natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Imidlertid var han - idet han ikke opfyldte betingelsen om fast bopæl i den nationale lovgivnings forstand - omfattet af definitionen af en »person fra udlandet«, og han havde således ikke krav på indkomststøtte. Robin Swaddling anlagde derefter sag ved Cwmbran Social Security Appeal Tribunal.
In January 1995 Mr Swaddling returned to the United Kingdom, where he lives with his brother.
En person som Robin Swaddling er omfattet al det personelle anvendelsesområde for forordning nr. 1408/71, eftersom det står fast, at han som arbejdstager har været omfattet af de britiske og franske sociale sikringsordninger.
In the view of the Social Security Commissioner, however, it is none the less necessary to determine whether the arguments based on Community law lead to a different conclusion.
Præsidenten for denne ret gav imidlertid Adjudication Officer tilladelse til at anke afgørelsen til Social Security Commissioner.
The Social Security Commissioner therefore decided to stay proceedings and to refer the
Det bemærkes, at det følger af artikel 1, litra h). i forordning nr. 1408/71, at udtrykket »bopæl« i forordningens forstand »betyder ... sædvanligt
The Adjudication Officer accepted that, as of 9 January 1995, Mr Swaddling satisfied the conditions of entitlement to income support. However, in so far as Mr Swaddling did not meet
opholdssted« og således har et fællesskabsretligt indhold.
In that context, account should be taken in particular of the employed person's family situation; the reasons which have led him to move; the length and continuity of his residence; the fact (where this is the case) that he is in stable employment; and his intention as it appears from all the circumstances.
I den forbindelse vedrører det i artikel 10a i forordning nr. 1408/71 fastsatte udtryk »den medlemsstat, på hvis område de er bosat« den stat, hvor de pågældende personer har deres faste bopæl, og hvor deres sædvanlige interessecentrum ligeledes befinder sig. Således skal der navnlig tages hensyn til arbejdstagerens familiemæssige situation, årsagerne til udrejsen, bosættelsens varighed og kontinuitet, om han i givet fald har fast beskæftigelse, samt arbejdstagerens hensigt, således som den fremgår af de samlede omstændigheder.
'In circumstances where a person has worked and been habitually resident in one Member State, has then exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers to move to another Member State, where the person has worked and become habitually resident, and finally returns to the first Member State in order to seek work, is it compatible with the requirements of Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome for the first Member State to impose a condition of habitual residence in that State (involving the existence of an appreciable period of residence in that State) on entitlement to a general non-contributory meanstested State benefit with the characteristics of British income support?'
1 forbindelse med denne vurdering kan varigheden af bosættelsen i den stat, hvor der søges om udbetaling af den omtvistede ydelse, imidlertid ikke antages at udgøre et afgørende led i begrebet bopæl i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 10a i forordning nr. 1408/71.
Mr Swaddling is a person covered by Regulation No 1408/71 since it is common ground that, as an employed person, he has been subject to both the British and the French social security schemes.
»Artikel 10a i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sæiale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådels forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1247/92 af 30. april 1992, er, når den læses i sammenhæng med forordningens artikel 1, litra h), til hinder for, at en person, som har gjort brug af sin ret til fri bevægelighed for at bosætte sig i en anden medlemsstat, hvor han har arbejdet og haft fast bopæl, og som med henblik på at søge beskæftigelse vender tilbage til oprindelsesmedlemsstaten, hvor hans familie er bosat, af sidstnævnte stat, som betingelse for at få tildelt en ydelse i henhold til artikel 10a i forordning nr. 1408/71, pålægges et krav om fast bopæl i denne stat, som udover at den pågældende skal have til hensigt at bosætte sig i denne stat indebærer et krav om en vis bopælsperiode. «
For the purposes of that assessment, however, the length of residence in the Member State in which payment of the benefit at issue is sought cannot be regarded as an intrinsic element of the concept of residence within the meaning of Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71. In particular, when, as in the present case, an employed person, on returning to his State of origin after exercising his right to freedom of movement, has made it clear at the time of applying for income support that he intends to remain in his State of origin, where his close relatives live — whilst expressing his readiness, should the need arise in the context of some future employment, to travel from time to time to other Member States — he cannot be deemed not to satisfy the condition concerning residence within the meaning of Article 10a merely because the period of residence completed in his State of origin is too short.
Generaladvokat A. Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 29. september 1998.
The phrase 'the Member State in which they reside' in Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71
»Artikel 10a, stk. 1, 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 Fællesskabet, med senere ændringer, skal under hensyn til traktatens artikel 48 og 51 fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen er til hinder for nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter der med hensyn til en person, der har været beskæftiget og haft fast bopæl i én medlemsstat og derefter har gjort brug af retten til fri bevægelighed til at flytte til en anden medlemsstat, hvor han har været beskæftiget og haft fast bopæl, og som endelig vender tilbage til den første medlemsstat for at søge beskæftigelse, opstilles en betingelse om fast bopæl, der omfatter bopæl i en vis periode i den pågældende stat, for at den pågældende har ret til
'Article 10a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed 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, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992, read together with Article 1(h) thereof, precludes the Member State of origin in the case of a person who has exercised his right to freedom of movement in order to establish himself in another Member State, in which he has worked and set up his habitual residence, and who has returned to his Member State of origin, where his family lives, in order to seek work —from making entitlement to one of the benefits referred to in Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 conditional upon habitual residence in that State, which presupposes not only an intention to reside there, but also completion of an appreciable period of residence there.'
en særlig, ikkebidragspligtig ydelse, som har de karakteristika med hensyn til indkomststøtte, som er fastsat i britisk lovgivning.«
He proposed that the Court reply as follows to the question referred:
25. februar 1999 læger - speciallæger — uddannelsesperioder
25 February 1999
Ved kendelse af 2. december 1996 har Pretura circondariale di Bologna forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 82/76/EØF af 26. januar 1982 om ændring af direktiv 75/362/EØF (herefter »anerkendelsesdirektivet«) samt direktiv 75/363/EØF (herefter »samordningsdirektivet«).
Preliminary ruling (Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services Training periods — Remuneration Direct effect) (Fifth Chamber) of trainee medical specialists to 'appropriate remuneration' during their training.
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen har anført alle at have bestået lægevidenskabelig embedseksamen.
The applicants in the main proceedings all stated that they were qualified in medicine.
De var indskrevet for det akademiske år 1990/1991 på undervisningssteder for specialistuddannelse ved Det Medicinske Fakultet ved Bologna Universitet inden for en række fagområder.
They were registered during the academic year 1990/91 in specialist schools of the Faculties of Medicine of the University of Bologna, in several disciplines.
Domstolen fastslog allerede i den ovennævnte dom i sagen Kommissionen mod Spanien, præmis 20, at forpligtelsen til i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 1, litra c), i samordningsdirektivet
Since they had not received any remuneration for that academic year, the applicants in the main proceedings claimed, inter alia, in their application lodged on 30 July 1992 before the Pretura Circondariale, Bologna, that, having
Da sagsøgerne i hovedsagen ikke havde modtaget løn vedrørende det nævnte akademiske år, har de navnlig i stævningen indleveret den 30. juli 1992 til Pretura circondariale di Bologna gjort gældende, at de havde ret til en »passende aflønning« under varigheden af
That question was raised in proceedings between Anna Carbonari and 121 other applicants, and the Università degli Studi di Bologna, the Ministero della Sanità, the Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica and the Ministero del Tesoro on the subject of the right
uddannelsen til speciallæge finder sted, skal sikre, at denne uddannelse opfylder samtlige betingelser ifølge samordningsdirektivet og direktiv 82/76, og at de uddannelsessøgende læger skal aflønnes.
regard to the terms of Article 2(l)(c) of the 'coordination' directive and point 1 of the Annex thereto, as amended by Directive 82/76, they were entitled to 'appropriate remuneration' during their specialist training.
at betale løn under uddannelsen til speciallæge kun gælder for de lægespecialer, som er fælles for alle medlemsstaterne eller for to eller flere medlemsstater, og som er nævnt i anerkendelsesdirektivets artikel 5 eller 7.
level of training in specialised medicine should not be compromised by, in particular, the parallel pursuit, in a private capacity, of a paid professional activity. That is why Directive 82/76 establishes the obligation to provide remuneration for periods of training in medical specialties.
Det må fremhæves, at punkt 1 i bilaget til samordningsdirektivet, som ændret ved direktiv 82/76, er udtrykkeligt og ubetinget i den forstand, at det kræverden uddannelsessøgendes deltagelse i samtlige lægelige aktiviteter, herunder vagter, i den afdeling, hvor uddannelsen foregår, således at han eller hun gennem hele arbejdsugen året igennem anvender hele sin arbejdsindsats på denne praktiske og teoretiske uddannelse.
The defendants in the main proceedings alleged inter alia that the directives in question could not be considered to have direct effect since their provisions did not give rise to clear, precise and unconditional obligations on the part of the State concerning remuneration for trainee medical specialists.
Det er i den sammenhæng, at bestemmelserne i artikel 2, stk. 1, litra c), samt punkt 1 i bilaget til samordningsdirektivet, som ændret ved direktiv 82/76, forpligter medlemsstaterne til, for så vidt angår de læger, der kan omfattes af ordningen med gensidig anerkendelse, at yde løn under uddannelsen til speciallæge, såfremt specialerne er omfattet af direktivets anvendelsesområde. Denne pligt er som sådan ubetinget og tilstrækkeligt præcis.
That obligation is thus entirely linked to fulfilling the requirements for training in specialised medicine which themselves enable the Member States to undertake the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in specialised medicine in accordance with the 'recognition' directive.
Det står imidlertid fast, at samordningsdirektivet og direktiv 82/76 ikke indeholder nogen EF-rellig definition hverken af den løn, som skal betragtes som passende, eller af metoderne til fastsættelse af lønnen. Sådanne definitioner henhører i princippet under medlemsstaternes kompetence, som på dette område skal vedtage særlige gennemførelsesforanstaltninger.
It is therefore clear from the system of the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in specialised medicine that the Member State in which the training in specialised medicine is undertaken must guarantee that that training fulfils all the requirements laid down in the 'coordination' directive and Directive 82/76 and that the trainee specialists receive remuneration.
Med hensyn til overholdelsen af mindstenormerne for uddannelsen må det fastslås, at EF-lovgiveren ved at lægge vægt på speciallægeuddannelsens minimumsvarighed og det forhold, at denne uddannelse skal foregå på heltid, har fundet, at niveauet for speciallægernes uddannelse ikke måtte bringes i fare, navnlig ved at der ved siden af udøves lønnet faglig virksomhed på privat basis. Derfor indfører direktiv 82/76 pligten til at betale løn for den tid, som medgår til speciallægeuddannelsen.
By its question, the national court seeks to ascertain whether, in the absence of implementing measures taken within the timelimits, Article 2(l)(c) of the 'coordination' directive and point 1 of the Annex thereto, as amended by Directive 82/76, which impose the obligation to provide appropriate remuneration for periods of training in medical specialties are, as regards their content, unconditional and sufficiently precise for trainee medical specialists to be able to rely on that obligation against the administrative authorities of a Member State before the national courts.
Hverken samordningsdirektivet eller direktiv 82/76 angiver, hvem der er debitor for den løn. der skal ydes under speciallægeuddannelserne, og medlemsstaterne råder derfor over en stor skønsfrihed, når de udpeger denne debitor.
It is in that context that Article 2(l)(c) of the 'coordination' directive and point 1 of the Annex thereto, as amended by Directive 82/76, impose an obligation on Member States, in respect of doctors liable to benefit from the system of mutual recognition, to provide remuneration for periods of training in medical specialties in so far as they fall within the scope of the directive. That obligation is, in itself, unconditional and sufficiently precise.
Sidstnævnte pligt er således fuldt og helt betinget af overholdelsen af kravene til uddannelsen af speciallæger, som selv giver medlemsstaterne mulighed for at foretage den gensidige anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre beviser for kvalifikationen som speciallæge i overensstemmelse med anerkendelscsdirektivet.
The Court of Justice has already held that the requirement to provide remuneration for the periods of training in specialised medicine laid down in Article 2(l)(c) of the 'coordination' directive, applies only to medical specialties which are common to all the Member States or to two or more Member States and are mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of the 'recognition' directive.
Under disse omstændigheder er bestemmelserne i artikel 2, stk. 1, litra c), samt punkt 1 i bilaget til samordningsdirektivet, som ændret ved direktiv 82/76, ikke i den henseende ubetingede.
However, it is common ground that the 'coordination' directive and Directive 82/76 do not contain any Community definition either of the remuneration which is to be regarded as appropriate or of the methods by which that remuneration is to be fixed.
De sætter ikke den nationale ret i stand til at fastslå identiteten af den debitor, som er pligtig at udrede den passende aflønning, ligesom dennes størrelse ikke kan fastslås.
Such definitions are in principle a matter for the Member States, which must adopt specific implementing measures in the field.
Det fremgår således af ordningen vedrørende gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre beviser for kvalifikationen som speciallæge, at den medlemsstat, hvor
It should be noted that point 1 of the Annex to the 'coordination' directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, is explicit and unconditional in requiring participation in all the medical activities of the department where the training is carried out, including on-call duties, so that the trainee specialist devotes to this practical and theoretical training all his professional activity throughout the duration of the standard working week and throughout the year.
»Artikel 2, stk 1, litra c), samt punkt 1 i bilaget til Rådets direktiv 75/363/EØF af 16. juni 1975 om samordning af de administrativt eller ved lov fastsatte bestemmelser om virksomhed som læge, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 82/76/EØF af 26. januar 1982 om ændring af direktiv 75/362/EØF om gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser for læger omfattende foranstaltninger, som skal lette den faktiske udøvelse af retten til etablering og fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, og om ændring af direktiv
As regards the respect for the minimum criteria for training, it should be observed that the Community legislature, by insisting both on the minimum training period and on the fact that the training should be full-time, considered that the
75/363/EØF om samordning af de administrativt eller ved lov fastsatte bestemmelser om virksomhed som læge skal fortolkes således:
In those circumstances, Article 2(l)(c) of the 'coordination' directive and point 1 of the Annex thereto, as amended by Directive 82/76, are not, in that respect, unconditional; they do not enable the national court to determine the
Pligten til at betale en passende løn for uddannelsesperioderne vedrørende medicinske specialergælder kun for de medicinske specialer, der er fælles for samtlige medlemsstater eller for to eller flere af dem, og som er nævnt i artikel 5 eller 7 i Rådets direktiv 75/362/EØF af 16. juni 1975.
'Article 2(l)(c) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors and point 1 of the Annex thereto, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363, must be interpreted as follows: the obligation to provide appropriate remuneration for periods of training in specialised medicine is binding only in respect of the medical specialties which are common to all the Member States or to two or more of them and are mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975;
Denne pligt er ubetinget og tilstrækkelig præcis, idet den, for at en speciallæge kan være omfattet af ordningen for gensidig anerkendelse ifølge direktiv 75/362, kræver, at hans uddannelse skal foregå på heltid og være aflønnet.
— that obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise in so far as it requires, for a medical specialist to be able to benefit from the system of mutual recognition established by Directive 75/362, that his training be full-time and remunerated;
Nævnte pligt gør det imidlertid ikke i sig selv muligt for den nationale ret at fastslå identiteten af den debitor, som skal udrede den passende aflønning ligesom dennes stønelse heller ikke kan fastslås.
— that obligation in itself does not, however, enable the national court to determine which body is liable to pay the appropriate remuneration or the level thereof
Den nationale ret har dog pligt til, når den anvender bestemmelser i national ret, hvad enten de er ældre elleryngre end et direktiv, så vidt muligt at fortolke dem i lyset af ordlyden af og formålet med direktivet.«
The national court is required, however, when it applies provisions of national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret them as far as possible in the tight of the wording and the purpose of that directive.'
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 2 July 1998.
»Artikel 2, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 75/363/EØF af 16. juni 1975 om samordning af de administrativt eller ved lov fastsatte bestemmelser om virksomhed som læge, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 82/76/EØF al 26. januar 1982, skal fortolkes således, at det ikke direkte tillægger læger, som følger den heri omhandlede uddannelse, ret til at blive aflønnet med et passende beløb, når der ikke inden for de fastsatte frister er fastsat gennemførelsesbestemmelser.
Article 2(1) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, must be interpreted as not directly conferring on doctors undergoing the training specified by these directives the right to appropriate remuneration in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the time-limits.
Forenede sager C-164/97 og C-165/97 Europa-Parlamentet / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
The national court is nevertheless required, when applying provisions of national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of that directive.
»Forordninger om beskyttelse af skovene mod luftforurening og mod brande hjemmel traktatens artikel 43 EF-traktatens artikel 130 S - Parlamentets beføjelser« (Femte Afdeling)
(Regulations on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution and fire - Legal basis - Article 43 of the EC Treaty — Article 130s of the EC Treaty ~ Parliament's prerogatives) (Fifth Chamber)
Forordning nr. 307/97 og nr. 308/97 har til formål i yderligere fem år at videreføre de fællesskabsaktioner, der har til formål at forstærke beskyttelsen af skovene mod henholdsvis luftforurening og brande, og blev vedtaget med hjemmel i EF-traktatens artikel 43.
It is clear from the provisions of the amended regulations that the aims of the Community schemes for the protection of forests are partly agricultural since they are intended in particular to contribute to safeguarding the productive potential of agriculture, and partly of a specifically environmental nature since their primary objective is to maintain and monitor forest ecosystems.
Derimod skal bestemmelser, der specielt vedrører miljøpolitikken, hjemles ved traktatens artikel 130 S, selv om de har betydning for det indre markeds funktion eller har til formål at forbedre landbrugsproduktionen.
Regulations Nos 307/97 and 308/97, whose purpose is to extend for a further five years the duration of Community schemes to increase the protection of forests against, respectively, atmospheric pollution and fire, were adopted on the basis of Article 43 of the EC Treaty.
Parlamentet har til støtte for sine påstande anført, at ændringsforordningerne nr. 307/97 og nr. 308/97 blev vedtaget med en urigtig hjemmel, og at dets beføjelser inden for rammerne af den procedure, hvori det deltager i udarbejdelsen af retsakter, dermed er blevet tilsidesat.
The Parliament maintains, in support of its applications, that the amending Regulations Nos 307/97 and 308/97 were adopted on an inappropriate legal basis, so that its prerogatives in respect of the procedure involving its participation in the drafting of legislation were undermined.