natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For det andet kan en ansøgning, der støttes på artikel 6, stk. 1, som udgangspunkt ikke anses som udtryk for svig som følge af, at den pågældende arbejdstager tidligere havde givet udtryk for, at han ville forlade værtsmedlemsstatens område, når han var blevet oplært til en påtænkt stilling, som han skulle varetage i sit hjemland.
Second, an application based on Article 6(1) cannot, in principle, be considered improper because the worker previously expressed his intention to leave the territory of the host Member State upon completion of his preparation for the post which he intended to take up in his country of origin.
Der kan således ikke rejses indsigelse mod, at en arbejdstager påberåber sig de rettigheder, han har erhvervet i henhold til afgørelse nr. 1/80, med henvisning til, at han havde erklæret, at han ville fortsætte sin erhvervsmæssige karriere i sit hjemland, efter at have haft beskæftigelse i værtsmedlemsstaten gennem nogle år for at uddybe sine faglige kundskaber, og at han oprindelig havde accepteret, at hans opholdstilladelse i denne stat var begrænset.
In the circumstances, the worker cannot be prevented from relying on rights acquired under Decision No 1/80 on the ground that he allegedly stated that he wished to pursue his professional career in his country of origin after being employed for several years in the host Member State with a view to perfecting his vocational skills and that he initially accepted the restriction placed upon his permit to reside in that State.
Bundesverwaltungsgericht ønsker med dette spørgsmål i det væsentlige oplyst, om den omstændighed, at en tyrkisk arbejdstager ønsker at forlænge sit ophold i værtsmedlemsstaten,
In such circumstances, it is only if the national court establishes that the Turkish worker made the statement that he wished to leave the host Member State after a specified period with the sole intention of inducing the competent authorities to issue the requisite permits on false premisses that he can be deprived of the rights flowing from Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.
Henset hertil kan den tyrkiske arbejdstager kun afskæres fra de rettigheder, som følger af artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, såfremt den forelæggende ret fastslår, at den pågældende alene har erklæret, at han ville forlade værtsmedlemsstaten efter et bestemt tidsrum for uretmæssigt at opnå, at de kompetente myndigheder meddelte ham de fornødne tilladelser.
By this question, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht is asking essentially whether the fact that a Turkish worker wishes to extend his stay in the host Member State, although he expressly accepted its
»1) Artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, som det associeringsråd, der er oprettet ved aftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Tyrkiet, traf den 19. september 1980 om udvikling af associeringen, skal fortolkes således, at en tyrkisk statsborger, der uafbrudt i mere end tre år lovligt har haft reel, faktisk erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse i en medlemsstat hos én og samme arbejdsgiver, og hvis arbejdsvilkår objektivt set ikke adskiller sig fra vilkårene for andre ansatte hos samme
Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish national who has been lawfully employed in a Member State for an uninterrupted period of more than three years in a genuine and effective economic activity for the same employer and whose employment status is not objectively different to that of other employees employed by the same employer or in the sector concerned and exercising identical or comparable duties, is duly registered as belonging to the labour force ofthat State and L· legally employed within the meaning of that provision.
arbejdsgiver etter inden for den pågældende branche, som udfører tilsvarende etter agnende opgaver, har tilknytning til det lovlige arbejdsmarked i denne stat og har lovlig beskæftigelse i bestemmelsens forstand.
acquainting himself with and preparing for employment in one of its subsidiaries in Turkey, and obtained work and residence permits for that purpose only.
Det kan ikke anses for svig, at en tyrkisk arbejdstager ønsker at forlænge sit ophold i værtsmedlemsstaten, uanset at han udtrykkeligt havde accepteret, at hans ophold var begrænset Den omstændighed, at arbejdstageren har tilkendegivet, at han havde til hensigt at vende tilbage til Tyrkiet efter at have haft beskæftigelse i den pågældende medlemsstat f or at uddybe sine faglige kundskaber, kan ikke afskære den pågældende fin de rettigheder, som følger af artikel 6, stk 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, medmindre den forelæggende ret fastslår, at erklæringen alene blev afgivet for uretmæssigt at opnå arbejds- og opholdstilladelser i værtsmedlemsstaten*
The fact that a Turkish worker wishes to extend his stay in the host Member State, although he expressly accepted its restriction, does not constitute an abuse of rights. The fact that he declared his intention of returning to Turkey after having been employed in the Member State for the purpose of perfecting his vocational skiUs is not such as to deprive him of the rights deriving from Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 unless it is established by the national court that that declaration was made with the sole intention of improperly obtaining work and residence permits for the host Member State. '
Generaladvokat M.B. Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Sjette Afdeling) den 29. april 1997.
Advocate General M.B. Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 29 April 1997.
»Artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 af 19. september 1980 fra det associeringsråd, som blev oprettet ved aftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Tyrkiet, undertegnet i Ankara den 12. september 1963 og godkendt på Fællesskabets vegne ved Rådets afgørelse 64/732/EØF af 23. december 1963, skal fortolkes således, at en tyrkisk statsborger, der udøver lønnet beskæftigelse på almindelige vilkår og til almindelig løn hos en arbejdsgiver i en medlemsstat og ikke er undergivet særlige regler for ansættelse som lærling eller lignende, må anses for at have beskæftigelse og tilknytning til arbejdsmarkedet i den pågældende medlemsstat, selv om formålet med ansættelsen oprindelig var at oplære den pågældende med henblik på, at denne efter nogle års beskæftigelse hos arbejdsgiveren skulle overtage en stilling i en arbejdsgiveren tilhørende dattervirksomhed i Tyrkiet, at medlemsstaterne ikke ved at indsætte tidsmæssige eller andre begrænsninger i den tyrkiske statsborgers opholds- og arbejdstilladelse kan hindre den pågældende i at erhverve rettigheder efter bestemmelsen, og at beskæftigelsesperioder, som en tyrkisk arbejdstager har tilbagelagt i en medlemsstat på grundlag af en opholdstilladelse, som han har opnået ved svig, ikke kan anses for 'lovlig' beskæftigelse.«
'Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Council of Association established by the Agreement creating an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963 in Ankara and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Decision 64/732/EEC of the Council of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker who is in paid employment under the general conditions of the right to work and for a salary consistent with the general conditions of remuneration with an employer in a Member State and who is not subject to any particular rule of employment as an apprentice or under a similar scheme, must be regarded as having a post as a duly registered member of the labour force in the Member State concerned, even though the initial reason for engaging him was to train him so that after working for the employer for a number of years he would be able to take up a post with a subsidiary of the employer established in Turkey, that Member States cannot, by imposing temporal or other restrictions on a Turkish national's residence and work permits, prevent him from acquiring the rights which he derives from that provision, and that periods of activity completed by a Turkish worker on the basis of a residence permit obtained by fraud cannot be regarded as "legal" employment.'
Præjudiciel »Associeringsaftalen EØF-Tyrkiet — associeringsrådets afgørelse — arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed — begreberne tilknytning til det lovlige arbejdsmarked i en medlemsstat og lovlig beskæftigelse—opholdstilladelse begrænset tilmidlertidig beskæftigelse som specialitetskok hos en ved navn benævnt arbejdsgiver — perioder uden arbejds- og/eller opholdstilladelse — beregning af beskæftigelsesperioder* (Sjette Afdeling) konkrete tilfælde som specialitetskok hos en ved navn benævnt arbejdsgiver.
By order of 29 February 19%, received at the Court on 26 March 1996, the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Darmstadt, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of the Council of Association of 19 September 1980 (hereinafter 'Decision No 1/80').
Ved kendelse af 29. februar 1996, indgået til Domstolen den 26. marts 1996, har Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt forelagt tre præjudiciellespørgsmålvedrørendefortolkningen af artikel 6 i associeringsrådets afgørelse nr. 1/80 af 19. september 1980 (herefter »afgørelse nr. 1/80«).
Second, it should be borne in mind that the Court has consistently held that the rights which the three indents of Article 6(1) confer on Turkish workers in regard to employment necessarily imply the existence of a right of residence for the person concerned, since otherwise the right of access to the labour market and the right to work as an employed person would be deprived of all effect.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem den tyrkiske statsborger Kasim Ertanir og Land Hessen angående afslag på forlængelse af hans opholdstilladelse i Tyskland.
The questions were raised in the course of a dispute between Mr Ertanir, a Turkish national, and Land Hessen, concerning the refusal to extend his permit to reside in Germany.
For det andet henvises til Domstolens faste praksis, hvorefter de rettigheder, som de tre led i artikel 6, stk. 1, giver den tyrkiske arbejdstager med hensyn til beskæftigelse, uundgåeligt indebærer, at arbejdstageren i det mindste har opholdsret, da retten til adgang til arbejdsmarkedet og til beskæftigelse, ellers ville være helt illusorisk.
It is settled case-law that that provision merely clarifies the obligation incumbent on the Member States to take such administrative measures as may be necessary for the implementation of Article 6, without empowering them to make conditional or restrict the application of the precise and unconditional right which the provision grants to Turkish workers.
Disse principper bør følgelig lægges til grund for gennemgangen af det første af de spørgsmål, som Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt har forelagt.
By its second and third questions, the national court seeks first of all to ascertain whether Article 6(3) of Decision No 1/80 is to be interpreted as permitting Member States to adopt national legislation which excludes at the outset whole categories of Turkish migrant workers, such as specialist chefs, from the rights conferred by the three indents of Article 6(1).
Med det andet og det tredje spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret for det første oplyst, om artikel 6, stk. 3, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat kan vedtage nationale bestemmelser, der uden videre afskærer hele grupper af vandrende tyrkiske arbejdstagere, f.eks. specialitetskokke, fra de rettigheder, som de tre led i artiklens stykke 1 tillægger dem.
Even though, as the law now stands, Decision No 1/80 does not in any way affect the competence of the Member States to refuse the entry into their territories of Turkish nationals and to take up their first employment, and does not, in principle, preclude those Member States from determining the conditions under which they work for up to one year as provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of that decision, Article 6(3) merely provides that the competent authorities of the Member States may adopt such national legislation as may be required for the application of the rights conferred on Turkish workers by paragraphs (1) and (2) of that provision.
For så vidt angår det første af de præjudicielle spørgsmål, som vedrører rækkevidden af artikel 6, stk. 3, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, hvorefter gennemførelsesbestemmelserne til artikel 6, stk. 1, fastsættes ved nationale bestemmelser, bemærkes, at det fremgår af fast praksis, at artikel 6, stk. 3, kun præciserer medlemsstaternes pligt til at træffe de administrative
It should be observed, in limine, that according to the third recital in its preamble, Decision No 1/80 seeks to improve, in the social field, the treatment accorded to workers and members of their families in relation to the arrangements introduced by Decision No 2/76 which the Council of Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey adopted on 20 December 1976.
hvorfor den ikke kan vedtages i henhold til afgørelsens artikel 6, stk. 3.
The effect of such an interpretation would be to render Decision No 1/80 meaningless and deprive it of any practical effect.
foranstaltninger, som gennemførelsen af denne bestemmelse eventuelt måtte indebære, uden at medlemsstaterne kan fastsætte betingelser for eller begrænse den præcise og ubetingede ret, som bestemmelsen tillægger de tyrkiske arbejdstagere.
In order to ascertain whether such a worker is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State it must be determined first of all, in accordance with settled case-law, whether the legal relationship of employment of the person concerned can be located within the territory of a Member State or retains a sufficiently close link with that territory, taking account in particular of the place where the Turkish national was hired, the territory on or from which the paid employment is pursued and the applicable national legislation in the field of employment and social security law.
Dette resultat er så meget mere påkrævet i et tilfælde som det i hovedsagen omhandlede, hvor de nationale bestemmelser ikke alene indeholder visse begrænsninger, som afskærer tyrkiske arbejdstagere fra de rettigheder, som artikel 6, stk. 1, tillægger dem, men desuden foreskriver, at afgørelse nr. 1/80 ikke finder anvendelse på en hel erhvervsgren som sådan, nemlig specialitetskokke.
In a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings, that condition is undeniably satisfied.
Selvom afgørelse nr. 1/80 under den gældende retstilstand ikke på nogen måde berører medlemsstaternes kompetence til at nægte tyrkiske statsborgere ret til at indrejse på staternes område og at tage deres første beskæftigelse dér, ligesom den som udgangspunkt ikke er til hinder for, at medlemsstaterne knytter betingelser til deres beskæftigelse i det første år som anført i afgørelsens artikel 6, stk. 1, første led, hjemler artikel 6, stk. 3, alene medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder ret til at vedtage de nationale bestemmelser, der eventuelt måtte være nødvendige til gennemførelse af de rettigheder, som er tillagt tyrkiske arbejdstagere ved stk. 1 og 2.
Moreover, the wording of Article 6(1) is general and unconditional: it does not permit the Member States to deprive certain categories of Turkish workers of the rights which that provision confers directly on them or to restrict or attach conditions to such rights.
For så vidt angår det andet spørgsmål, der vedrører fortolkningen af begreberne tilknytning til det lovlige arbejdsmarked i en medlemsstat og lovlig beskæftigelse i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, i relation til en tyrkisk arbejdstager, der i værtsmedlemsstaten alene er blevet meddelt tilladelse til beskæftigelse som specialitetskok i en bestemt restauration i højst tre år, og som udtrykkeligt er blevet gjort opmærksom på disse begrænsninger, bemærkes indledningsvis, at den pågældende har fået tilladelse til at indrejse på medlemsstatens område og har lovligt haft lønnet beskæftigelse dér hos samme arbejdsgiver uafbrudt i mere end ét år i henhold til de nødvendige nationale tilladelser.
Next, contrary to the German Government's assertion, it cannot be claimed that specialist chefs permitted to work in its territory are not duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State because such persons may be distinguished from the other workers in general by the fact that they must be nationals of the country whose cuisine is the speciality of the restaurant which employs them.
Artikel 6, stk. 3, kan derimod ikke fortolkes således, at medlemsstaterne er forbeholdt ret til efter forgodtbefindende at bestemme, hvilken ordning, der skal gælde for tyrkiske arbejdstagere, der allerede er tilknyttet arbejdsmarkedet, ved at tillade staterne ensidigt at vedtage foranstaltninger for at forhindre, at visse grupper arbejdstagere, der i øvrigt opfylder betingelserne i stk. 1, drager fordel af de rettigheder, som gradvist øges ifølge bestemmelsens tre led.
Accordingly, national legislation which provides that the work and residence of certain Turkish nationals in the host Member State concerned are limited to a specific activity with a given employer and may on no account exceed three years must be considered to be incompatible with the scheme and purpose of that decision and cannot therefore be adopted under Article 6(3) thereof.
En sådan fortolkning ville medføre, at afgørelse nr. 1/80 ville miste sit indhold og helt ville blive berøvet sin effektive virkning.
A specialist chef performing services for and under the direction of another person for remuneration is bound by an employment relationship covering a genuine and effective economic activity.
Ved afgørelsen af, om en sådan arbejdstager har tilknytning til det lovlige arbejdsmarked i en medlemsstat, skal det ifølge fast praksis først undersøges, om arbejdsforholdet i retlig henseende kan stedfæstes på en medlemsstats område, eller om det har en tilstrækkelig snæver tilknytning hertil, bl.a. under hensyn til den tyrkiske statsborgers ansættelsessted, det geografiske udgangspunkt for udøvelsen af den erhvervsmæssige aktivitet og den nationale arbejds- og sociallovgivning, der regulerer forholdet.
That is all the more evident in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the relevant national legislation not only imposes restrictions capable of depriving Turkish workers of the rights accorded them by Article 6(1) but also provides that Decision No 1/80 does not apply to an entire occupation, in this case that of specialist chef.
I Kasim Ertanir's tilfælde er denne betingelse utvivlsomt opfyldt.
Accordingly, the legal situation of a specialist chef such as Mr Ertanir is in no way different to that of Turkish migrant workers as a whole employed in the host Member State.
Artikel 6, stk. 1, er endvidere affattet generelt og ubetinget, da den hverken giver medlemsstaterne mulighed for at udelukke bestemte kategorier af tyrkiske arbejdstagere fra de rettigheder, som bestemmelsen umiddelbart tillægger dem, eller for at opstille begrænsninger eller vilkår for disse rettigheder.
As regards the meaning of 'legal employment' for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, it is settled case-law that legal employment presupposes a stable and secure situation as a member of the labour force of a Member State and, by virtue of this, implies the existence of an undisputed right of residence.
Henset hertil må en national lovgivning, hvorefter visse tyrkiske statsborgeres ophold og arbejde i den pågældende værtsmedlemsstat er begrænset til en bestemt beskæftigelse hos en nærmere bestemt arbejdsgiver, og som under ingen omstændigheder kan overstige tre år, anses for uforenelig med afgørelsens ordning og formål,
As regards the second of those questions, which concerns the interpretation of 'duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State' and 'legal employment' for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 as regards a Turkish worker who has been authorized to work as a specialist chef in a given restaurant for a maximum of three years and who has had his attention expressly drawn to such restrictions, it should be observed from the outset that he was permitted to enter the territory of the Member State concerned and was there lawfully employed, within the terms of the requisite national permits and without interruption for over one year, by the same employer.
I modsætning til hvad den tyske regering har gjort gældende, kan tilknytningen til en medlemsstats lovlige arbejdsmarked, for så vidt angår specialitetskokke, som har tilladelse til at arbejde på dens område, ikke anfægtes med den begrundelse, at personer i denne branche adskiller sig fra flertallet af arbejdstagere, fordi de skal være statsborgere i det land, hvis køkken,
As regards the case at issue in the main proceedings, the Turkish worker's right to reside in the host Member State was not disputed and his situation was not insecure and thus likely to be called in question at any time, since he had been authorized in April 1992 to pursue genuine and effective paid employment in that State for
med hensyn til varighed og formål, er uden betydning for denne fortolkning.
three years without interruption and therefore his legal situation was secure throughout that period.
En specialitetskok, der præsterer en ydelse for tredjemand, under dennes ledelse, og som modydelse herfor modtager løn, må anses for part i et arbejdsforhold, der angår en reel, faktisk erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse.
A worker employed in such circumstances in a Member State must accordingly be considered to have been legally employed there within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 and, provided he satisfies its conditions, may therefore rely directly on the rights conferred by the various indents of that provision.
Henset hertil adskiller den retlige situation for en specialitetskok som Kasim Ertanir sig på ingen måde fra den retlige situation for andre vandrende tyrkiske arbejdstagere, der er beskæftiget på værtsmedlemsstatens område.
In order to answer that question, it must first be pointed out that Decision No 1/80 does not make clear whether periods of employment which a Turkish worker completes in the host Member State without being covered by a valid work or residence permit affect the calculation of the periods of legal employment provided for in the three indents of Article 6(1).
De gradvist indtrædende øgede rettigheder, som tyrkiske arbejdstagere er tillagt ved de tre led i artikel 6, stk. 1, følger umiddelbart af afgørelse nr. 1/80, således at de ikke kan nægtes de berettigede med den anførte begrundelse, ligesom der ikke kan rejses indsigelse mod, at de påberåber sig dem under omstændigheder som de i hovedsagen foreliggende.
In that regard, it cannot be argued that under the relevant national legislation the worker's residence and/or work permits in the host Member State were merely provisional and conditional.
For så vidt angår begrebet lovlig beskæftigelse i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 bemærkes, at det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at lovlig beskæftigelse forudsætter, at den pågældende arbejdstagers situation på arbejdsmarkedet er permanent og ikke kun foreløbig, og dermed eksistensen af en ikke anfægtet opholdsret.
The fact that the worker was notified upon being issued with his permit to enter the host Member State that his residence and his employment were subject to the observance of certain conditions regarding duration and substance does not affect that interpretation.