natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det bemærkes, at i tilfælde som det foreliggende finder fællesskabsretten og dermed det forbud mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet, der fremgår af de nævnte fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser, anvendelse på alle de aspekter af arbejdsforholdet, som reguleres af en medlemsstats lovgivning.
By its question, the national Court seeks to ascertain whether the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality, laid down in Article 48(2) of the Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68, applies to a national of a Member State who is permanently resident in a non-member country, who is employed by another Member State in its embassy in that non-member country and whose contract of employment was entered into and is permanently performed there.
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
Under Paragraph 33 of the GAD, the conditions of employment of local staff not having German nationality are determined in accordance with the law of the host country and local custom.
»Forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet i EF-traktatens artikel 48, stk 2, og i artikel 7, stk 1 og 4, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet finder anvendelse på en statsborger i en medlemsstat, som har fast bopæl i et tredjeland, som er beskæftiget af en anden medlemsstat på dennes ambassade i det pågældende tredjeland, og hvis
The Court has consistently held that provisions of Community law may apply to professional activities pursued outside Community territory as long as the employment relationship retains a sufficiently close link with the Community. That principle must be deemed to extend also to cases in which there is a sufficiently close link between
beskæftigelsesaftale er blevet indgået på stedet og til stadighed opfyldes dér, for så vidt angår alle de aspekter af beskæftigelsesforholdet, der reguleres af lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, der er arbejdsgiveren.«
the employment relationship, on the one hand, and the law of a Member State and thus the relevant rules of Community law, on the other.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare det forelagte spørgsmål på følgende måde:
In situations such as that of the plaintiff in the main proceedings, Community law and thus the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality contained in the abovementioned Community provisions are applicable to all aspects of the employment relationship which are governed by the law of a Member State.
»EF-traktatens artikel 48, stk. 2, samt artikel 7, stk. 1 og 4, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet skal fortolkes således, at forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet finder anvendlse på de arbejdsvilkår, som en medlemsstat anvender over for borgere i Den Europæiske Union i en af sine diplomatiske repræsentationer i et tredjeland, for så vidt som disse arbejdsvilkår, der er undergivet den repræsenterede medlemsstats domsmyndighed og overhøjhed, bevarer en tilstrækkelig tæt forbindelse til Unionens område.«
In the present case, it is clear from the documents before the Court that the plaintiffs situation is subject to rules of German law in several respects. First her contract of employment was entered into in accordance with the law of the Member State which employs her and it is only pursuant to that law that it was stipulated that her conditions of employment were to be determined in accordance with Algerian law.
Sag C-206/94 Brennet AG / Vittorio Paletta Fri bevægelighed for personer
Secondly, that contract contains a clause giving jurisdiction over any dispute between the parties concerning the contract to
Ved kendelse af 27. april 1994 har Bundesarbeitsgericht forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 22, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983 (herefter »forordning nr. 1408/71«), samt fortolkningen og gyldigheden af artikel 18, stk. 15 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72 om regler til gennemførelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71.
«The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality, laid down in Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Councü of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, applies to a national of a Member State who is permanently resident in a non-member country, who is employed by another Member State in its embassy in that non-member country and whose contract of employment was entered into and is permanently performed there, as regards aü aspects of the employment relationship which are governed by the legislation of the employing Member State.»
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag, som Vittorio Paletta, der er italiensk statsborger, har anlagt mod sin arbejdsgiver, det i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland etableredeselskab Brennet AG, i anledning af, at selskabet har
«Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality applies to the conditions of employment of citizens of the European Union employed by a Member State in one of its foreign representations in a non-member country in so far as such conditions of employment which are subject to the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of the Member State represented, retain a sufficiently close link with the Community.»
Domstolen udtalte, at denne fortolkning af artikel 22, stk. 1, litra a), nr. ii) i forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke kan tiltrædes.
Preliminary ruling (Social security — Recognition (Full Court) case, retened to the Court for a preliminary ruling a number of questions concerning the interpretation of Article 18 of Regulation No 574/72.
Som Kommissionen med rette har anført, indebærer bestemmelsen, idet den forudsætter, at den syges tilstand »kræver øjeblikkelig ydelse af hjælp«, at der er konstateret et lægeligt behov for en øjeblikkelig ydelse. Uanset at denne forudsætning ubestrideligt angår de øjeblikkeligt nødvendige »naturalydelser«, indebærer den også, at den pågældende i et sådant nødstilfælde ligeledes kan have ret til de tilsvarende »kontantydelser«, som ifølge Domstolens retspraksis væsentligst er beregnet på at skaffe en syg arbejdstager kompensation for løntab, og som derfor skal sikre den pågældendes underhold, der ellers kunne være umuliggjort.
By judgment of 3 June 1992 in Case C-45/90 Paletta ν Brennet [1992] ECR 1-3423, the Court ruled that Article 18(1) to (4) of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution, even where this is the employer and not a social security institution, is bound in fact and in law by the medical findings made by the institution of the place of residence or temporary residence concerning commencement and duration of the incapacity for work, when it does not have the person concerned examined by a doctor of its choice, as it may do under Article 18(5).
Denne afgørelse blev stadfæstet efter appel til Landesarbeitsgericht.
On appeal, its decision was upheld by the Landesarbeitsgericht
I ovennævnte Paletta-dom har Domstolen begrænset sig til at fortolke artikel 18, stk. 1-4, i forordning nr. 574/72 uden specielt at behandle spørgsmålet om misbrug eller svigagtig anvendelse af bestemmelsen.
Under the LFZG, where, after the commencement of his employment an employee is unable to do his job because, through no fault of his own, he is unfit for work, the employer must continue to pay his wages for a period of up to six weeks.
Brennet har derefter indgivet »revisionsanke« til Bundesarbeitsgericht, der anfører flere tvivlsspørgsmål for så vidt angår rækkevidden af den ovennævnte Paletta-dom.
Brennet thereupon applied for review on a point of law to the Bundesarbeitsgericht which has expressed doubts on several points concerning the scope of the ruling in Paletta.
For så vidt angår spørgsmålet om hvorvidt en national ret, såfremt den pågældende har gjort sig skyldig i misbrug, er bundet af erklæringer om uarbejdsdygtighed, der er udstedt i overensstemmelse med artikel 18 i forordning nr. 574/72, bemærkes, at ifølge Domstolens praksis kan fællesskabsretten ikke gøres gældende med henblik på misbrug eller svig.
According to the documents before the Court Mr Paletta, together with his wife and two children, reported sick during leave granted to them by Brennet for the period from 17 July 1989 to 12 August 1989, and Brennet refused to pay their wages during the first six weeks following the onset of the illness, on the ground that in the company's view, it was not bound by the medical findings made abroad, the veracity of which it had good reason to doubt
Med dette- spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret oplyst, om artikel 22, stk. 1, litra a), nr. ii), i forordning nr. 1408/71 skal fortolkes således, at den også gælder for en national ordning, hvorefter en arbejdstager, der er uarbejdsdygtig, har ret til fortsat udbetaling af løn under sygdom i en vis periode, selv om lønnen først forfalder en vis tid efter uarbejdsdygtighedens indtræden.
By this question, the national court asks whether Article 22(l)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 is to be interpreted as covering national legislation under which an employee is entitled, on becoming incapacitated for work, to continued payment of his wages for a certain period, even where those wages are not payable until a given
Ifølge tysk lovgivning indtræder retten til løn under sygdom ikke ved uarbejdsdygtighedens indtræden,
Those are the circumstances in which the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach, the court hearing the
medlemsstat end den kompetente, sådanne bevisvanskeligheder, som fællesskabsordningen netop tilsigter at fjerne.
not specifically consider the possibility of its abuse or fraudulent use.
Bestemmelsen er derimod ikke til hinder for, at arbejdsgiveren fremlægger beviser, som i givet fald giver den nationale ret grundlag for at fastslå, at der har været tale om misbrug eller svigagtig adfærd derved, at arbejdstageren ikke har været syg, selv om han har anmeldt en i overensstemmelse med artikel 18 i forordning nr. 574/72 fastslået uarbejdsdygtighed.
As to whether the national courts may, where there has been an abuse by the worker concerned, query the certification of incapacity for work issued in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation No 574/72, the Court has consistently held that Community law cannot be relied on for the purposes of abuse or fraud.
Det er ikke foreneligt med de formål, der forfølges med artikel 18 i forordning nr. 574/72 at anvende de principper, der følger af den af den nationale ret anførte retspraksis, hvorefter det påhviler arbejdstageren at fremlægge supplerende beviser til godtgørelse af, at der foreligger en af en lægeerklæring attesteret uarbejdsdygtighed, såfremt arbejdsgiveren har påberåbt sig og godtgør omstændigheder, som rejser alvorlig tvivl om den påståede uarbejdsdygtighed.
In that regard, Brennet argues that by inserting the clause «whose condition necessitates immediate benefits» in Article 22, the Community legislature intended to limit the operation of the procedure provided for therein to situations of urgency.
Artikel 22, stk 1, litra a), nr. ii), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983, skal fortolkes således, at den omfatter en national lovgivning, hvorefter en arbejdstager, der er uarbejdsdygtig, har ret til udbetaling af løn under sygdom i en vis periode, også selv om lønnen først forfalder en vis tid efter uarbejdsdygtighedens indtræden.
However, the case-law referred to by the Bundesarbeitsgericht according to which the worker must produce additional evidence that the medically certified incapacity for work is genuine, in cases where the employer argues on the basis of adequate supporting evidence that there are serious grounds for doubting the existence of the alleged incapacity, is not compatible with the objectives pursued by Article 18 of Regulation No 574/72. A worker whose incapacity for work arises in a Member State other than the competent Member State would, as a result be confronted with difficulties involved in obtaining evidence which the Community rules in fact seek to eliminate.
Den fortolkning af artikel 18, stk 15 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72 af 21. marts 1972 om regler til gennemførelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, som Domstolen har foretaget i dommen af 3. juni 1992 (sag C-45/90, Paletta, Sml.
As the Commission has rightly pointed out by laying down that the sick worker's state of health must «necessitate immediate benefits», the provision in question requires confirmation of a pressing medical need for such benefits.
I, s. 3423), indebærer ikke, at det er forbudt arbejdsgiveren at fremlægge beviser, som i givet fald giver den nationale ret grundlag for at fastslå, at der har været tale om misbrug eller svigagtig adfærd derved, at arbejdstageren ikke har været syg, selv om han har anmeldt en i overensstemmelse med artikel 18 fastslået uarbejdsdygtighed.«
That condition indisputably encompasses «benefits in kind» needed forthwith, but it further implies that in urgent situations of that type, the worker concerned must also be entitled to any corresponding «cash benefits» which, as the Court has consistently held (Case 61/65 Vaassen-Göbbels ν Beambtenfonds Mijnbedrijf[1966] ECR 261), are essentially designed to compensate for the sick worker's loss of earnings and are therefore intended to cover his maintenance, which might otherwise be jeopardized.
»1) Artikel 22, 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, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983, skal fortolkes således at forordning nr. 1408/71 finder anvendelse, ogsånår kontantydelser i overensstemmelse med den nationale lovgivning, der finder anvendelse, kun kan udbetales efter en vis tid (tre uger) efter uarbejdsdygtighedens indtræden.
On the other hand, that provision does not preclude employers from adducing evidence to support, where appropriate, a finding by the national court of abuse or fraudulent conduct on the part of the worker concerned, in that although he may claim to have become incapacitated for work, such incapacity having been certified in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation No 574/72, he was not side at all.
3) Artikel 18, stk. 1-5, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72 strider ikke efter denne fortolkning mod proportionalitetsprincippet.«
within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, is to be interpreted as covering national legislation under which an employee is entitled, on becoming incapacitated f or work, to continued payment of lus wages for a certain period, even where those wages are not payable until a given period has elapsed since the incapacity commenced.
»Traktatbrudssøgsmål (Femte Afdeling) afsnit, skulle medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet inden den 1. juli 1993 og straks underrette Kommissionen herom.
The interpretation of Article 18(1) to (5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure f or implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, given by the Court in its judgment in Case C-45/90 Paletta ν Brennet [1992] ECR 1-3423, does not imply that employers are barred from adducing evidence to support, where appropriate, a finding by the national court of abuse or fraudulent conduct on the part of the worker concerned in that, although he may claim to have become incapacitated for work, such incapacity having been certified in accordance with Article 18 of that regulation, he was not sick at all.»
Da direktivet ikke er blevet gennemført inden for den fastsatte frist, må den påstand, Kommissionen har nedlagt på dette punkt, tages til følge.
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 30 January 1996.
I henhold til direktivets artikel 44, stk. 1, første
He proposed that the Court reply as follows:
Den Franske Republik har ikke inden for den fastsatte frist sat de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 92/50/EØF af 18. juni 1992 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne ved indgåelse af offentlige tjenesteydelsesaftaler og har således tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til direktivets artikel 44, stk 1.
Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, selfemployed persons and members of their family moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, is to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation No 1408/71 applies even where, in accordance with the applicable national legislation, cash benefits are not payable until a certain period of time (three weeks) has elapsed since the onset of the incapacity for work.
Generaladvokat A La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 14. marts 1996.
Case C-234/95 Commission of the European Communities / French Republic Company law
»at give Kommissionen medhold og at dømme Den Franske Republik til at betale sagens omkostninger, jf. procesreglementets artikel 69, stk. 2.«
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC) (Fifth Chamber)
Sag C-253/95 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland Regler for virksomhederne
Under the first paragraph of Article 44(1) of the directive, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with the directive before 1 July 1993 and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.
»Traktatbrudssøgsmål (Femte Afdeling) virkning fra den 1. juli 1993 fandt umiddelbar anvendelse på indgåelse af tjenesteydelsesaftaler.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 5 July 1995, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for a declaration that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p.
Ved stævning registreret på Domstolens Justitskontor den 20. juli 1995 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland ikke har sat de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 92/50/EØF (herefter »direktivet«), subsidiært, at den ikke straks har underrettet Kommissionen om de trufne foranstaltninger, og at den således har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3, sammenholdt med direktivets artikel 44, stk. 1.
1) and, in the alternative, by failing to inform the Commission of such measures forthwith, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and, in particular, Article 44 thereof.
I henhold til direktivets artikel 44, stk. 1, første afsnit, skulle medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet inden den 1. juli 1993 og straks underrette Kommissionen herom.
Since the directive has not been transposed into national law within the prescribed period, the Commission's action in that respect must be considered to be well founded.
Den tyske regering har ikke bestridt traktatbruddet. Den har imidlertid anført, at umiddelbart efter, at fristen for gennemførelsen af direktivet var udløbet, meddelte Forbundsøkonomiministeriet de berørte ordregivende myndigheder, at direktivet med
«J. By failing to adopt, wohin the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures f or the award of public service contracts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44(1) ofthat directive;
Generaladvokat A La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling! den 14. marts 1996.
Advocate General A La Pergola delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 14 March 1996.
»at give Kommissionen medhold og at dømme Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland til at betale sagens omkostninger, jf. procesreglementets artikel 69, stk. 2.«
«Uphold the application and order the defendant State, pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs.»
Sag C-311/95 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Hellenske Republik Regler for virksomhederne
Case C-253/95 Commission of the European Communities / Federal Republic of Germany Company law
»Traktatbrudssøgsmål — direktiv 92/50/EØF« (Femte Afdeling)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC) (Fifth Chamber)
I henhold til direktivets artikel 44, stk. 1, første afsnit, skulle medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet inden den 1. juli 1993 og straks underrette Kommissionen herom.
1) and, in the alternative, by failing to inform the Commission forthwith of the measures taken, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 44(1) of that directive.
Den græske regering har ikke bestridt, at den ikke har gennemført direktivet i national ret inden for den fastsatte frist.
Under the first paragraph of Article 44(1) of the directive, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with the directive before 1 July 1993 and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.
Da direktivet ikke er blevet gennemført inden den fastsatte frist, må den påstand,
the third paragraph of Article 189, cannot justify a Member State absolving itself from taking in due time implementing measures sufficient to meet the purpose of each directive.
Kommissionen har nedlagt på dette punkt, tages til følge.
Since the directive has not been transposed into national law within the prescribed period, the Commission's action in that respect is well founded.
Den Hellenske Republik har ikke inden for den fastsatte frist sat de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 92/50/EØF af 18. juni 1992 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne ved indgåelse af offentlige tjenesteydelsesaftaler og har således tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til direktivets artikel 44, stk 1.
«J. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44(1) of that directive;
Den Hellenske Republik betaler sagens omkostninger.«
The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.»
Endvidere foreslår jeg, at Den Hellenske Republik tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.«
«Uphold the application and order the defendant State, pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs.»