax or social security contribution for retirement or other contingencies under Danish law.
I den foreliggende sag er der imidlertid tale om, at den insolvente virksomhed ikke alene disponerede over en filial i Det Forenede Kongerige, men den bidrog også — ligesom de ansatte — med indbetaling af bidrag til finansieringen af den sociale sikringsordning i den pågældende medlemsstat.
That is in fact an option open to the Member States in deciding how to finance their guarantee institutions.
Det Forenede Kongeriges indvending er imidlertid let at tilbagevise, da garantiinstitutionernes forpligtelse til at betale, jf. direktivets artikel 5, litra c), som tidligere nævnt gælder, selv om den arbejdsgiver, der har pligt til at indbetale bidrag, ikke har gjort det.
However, the United Kingdom's objection can be easily rebutted since, as I stated earlier, under Article 5(c) of the Directive, the guarantee institution's obligation to pay exists even where the employer who was required to contribute failed to do so.
Manglen på bidrag fra en arbejdsgiver vil i lige så høj grad blive følt af en garantiinstitution, der er finansieret udelukkende af offentlige myndigheder, som af en garantiinstitution, der er finansieret delvis af arbejdsgiverne, og som ikke har modtaget bidrag, der skulle have været betalt af den insolvente arbejdsgiver.
The lack of contributions by an employer will be felt just as much by an institution financed entirely by the public authorities as by one which, financed in part by employers, failed to receive the contributions that should have been paid by an employer who has been declared insolvent. And yet both have an obligation to pay outstanding claims of workers in respect of remuneration. tion.
Ikke desto mindre har begge institutioner en forpligtelse til at udbetale de ansattes løntilgodehavender.
In the present case, in contrast, the under taking which became insolvent not only had a branch in the United Kingdom but also participated, through its contributions, as did its employees, in the financing of the social security system of that Member State.
Jeg er ikke enig med Det Forenede Kongeriges regering, når den hævder, at den
I do not agree with the United Kingdom Government's assertion that it cannot
11 — Jf. Mosbæk-dommen, anført i fodnote 6, præmis 24.
11 — Mosbæk, cited in footnote 6 above, paragraph 24.
12 — Den danske garantiinstitution var finansieret direkte af staten.
12 — The Danish guarantee institution was financed directly by the State.
Da finansieringen beregnes som en promille af momsgrundlaget, kan man sige, at arbejdsgiverne, som havde pligt tilat betale denne afgift, indbetalte bidrag på en indirekte måde.
However, since the financing was calculated on a basis of one per mil of the taxable amount for VAT purposes, it can be said that employers subject to that tax made a contribution, albeit indirect.
Jeg må således konkludere, at det er den garantiinstitution, der modtog eller som i det mindste skulle have modtaget bidrag fra den insolvente arbejdsgiver, der er forpligtet til at udbetale løntilgodeha-
I must therefore conclude that the responsibility for paying the outstanding claims of workers affected by their employ er's insolvency will attach to the guarantee institution which levied, or at least should
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT RUIZ-JARABO — SAG C-198/98 venderne til de arbejdstagere, der er berørt af deres arbejdsgivers insolvens.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-198/98 have levied, the insolvent employer's con tributions.
forskellige medlemsstater, er den, der er beliggende i den stat, hvor det er blevet besluttet at indlede konkursbehandlingen.
States is that of the State in which it was decided to commence insolvency proceedings. ings.
C — Den omstændighed, at direktiv 80/987 ikke indeholder bestemmelser om udligning mellem medlemsstaternes garantiinstitutioner tiinstitutioner
C. The lack of any arrangements in Directive 80/987 for setting off payments between the guarantee institutions of the Member States
Jeg er ikke enig i denne fortolkning.
I cannot accept that interpretation.
Efter min opfattelse mente Domstolen, at en arbejdstager skal kunne henvende sig til en enkelt garantiinstitution for at kræve sine løntilgodehavender udbetalt, uagtet at han har arbejdet i forskellige medlemsstater i løbet af sin karriere, således at det ikke for at anerkende hans krav i en medlemsstat er nødvendigt at medregne beskæftigelsesperioder tilbagelagt i andre medlemsstater.
In my opinion, what the Court meant to say was that a worker must be able to approach just one guarantee institution for satisfaction of his outstanding claims, even if he has worked in several Member States in the course of his working life, so as to avoid a situation where, to have his claims upheld in one Member State, he would have to have the periods for which he worked in other Member States taken into account.
Dette er grunden til, at Domstolen udtalte, at direktivet ikke fastsætter en ordning med udligning mellem medlemsstaternes garan tiinstitutioner13.
That is why it referred in its reasoning to the lack of a system of set-off between the guarantee institutions of the Member States. 13
I Mosbækdommen omtalte Domstolen ligeledes den omstændighed, at direktivet ikke indeholder bestemmelser om udligning eller tilbagebetaling mellem de forskellige medlemsstaters garantiinstitutioner.
In Mosbæk, the Court also took note of the fact that the Directive does not provide for a system of set-off or reimbursement of payments between the guarantee institutions of the various Member States.
Efter Domstolens opfattelse skal dette ses som en bekræftelse af, at fællesskabslovgiver i tilfælde af en arbejdsgivers insolvens har ønsket, at kun en enkelt medlemsstats garantiinstitution skal indtræde, og dette for at undgå unødige forviklinger mellem de nationale ordninger og navnlig situationer, hvor en arbejdstager i flere medlems stater kunne gøre gældende, at han var omfattet af direktivet.
That confirms, in the Court's view, that the Community legislature intended, in the event of an employer's insolvency, that the guarantee institution of only one Member State should become involved, in order to prevent unnecessary entanglements between national systems and, in particular, situations in which a worker might claim the benefit of the directive in several Member States.
Desuden tilsiger retssikkerhedsprincippet, at en arbejdstager, der er ansat i en medlemsstat af en arbejdsgiver, der er etableret på dens område i den betydning, som jeg har angivet, og til hvis socialsikringsordning begge indbetaler bidrag, bør
Furthermore, by virtue of the principle of legal certainty, a worker employed in a Member State by an employer established there in the sense that I have indicated, to whose social security scheme both contribute, must be able to approach the guar-
13 — Det er på det område, der vedrører social sikring af vandrende arbejdstagere, at man — med henblik pa at koordinere medlemsstaternes sociale sikringsordninger — sammenlægger de sikringsperioder, der er tilbagelagt i de forskellige medlemsstater for at åbne retten til sociale sikringsydelser.
13 — It is in the sphere of social security for migrant workers that, because of the system of coordination of national social security schemes, recourse is had to aggregation of insurance periods completed in the various Member States for recognition of entitlement to benefits.
Det er ligeledes på dette område, at man har indført et refusionssystem, for så vidt angår de ydelser, som en socialsikringsinstitution har udbetalt på vegne af institutionen i den anden medlemsstat.
It is in that sphere too that a system has been set up for the reimbursement of benefits paid by a social security institution in one Member State on behalf of another Member State.
På baggrund af denne udtalelse har Det Forenede Kongeriges regering gjort gældende, at den eneste garantiinstitution, som burde udbetale løntilgodehavender til arbejdstagere, der er ansatte i filialer i
On the basis of that statement, the United Kingdom Government contends that the sole institution which should pay the outstanding claims of workers employed in branches in various Member
EVERSON OG BARRASS virksomheder, hvis hjemsted er beliggende i denne stat, hvilket ikke ville være tilfældet, hvis han var forpligtet til at fremsætte sit krav over for garantiinstitutionen i en anden medlemsstat.
State who are employed by undertakings whose headquarters are located in that State, which would not happen if he were obliged to make a claim to the guarantee institution of another Member State.
kunne henvende sig til denne stats garantiinstitution for at få udbetalt den løn, der ikke er kommet til udbetaling på grund af arbejdsgiverens insolvens, i henhold til lov givningen i denne stat, som arbejdstageren kender.
antee institution of that State for payment of arrears of wages due to him as a result of his employer's insolvency, in accordance with the laws of that State, with which the worker is familiar.
Det ville være i strid med dette princip, hvis han var forpligtet til at henvende sig til garantiinstitutionen i en anden medlemsstat for at få sit løntilgodehavende udbetalt i medfør af de regler og tariffer, der er gældende i den stat, og som arbejdstageren er ubekendt med.
It would be contrary to that principle for him to have to apply to the guarantee institution of another Member State in order to be compensated in accordance with provisions and scales in force in that other State which would be alien to him.
Det foranstående berører ikke medlemsstaternes ret til at indføre en procedure, der er mere fordelagtig for arbejdstagerne, som for eksempel det uformelle samarbejde, der i denne forbindelse finder sted mellem garantiinstitutionerne i de nordiske lande14.
And of course none of the foregoing prevents the Member States from establish ing more favourable procedures for employees, such as the informal cooperation which exists for those purposes between the guarantee institutions of the Nordic States. 14
Kommissionen har desuden fremført andre grunde: For at direktiv 80/987 kan finde anvendelse, skal der være såvel en arbejdstager som en insolvent arbejdsgiver, hvilke begreber for begges vedkommende defineres af medlemsstaternes nationale lovgivning, og som i hvert tilfælde skal vurderes af den nationale dommer, hvorfor begge parter nødvendigvis må være under givet den samme lovgivning.
There are other reasons too, as indicated by the Commission. For it to be possible to apply Directive 80/987, there must be both an employee and an insolvent employer, both of which terms are defined by the legislation of the Member States and must be appraised in each case by the national court — and for that reason both must be subject to the same legislation.
Indtil det tidspunkt, hvor man måtte vedtage en europæisk konvention, der tillader, at der indledes én insolvensbehandling gældende for hele Fællesskabet, og under hvilken alle aktiver og mulige kreditorer inddrages, vil de nationale lovgivninger fortsat støtte sig på territorialprincippet med den virkning, at der under en konkursbehandling indledt i en medlemsstat ikke kan inddrages aktiver, der ikke befinder sig på denne stats område.
And until such time as a European convention comes into operation, so that a single application can be made to obtain a declaration of insolvency for the Community as a whole, in which account would be taken of all assets and all potential creditors, the national laws continue to be based on the principle of territoriality with the result that, in proceedings initiated in a Member State, assets not located within its jurisdiction cannot be brought into account.
For det første bliver arbejdstagerens beskyttelse styrket, hvis han kan kræve sit løntilgodehavende udbetalt af myndighederne i den stat, hvor han har udøvet sin lønnede beskæftigelse.
First, the judicial protection of a worker will be enhanced if the payment of out standing wages can be required from the authorities of the State in which he worked.
For det andet vil han få samme behandling som de øvrige arbejdstagere, der er ansat af
Second, he will receive the same treatment as the remainder of the workers in that
14 — Dette samarbejde, der har sit udspring i en beslutning, som Nordisk Råd traf i 1984, tillader, at såfremt lovgivningen i den stat, hvor arbejdsgiveren er etableret, er mere gunstig for arbejdstageren, end lovgivningen i den stat, hvor han udover sin lønnede beskæftigelse, kan han fremsætte sit krav over for garantiinstitutionen i den første stat.
14 — This cooperation, which originates in a decision adopted by the Nordic Council (Nordisk Råd) in 1984, makes it possible, if the legislation of the State in which the employer is established is more advantageous to the worker than that of the State in which he works, for the worker to apply for his claim to be paid by the guarantee institution of the first State. Schaumburg-Müller: Lønmodtagernes Garantifond, en Lovkommentar, Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1987, p. 167.
Last but not least, bør man ikke under vurdere de sproglige problemer, som arbejdstageren ville blive konfronteret med, hvis han skulle anmelde sit krav i en anden medlemsstat. Dette ville også gøre den beskyttelse, som direktivet giver, min dre effektiv.
Last but not least, the linguistic problems which would be encountered by a worker who had to pursue his application in another Member State and which would be liable to detract from the effectiveness of the protection offered by the Directive must not be underestimated.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT RUIZ-JARABO — SAG C-198/98
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-198/98
VII — Forslag til afgørelse
VE — Conclusion
På baggrund af ovenstående betragtninger foreslår jeg, at Domstolen besvarer det præjudicielle spørgsmål fra Industrial Tribunal, Bristol, således:
In view of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court of Justice give the following answer to the question submitted by the Industrial Tribunal, Bristol:
»I tilfælde, hvor arbejdstagere er ansat i en medlemsstat af en filial af et selskab, der er stiftet i en anden medlemsstat, hvor det har sit hovedsæde, og hvor der blev indledt en procedure til samlet fyldestgørelse af kreditorerne i overensstemmelse med artikel 3 i Rådets direktiv 80/987/EØF af 20. oktober 1980 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne i tilfælde af arbejdsgiverens insolvens, er det garantiinstitutionen i den stat, hvor arbejdstagerne udøver deres lønnede beskæftigelse, og hvor arbejdsgiveren bidrager eller skulle have bidraget til finansiering af garantiinstitutionen, der skal udbetale arbejdstagernes løntilgodehavender.«
Where workers employed in one Member State by a branch of a company incorporated in another Member State, where it had its registered office and where insolvency proceedings were commenced, under Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, the guarantee institution which must accept responsibility for outstanding claims is that of the State in which the workers are employed and in which the employer pays, or ought to pay, contributions to the financing of the institution.
DOMSTOLENS DOM (Femte Afdeling) 16. december 1999 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 16 December 1999 *
I sag C-198/98, angående en anmodning, som Industrial Tribunal, Bristol (Det Forenede Kongerige), i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 177 (nu artikel 234 EF) har indgivet til Domstolen for i den for nævnte ret verserende sag,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Industrial Tribunal, Bristol, United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that tribunal between
Bell Lines Ltd i likvidation, at opnå en præjudiciel afgørelse vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 3 i Rådets direktiv 80/987/EØF af 20. oktober 1980 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlems staternes lovgivning om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne i tilfælde af arbejdsgiverens insolvens (EFT L 283, s. 23),
Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation), on the interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23),
DOMSTOLEN (Femte Afdeling) sammensat af formanden for Første Afdeling, L. Sevón, som fungerende formand for Femte Afdeling, og dommerne C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann og M. Wathelet (refererende dommer), generaladvokat: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer justitssekretær: ekspeditionssekretær H.A. Rühl, efter at der er indgivet skriftlige indlæg af:
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges,
— den irske regering ved Chief State Solicitor M.A. Buckley, som befuldmægtiget, bistået af E. FitzSimons, C. O hOisin og C. O'Rourke, BL
— the Irish Government, by M.A. Buckley, Chief State Solicitor, acting as Agent, E. FitzSimons, C. O hOisin and C. O'Rourke, BL,
— den italienske regering ved afdelingschef, professor U. Leanza, Juridisk Tjeneste, Udenrigsministeriet, som befuldmægtiget, bistået af statens advokat, G. Aiello
— the Italian Government, by Professor U. Leanza, Head of the Legal Service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato,
— den nederlandske regering ved konsulent M.A. Fierstra, Udenrigsministeriet, som befuldmægtiget
— the Netherlands Government, by M.A. Fierstra, Legal Adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,