natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1978 om gradvis gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til sodai sikring skal fortolkes således, at det ifølge bestemmelsen er tilladt at fastsætte en lovbestemt pensionsalder, som er forskellig for de to køn, med henblik på ydelse af alders- og arbejdsop- hørspensioner, og at udøve forskelsbehandling som den af den forelæggende r ret beskrevne, der nødvendigvis er knyttet til denne forskel
By an application lodged on 15 October 1991, the Commission sought a declaration that, by failing to notify to the Commission the provisions necessary in order to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by Commission Directive 89/321/EEC and Council Directive 89/360/EEC, or by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with those directives by the prescribed dates, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 12. maj 1992.
The Italian Republic accepted that the directives in question had not been transposed in full in its domestic legal system, but did not provide any further details.
"Når en medlemsstat har fastsat en pensionsalder, der er forskellig for mænd og kvinder, for så vidt angår udbetaling af alders- og arbejdsophørspensioner (65 år for mænd og 60 år for kvinder), kan denne medlemsstat stadig i medfør af artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), i direktiv 79/7, fravige det i direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, opstillede ligebehandlingsprincip ved at kræve: i.
By failing to adopt within the prescribed time limits the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with Commission Directive 89/321/EEC of 27 April 1989 amending for the second time the Annexes to Council Directive 77/96/EEC on the examination for Trichinae (Trichinelle spiralis) upon importation from third countries of fresh meat derived from domestic swine, and with Council Directive 89/360/EEC of 30 May 1989 amending Directive 64/432/EEC as regards administrative areas and a cessation of serological testing for brucellosis in certain types of swine, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
at mænd skal betale bidrag fem år længere end kvinder for at være berettigede til samme alders- og arbejdsophørspension; ii.
Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 15 May 1992.
at mænd, som har lønnet eller selvstændig beskæftigelse, indtil de fylder 65 år, fortsat skal betale bidrag, indtil de når denne alder, mens kvinder over 60 år ikke skal betale bidrag, uanset om de stadig har lønnet eller selvstændig beskæftigelse, efter at de har nået denne alder, medmindre den nationale ret kan ophæve denne forskelsbehandling uden væsentlig risiko for sammenhængen og/eller den finansielle balance i den pågældende nationale socialsikringsordning."
"I therefore conclude that the Court should hold that by failing to adopt within the requisite time limits the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to satisfy the requirements of Commission Directive 89/321/EEC of 27 April 1989 and Council Directive 89/360/EEC of 30 May 1989 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty.
Sag C-270/91: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Den Italienske Republik
I also propose that the defendant Member State should be ordered to pay all the costs pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure."
8.7.1992 "Landbrug - Traktatbrud - EØF-direktiver - manglende gennemførelse inden for de fastsatte frister" (Domstolens plenum)
Case C-243/91: Belgian State ν Taghavi - 8 July 1992
Ved stævning indleveret den 15. oktober 1991 havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den har undladt at give Kommissionen meddelelse om de bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at opfylde Den Italienske Republiks forpligtelser, dels efter Kommissionens direktiv 89/321/EØF, dels efter Rådets direktiv 89/360/EØF, eller idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har truffet de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at efterkomme disse direktiver.
(Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Free movement of persons - Social security - Benefits for handicapped persons - Personal right - Free movement of workers - Social advantage) (First Chamber)
Den Italienske Republik erkendte under sagen, at de nævnte direktiver ikke fuldt ud var blevet gennemført i italiensk national ret, uden dog at fremkomme med nærmere angivelser i så henseende.
By a judgment of 9 September 1991, which was received at the Court on 20 September 1991, the Belgian Cour de Cassation referred for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
Sagsøgte oplyste, at nogle dekreter, som var under udarbejdelse, ville kunne afhjælpe det pågældende traktatbrud.
That question had arisen in the course of an appeal brought by the Belgian State against a judgment of the Brussels Cour du Travail which had confirmed
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Domstolens plenum den 15. maj 1992.
As there was in those circumstances no "social advantage" for national workers, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 was not applicable.
Han udtalte heri følgende:
The Court ruled as follows:
"Jeg skal herefter sammenfattende foreslå, at Domstolen fastslår, at den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3, idet den ikke inden for de fastsatte frister har udstedt de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at opfylde kravene i henhold til Kommissionens direktiv 89/321/EØF af 27. april 1989 og Rådets direktiv 89/360/EØF af 30. maj 1989.
"Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, must be interpreted as meaning that they cannot be relied on by a national of a non-member country, the spouse of a worker who is a national of a Member State, to claim a handicapped person's allowance which the national legislation grants as a personal right and not by reason of the status of member of a worker's family."
Ved dom af 9. september 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 20. september s.a. havde Belgiens Cour de cassation forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 2 og 3 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71.
A member of the family of a migrant worker who is a national of a Member State cannot, for the purpose of claiming benefits for handicapped persons in another Member State, rely on Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 if, in the latter Member State, handicapped persons may claim only a personal right to such benefits.
Spørgsmålet blev forelagt i forbindelse med den belgiske stats appel af en dom afsagt af Cour de travail de Bruxelles, hvorved det var fastslået, at N. Taghavi, som er iransk statsborger, gift med en italiensk statsborger og har bopæl i Belgien, har ret til ydelser til handicappede, jf. den belgiske lov af 27. juni 1969, hvorefter sådanne ydelser med visse undtagelser er forbeholdt belgiere, der har bopæl i Belgien.
Artide 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 precludes a Member State from refusing a handicapped person's allowance to the spouse, who is not a national of a Member State of the European Communities, of a migrant worker from another Member State, on the grounds of the foreign nationality of that spouse.
Den omtvistede ydelse til handicappede ydes imidlertid ikke på grund af en status som familiemedlem til en arbejdstager.
(Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Free movement of persons - Social security - Unemployment benefit) (Fourth Chamber)
Heraf følger, fortsatte Domstolen, at en statsborger i et tredjeland, der er ægtefælle til en arbejdstager med statsborgerskab i en medlemsstat, ikke kan påberåbe sig forordning nr. 1408/71, herunder dens artikel 2 og 3, til støtte for et krav om ydelser til handicappede som dem, der er fastsat i ovennævnte belgiske lov.
By an order of 21 February 1991, which was received at the Court on 28 March 1991, the Bundessozialgericht referred for a preliminary ruling a number of questions relating to the interpretation of certain provisions in Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72.
Domstolen bemærkede afslutningsvis, at som nævnt ovenfor kan en belgisk arbejdstagers ægtefælle, der ikke er statsborger i en EF-medlemsstat, ikke gøre krav på den pågældende ydelser. Da der ikke er tale om en "social fordel" for indenlandske arbejdstagere, kan artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1612/68 ikke finde anvendelse.
Those questions had arisen in the course of proceedings between the above parties following the refusal by the Bundesanstalt to grant unemployment benefit to Frau Knoch, a German national, on the ground that she had received such benefit pursuant to British legislation and that the rules against overlapping provided for by Regulation No 1408/71 had the effect of excluding her from entitlement to German unemployment benefit.
"Artikel 2 og 3 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fælles skabet, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983, skal fortolkes således, at de ikke kan påberåbes af en statsborger i et tredjeland, der er ægtefælle til en arbejdstager med statsborgerskab i en medlemsstat, til støtte for et krav om ydelser til handicappede, der i national lovgivning er en selvstændig rettighed og ikke udbetales på grund af den pågældendes status som familiemedlem til en arbejdstager."
An employed person, other than a frontier worker, who is wholly unemployed and residing in the territory of a Member State other than the competent one during his 1 ast employment does not lose entitlement to the unemployment benefits referred to by Article 71(l)(b)(ii) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which he resides or to which he returns, by virtue of the fact that he has previously received unemployment insurance benefits from the institution of the Member State to whose legislation he was last subject.
Et familiemedlem til en vandrende arbejdstager, der er statsborger i en medlemsstat, kan med henblik på at få udbetalt en ydelse til handicappede 1 en anden medlemsstat ikke påberåbe sig forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, såfremt handicappede i sidstnævnte medlemsstat alene kan gøre en personlig ret gældende til en sådan ydelse.
The certified statement issued in accordance with Article 84(2) of Regulation No 574/72 does not constitute irrefutable proof vis-à-vis the institution of another Member State which is competent for matters relating to unemployment or vis-à-vis the courts of that State.
Artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat afviser at udbetale en ydelse til handicappede til en ikke-EF-statsborger, der er ægtefælle til en vandrende arbejdstager fra en anden medlemsstat, med den begrundelse, at ægtefællen er statsborger i et tredjeland."
Receipt of benefits under the legislation of the Member State in which the unemployed person resides or to which he returns may be suspended, pursuant to the third sentence of Article 71(l)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 only in so far as the conditions laid down by Article 69 of the abovementioned regulation have actually been fulfilled and the person concerned consequently receives benefits in the Member State to whose legislation he was last subject.
(præjudiciel) "Fri bevægelighed for personer - social sikring - ydelser ved arbejdsløshed" (Fjerde Afdeling)
In the event of suspension, pursuant to the third sentence of Article 71(l)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71, of receipt of benefits under the legislation of the State in which the unemployed person resides, the competent institution of that Member State must deduct from the benefits which it pays the benefits which the unemployed person actually received in the Member State to whose legislation he was last subject.
Ved kendelse af 21. februar 1991, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 28. marts samme år, havde Bundessozialgericht forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af visse bestemmelser 1 Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 og nr. 574/72.
The period during which the unemployed person actually received unemployment benefits under the legislation of the latter State must be deducted from the period of entitlement to benefits under the legislation of the State of residence."
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
He concluded as follows:
En helt arbejdsløs arbejdstager, der ikke er grænsearbejder, og som under sin seneste beskæftigelse har været bosat i en anden medlemsstat end den kompetente, mister ikke ret til de i artikel 71, stk. 1, litra b), nr. 11), 1 Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 - om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet - omhandlede ydelser efter lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område har er bosat, eller som han vender tilbage til, som følge af, at han forinden har oppebåret forsikringsydelser ved arbejdsløshed fra institutionen 1 den
The right provided for in Article 71(l)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 for a wholly unemployed person to receive benefits under the legislation of the Member State in which he resides or to which he returns does not preclude such a person - other than a frontier worker - who resided in the territory of a Member State other than the competent State during his last employment from having previously received unemployment insurance benefit from the competent institution of the Member State to whose legislation he was last subject.
Det i artikel 12, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 indeholdte forbud mod dobbeltydelser finder anvendelse med hensyn såvel til artikel 71, stk. 1, litra b), nr. ii), som til artikel 67 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
The prohibition on the overlapping of benefits imposed by Article 12(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 is applicable in the context of Article 71(l)(b)(ii) and Article 67 of Regulation No 1408/71.
Ydelser ved arbejdsløshed er ydelser af samme art efter betydningen i artikel 12, stk. 1, først pkt., i forordning nr. 1408/71, når de har til formål, som personligt underhold, at erstatte den som følge af arbejdsløshed bortfaldne lønindtægt, og når de forskelle, der består mellem ydelserne, navnlig vedrørende beregningsgrundlaget og betingelserne for tildeling, skydes strukturforskelle i de nationale ordninger.
Unemployment benefits constitute benefits of the same kind within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 12(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 when they are intended, in order to provide for a person's maintenance, to make up for loss of earnings as a result of unemployment and the differences between those benefits, including differences concerning the basis on which they are calculated and the conditions for their grant, arise purely from structural differences between the national schemes in question or are of a purely formal nature.
Den kompetente institution i en medlemsstat ­ i henhold til hvis lovgivning erhvervelse af et krav på ydelser ved arbejdsløshed samt kravets varighed afhænger af, at der er tilbagelagt visse forsik­ringsperioder ­ skal i tilfælde omfattet af artikel 71, stk. 1, litra b), nr. ii), jf. artikel 67 i forordning nr. 1408/71, i medfør af samme forordnings artikel 12, stk. 1, først pkt., ved beregningen af ret til ydelser ved arbejdsløshed medregne forsikringsperioder, der er tilbagelagt i henhold til den lovgivning, den arbejdsløse senest har været omfattet af.
The institution of a Member State under whose legislation the acquisition and duration of entitlement to unemployment benefit are contingent on the completion of periods of insurance must, in a situation under Article 71(l)(b)(ii) and Article 67 of Regulation No 1408/71, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 12(1) of that regulation, take account in calculating the entitlement to unemployment benefit of the periods of insurance completed under the legislation to which the unemployed person was last subject.
Institutionen skal imidlertid fradrage det antal dage, i hvilke der er oppebåret ydelser i henhold til disse bestemmelser, ved fastsættelsen af det tidsrum, i hvilket der består krav på ydelser ved arbejdsløshed.
In that regard, however, it is necessary to deduct from the length of the period of entitlement acquired to unemployment benefit the number of days in respect of which unemployment benefit was received under the said legislation.
Den attest, der udstedes i medfør af artikel 84, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 574/72, er ikke et uigendriveligt bevis, hverken i forhold til den kompetente institution for ydelser ved arbejdsløshed i en anden medlemsstat, eller denne stats retter.
The certified statement issued in accordance with Article 84(2) of Regulation No 574/72 does not have exclusive probative value in relation to the competent institution for matters relating to unemployment or the courts of another Member State.
Ret til ydelser efter lovgivningen i den stat, hvor den arbejdsløse er bosat, eller hvortil han venter tilbage, kan i henhold til artikel 71, stk. 1, litra b), nr. ii), tredje led, i forordning nr. 1408/71 kun stilles i bero i det omfang, de i forordningens artikel 69 anførte betingelser faktisk er opfyldt, og hvor den arbejdsløse følgelig modtager ydelser i den medlemsstat, af hvis lovgivning han senest har været omfattet.
The benefits payable under the legislation of the Member State in which the unemployed person resides or to which he returns must be suspended pursuant to the third sentence of Article 71(l)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 in so far as the conditions laid down by Article 69 of that regulation have actually been fulfilled and the person concerned qualified for benefits on that basis in the Member State to whose legislation he was last subject.
Såfremt retten til ydelser efter lovgivningen i den stat, hvor den arbejdsløse er bosat, stilles i bero i medfør af artikel 71, stk. 1, litra b), nr. ii), tredje led, i forordning nr. 1408/71, skal den kompetente institution i denne medlemsstat i de ydelser, der udbe­tales her, fratrække de ydelser, den arbejdsløse faktisk har modtaget i den medlemsstat, af hvis lovgivning han senest har været omfattet.
In the event of the suspension under the third sentence of Article 71(l)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 of the grant of benefits under the legislation of the State in which the unemployed person resides, the competent institution of that Member State must reduce the benefits payable under the legislation of that State by the benefits actually received in the Member State to whose legislation that person was last subject.
Det tidsrum, hvori der haves krav på ydelser efter lovgivningen i bopælsstaten, skal afkortes med den periode, hvori den arbejdsløse faktisk har oppebåret ydelser ved arbejdsløshed i den medlemsstat, af hvis lovgivning han senest har været omfattet."
The period in which an unemployed person actually received unemployment benefit under the legislation of the last-mentioned Member State must be deducted from the length of the period of entitlement to unemployment benefit under the last-mentioned legislation."
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 6. mai 1992.
(Environment - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations -Prohibition of disposal of waste originating in another Member State) (Full Court)
En helt arbejdsløs arbejdstager, der ikke er grænsearbejder, og som under sin seneste beskæftigelse har været bosat 1 en anden medlemsstat end den kompetente, mister ikke ret til de 1 artikel 71, stk. 1, litra b), nr. ii), i forordning nr. 1408/71 omhandlede ydelser efter lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område har er bosat, eller som han vender tilbage til, som følge af, at han forinden har oppebåret forsikringsydelser ved arbejdsløshed fra Institutionen 1 den medlemsstat, af hvis lovgivning han senest har været omfattet.
The Court first pointed out that neither the general framework established by Directive 75/442 nor any of the provisions contained therein specifically covered trade in waste between Member States or imposed a specific prohibition on adopting measures such as those introduced by the contested legislation. It was for that reason not possible to establish that there had been a breach of Directive 75/442, as alleged by the Commission.
Det 1 artikel 12, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 Indeholdte forbud mod dobbeltydelser finder anvendelse med hensyn såvel til artikel 71, stk. 1, litra b), nr. H), som til artikel 67 1 forordning nr. 1408/71.
In so far as the disputed Belgian regulation imposed an absolute prohibition on the importation of hazardous waste into Wallonia, it did not comply with the directive in question.
Ydelser ved arbejdsløshed er ydelser af samme art efter betydningen i artikel 12, stk. 1, første pkt., i forordning nr. 1408/71, når de har til formål, som personligt underhold, at erstatte den som følge af arbejdsløshed bortfaldne lønindtægt, og når de forskelle, der består mellem ydelserne, navnlig vedrørende beregningsgrundlaget og betingelserne for tildeling, alene skyldes strukturforskelle 1 de pågældende nationale ordninger eller kun er af formel karakter.
So far as concerned Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty, the Court stressed first of all that waste, whether recyclable or not, had to be treated as a product, the free movement of which, pursuant to Article 30 of the Treaty, could not in principle be restricted.
Institutionen skal imidlertid tillige fradrage det antal dage, i hvilke der er oppebåret ydelser 1 henhold til disse bestemmelser, ved fastsættelsen af det tidsrum, 1 hvilket der består krav på ydelser ved arbejdsløshed.
It followed that the argument of the Belgian Government, according to which mandatory requirements of environmental protection justified the disputed measures, had to be regarded as being well founded.
Den attest, der udstedes i medfør af artikel 84, stk. 2, 1 forordning nr. 574/72, er ikke et uigendriveligt bevis, hverken 1 forhold til den kompetente institution for ydelser ved arbejdsløshed 1 en anden medlemsstat, eller denne stats retter.
The Commission, however, argued that those mandatory requirements could not be relied on in the present case, given that the measures at issue discriminated against waste coming from other Member States which was no more harmful than that produced in Wallonia.
Ret til ydelser efter lovgivningen i den stat, hvor den arbejdsløse er bosat, eller hvortil han vender tilbage, kan i henhold til artikel 71, stk. 1, litra b), nr. ii), tredje led, i forordning nr. 1408/71 kun stilles i bero i det omfang, de i forordningens artikel 69 anførte betingelser faktisk er opfyldt, og hvor den arbejdsløse følgelig modtager ydelser i den medlemsstat, af hvis lovgivning han senest har været omfattet.
In view of the differences between waste produced in one place and that produced in another and in view of its connection with the place where it was produced, it followed that the disputed measures could not be regarded as being discriminatory.