natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Han arbejder dér som selvstændig massør og kurbademester.
He is a selfemployed masseur and medical bath attendant.
I henhold til hans græske fødselsattest er hans fornavn Χρήστος og efternavnet Κωνσταντινιδης.
According to his Greek birth certificate, his name is Χρήστος and his surname is Κωνσταντινίδης.
Sagsøgeren indgik ægteskab den 1. juli 1983 ved Standesamt Altensteig.
On 1 July 1983 the applicant was married by the registrar at Altensteig.
I ægteskabsregisteret blev hans navn indført med skrivemåden "Christos Konstadinidis".
His name was entered in the marriage register with the spelling "Christos Konstadinidis".
Den 31. oktober 1990 begærede han over for Standesamt Altensteig berigtigelse af sit efternavn i registeret fra "Konstadinidis" til "Konstantinidis", da denne skrivemåde over for tysksprogede så nøjagtigt som muligt angiver den korrekte udtale af hans navn på græsk, og da hans navn i øvrigt er skrevet på denne måde med latinske bogstaver i hans græske pas.
On 31 October 1990 he applied to the registry office for the entry of his surname to be rectified by replacing "Konstadinidis" with "Konstantinidis", on the ground that that spelling indicated as faithfully as possible to German speakers the correct pronunciation of his name in Greek and that, furthermore, his name was thus transliterated into Latin characters in his Greek passport.
Da sagsøgerens navn skal indføres i ægteskabsregisteret i overensstemmelse med, hvad der er anført i hans fødselsattest, lod Amtsgericht Tübingen, der er den kompetente myndighed med hensyn til sådanne berigtigelser, fødselsattesten oversætte.
Since the entry of the applicant's name in the amrriage register had to be in accordance with the entry in his birth certificate, the Amtsgericht Tübingen, which is competent to make such rectifications, obtained a translation of the birth certificate.
Under anvendelse af ISO-norm 18 blev sagsøgerens navn med latinsk skrift til "Hréstos Konstantinidés".
On applying ISO Standard 18 the transliteration into the Latin alphabet of his name becomes "Hréstos Konstantinidés".
Sagsøgeren indbragte denne oversættelse for Amtsgericht Tübingen under anbringende af, at udtalen af hans navn blev forkert.
The applicant contested that transcription before the Amtsgericht Tübingen, claiming that it distorted the pronunciation of his name.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at det fremgår af forelæggelseskendelsen, at sagsøgeren i hovedsagen er en græsk statsborger, der arbejder i Tyskland som selvstændig massør og kurbademester.
The Court of Justice noted, in limine, that it appeared from the order for reference that the applicant in the main proceedings was a Greek national who pursued his activity as a selfemployed masseur and medical bath attendant in Germany.
Det må under disse omstændigheder lægges til grund, at den forelæggende ret med de to spørgsmål i det væsentlige ønsker at få oplyst, om EØF-Traktatens artikel 52 skal fortolkes således, at det er i strid med bestemmelsen, at navnet på en græsk statsborger, der har etableret sig i en anden medlemsstat for dér at arbejde som selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, indføres i landets folkeregister med en skrivemåde, som ikke er i overensstemmelse med en fonetisk omskrivning, men medfører, at udtalen af navnet bliver ændret og skæmmet.
Thus the Court acknowledged that, with those two questions, the national court sought, essentially, to know whether Article 52 of the Treaty should be interpreted as meaning that it precluded the name of a Greek national who has established himself in another Member State in order to pursue his activity as a selfemployed person being entered in the register of births, marriages and deaths of that State according to a spelling which did not conform to a phonetic transcription of his name and which modified and distorted his name.
Domstolen bemærkede herved, at EØF-Traktaten ikke er til hinder for, at et græsk navn omskrives til latinske bogstaver i folkeregisteret i en medlemsstat, der anvender det latinske alfabet.
It was noted by the Court in this respect that there was nothing in the Treaty which precluded the transcription of a Greek name using the Latin alphabet in the registers of births, marriages and deaths of a Member State which uses the Latin alphabet.
Det er derfor op til den pågældende medlemsstat ved lov eller administrativt at fastsætte de nærmere regler for omskrivningen i overensstemmelse med de bestemmelser, der er indeholdt i de af medlemsstaten indgåede internationale overenskomster om personlige forhold.
Under those circumstances, it is for the Member State to lay down the procedures, by means of legislation or administrative action and according to the rules provided in international conventions it has concluded concerning births, marriages and deaths.
Sådanne regler skal kun anses for uforenelige med EØF-Traktatens artikel 52, i det omfang deres anvendelse for en græsk statsborger medfører sådanne ulemper, at de i realiteten gør indgreb i hans i henhold til artikel 52 beskyttede frie etableringsret.
Rules of this kind must be considered incompatible with Article 52 of the Treaty only insofar as their application causes difficulties for a Greek national to the extent that it adversely affects his freedom to exercise the right of establishment which that Article guarantees.
Dette er tilfældet, såfremt en græsk statsborger i henhold til retsforskrifterne i etableringsstaten i forbindelse med udøvelsen af sit erhverv er tvunget til at anvende en skrivemåde for sit navn, der følger af om skrivningen i folkeregisteret, og denne skrivemåde medfører, at udtalen af navnet bliver ændret, og forvanskningen udsætter den berørte person for fare for forvekslinger hos sine potentielle kunder.
That would be the case if the law of the State of establishment obliged a Greek national to use, in the pursuit of his occupation, a spelling of his name based on its transliteration in the registers of births, marriages and deaths, if that spelling was such that the pronunciation was thereby modified and if that distortion meant that he was exposed to the risk of potential clients confusing him with other persons.
"EØF-Traktatens artikel 52 skal fortolkes således, at det er i strid med bestemmelsen, at en græsk statsborger i henhold til de relevante nationale retsforskrifter bliver tvunget til i forbindelse med udøvelsen af sit erhverv at anvende en sådan skrivemåde for sit navn, at udtalen heraf bliver ændret, og den heraf følgende forvanskning udsætter den berørte person for fare for forvekslinger hos sine potentielle kunder."
"Article 52 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it is contrary to that provision for a Greek national to be obliged, under the applicable national legislation, to use, in the pursuit of his occupation, a transliteration of his name whereby its pronunciation is modified and the resulting distortion exposes him to the risk of potential clients confusing him with other persons."
Generaladvokat F. G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Siette Afdeling) den 9. december 1992.
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 9 December 1992.
7 - praksis - mod hans vilje - skal indføres i et folkeregister med en skrivemåde, der, ligesom det er tilfældet i nærværende sag, klart giver en forkert fremstilling af den korrekte udtale af navnet."
"Where a national of a Member State establishes himself, pursuant to Article 52 of the EEC Treaty, in another Member State which uses an alphabet different from the one used in his own State, Articles 7 and 52 of the Treaty are infringed by rules or practices of the host State which require his name to be entered in a register of births, marriages and deaths, against his wishes, in a transliteration which, as in circumstances such as those of the present case, seriously misrepresents the correct pronunciation of the name."
30.3.1993 Præjudiciel "Social sikring - særlige betingelser for at anvende den nederlandske lov om almindelig alderdomsforsikring - begrebet bopæl" (Sjette Afdeling)
Case C-282/91 Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank ν Α. de Mit 30 March 1993 (Preliminary ruling- Social security - Special rules for the application of the Netherlands legislation on general old-age insurance - Concept of residence) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved dom af 30. oktober 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 6. november s.a., havde Nederlandenes Hoge Raad forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af litra J, nr. 2, litra a), i bilag VI til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71, som affattet ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2332/89 af 18. juli 1989 og tidligere tilsvarende affattet ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983.
By judgment of 30 October 1991, which was received at the Court Registry on 6 November 1991, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden referred a question for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of section 2(a) of Part J of Annex VI to 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 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2332/89 of 18 July 1989, and as previously amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983.
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst under en sag anlagt af den nederlandske statsborger A. de Wit mod Sociale Verzekeringsbank ved direktionen (herefter benævnt "SVB") vedrørende beregningen af den alderspension, de Wit har ret til ifølge den nederlandske lov om almindelig alderdomsforsikring (Algemene Ouderdomswet, herefter benævnt "A0W").
The question arose in the context of proceedings between Mr A. de Wit, a Netherlands national, and Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Board of the Social Insurance Bank, hereinafter referred to as the "SVB") on the question of determination of the old-age pension to which Mr de Wit is entitled pursuant to the Netherlands Algemene Ouderdomswet (the general legislation on old-age benefits, hereinafter referred to as the "AOW").
De Wit havde indtil den 20. november 1945 bopæl i Nederlandene.
Mr de Wit resided in the territory of the Netherlands until 20 November 1945.
På denne dato blev han ansat som tjenestemand i Krigsministeriet og dernæst i Uden rigsministeriet, hvorefter han forrettede tjeneste uden for Nederlandene.
He then became an official of the War Ministry and then of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, subsequently occupying various posts outwith the Netherlands.
Den 27. oktober 1947 blev han officielt slettet af folkeregisteret i Waddinxveen kommune.
On 27 October 1947 he was officially removed from the register of the population of the commune of Waddinxveen.
Den 1. august 1978 tog de Wit sin afsked og har siden haft bopæl i Irland.
On 1 August 1978 Mr de Wit resigned his post and has lived since then in the territory of Ireland.
Da de Wit den 10. juni 1985 fyldte 65 år, tildelte SVB ham en pension, der androg 68% af den fulde pension, med den begrundelse, at han hverken havde været omfattet af forsikringsordningen fra den 27. oktober 1947, da han blev slettet af folkeregisteret i sin hjemkommune, til den 1. januar 1957, da AOW trådte i kraft, eller fra den 1. august 1978, da han rejste til Irland, til den 10. juni 1985, da han fyldte 65 år, dvs. i en periode af i alt mere end 16 år.
When Mr de Wit reached the age of 56 years of age on 10 June 1985 the SVB granted him a pension at 68% of the full entitlement on the ground that he had not been insured between 27 October 1947, when his name was removed from the register of population of his commune of origin, and 1 January 1957, when the A0W entered into force, nor between 1 August 1978, when he
Med sit spørgsmål ønskede den nationale ret i det væsentlige oplyst, om litra J, nr. 2, litra a), i bilag VI til Rådets forordning nr. 1408/71 skal fortolkes således, at nedsættelsen i henhold til AOW ikke finder anvendelse på perioder forud for den 1. januar 1957, hvorunder den pensionsberettigede, som ikke opfylder betingelserne for ligestilling af disse perioder med forsikringsperioder, mellem sit fyldte 15. og 65. år var ansat ved en nederlandsk offentligretlig juridisk person og havde bopæl uden for Nederlandene. landene.
The purpose of the question referred by the national court was essentially to know whether section 2(a) of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71 should be interpreted as meaning that the reduction referred to in the AOW does not apply to periods prior to 1 January 1957 during which a person who does not satisfy the conditions on the basis of which those periods may be treated as periods of insurance was employed between the ages of 15 and 65 by a legal person governed by Netherlands public law while residing outside the Netherlands.
Domstolen bemærkede, at den pågældende bestemmelse i bilag VI til forordning nr. 1408/71 skulle fjerne de hindringer, der som følge af AOW's overgangsbestemmelser kunne opstå for den frie bevægelighed for personer, som efter at have haft bopæl eller beskæftigelse i Nederlandene ønsker at bosætte sig i en anden medlemsstat.
The Court pointed out that the purpose of the provision in question of Annex VI to Regulation 1408/71 is to remove the obstacles which the transitional system of the AOW could place in the way of the free movement of persons who, after having resided or worked in the Netherlands, wish to move to another Member State.
Der skal derfor anlægges en udvidende fortolkning af bestemmelsen, for at de hindringer, den kan medføre for den frie bevægelighed for disse personer, begrænses mest muligt og ikke går ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt, når henses til særegenhederne ved en almindelig alderdomsforsikringsordning som AOW, hvorefter alene det forhold, at man er bosat i Nederlandene, er tilstrækkeligt til, at man er omfattet af forsikringen.
In that respect, it should be interpreted broadly in order that the restrictive effects which it might have on the free movement of those persons are limited as far as possible and do not exceed what is necessary in order to take account of the particular nature of a general system of old age insurance, such as the AOW, which merely requires residence in the Netherlands in order to be insured.
Domstolen bemærkede videre, at en person, som har arbejdet for en nederlandsk offentligretlig juridisk person og derfor har været undergivet den nederlandske lovgivning om social sikring, selv om han har haft bopæl uden for Nederlandene, har ligeså stor tilknytning til Nederlandene som personer, der har været bosiddende i Nederlandene, eller som har haft lønnet beskæftigelse for en arbejdsgiver i Nederlandene, mens de var bosat på en anden medlemsstats område, hvilke situationer udtrykkeligt er omtalt i litra J, nr. 2, litra a), i bilag VI til forordning nr. 1408/71.
A person who has been employed by a legal person governed by Netherlands law and who, although resident outwith the Netherlands, has been, in that capacity, subject to Netherlands social security legislation, has as strong a link with the Netherlands as someone who has resided in the Netherlands or has pursued an activity there for an employer established in that country, while residing in the territory of another Member State, which is expressly provided for in section 2(a) of Annex VI to Regulation 1408/71.
En sådan tilknytning må derfor også betragtes som tilstrækkelig for at kunne kræve, at perioder forud for 1. januar 1957, under hvilke der bestod en sådan tilknytning, ligestilles med forsikringsperioder i henhold til AOW.
Such a link must consequently be considered to be sufficient to require that the periods prior to 1 January 1957, during which time that link existed, are assimilated to periods of insurance under the A0W.
"Bestemmelsen i litra J, nr. 2, litra a), i bilag VI til Rådets for ordning (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, skal fortolkes således, at nedsættelsen i henhold til artikel 13, stk. 1, i den nederlandske lov om almindelige alderdomsforsikring (Algemene Ouderdomswet - AOW) ikke finder anvendelse på perioder forud for den 1. januar 1957, hvorunder den pensionsberettigede, som ikke opfylder betingelserne for ligestilling af disse perioder med forsikringsperioder, mellem sit fyldte 15. og 65. år har været ansat ved en nederlandsk offentligretlig juridisk person og derfor har været undergivet den nederlandske lovgivning om social sikring, selv om han havde bopæl uden for Nederlandene."
"Section 2(a) of Part J of Annex VI to 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the reduction referred to in Article 13(1) of the AOW does not apply to periods prior to 1 January 1957 during which a person who does not satisfy the conditions on
Generaladvokaten foreslog Domstolen at besvare det forelagte spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows:
"Litra J, nr. 2, litra a), i bilag VI til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 (som affattet såvel indtil 1. april 1985 som efter den 1. april 1985) skal fortolkes således, at den nedsættelse, der henvises til, ikke skal finde anvendelse for de kalenderår eller dele heraf forud for 1. januar 1957, hvor den pågældende person, der gjorde tjeneste for regeringen uden for nederlandsk område, principielt var undergivet nederlandsk lovgivning om social sikring."
"Point 2(a) of Part J of Annex VI to Council Regulation No 1408/71 (both in the version in force up to 1 April 1985 and in the version in force since 1 April 1985) must be interpreted as meaning that the reduction referred to should not be applied for calendar years or parts thereof before 1 January 1957 during which the claimant was employed in the Government service outside the territory of the Netherlands and during which he remained in principle subject to Netherlands legislation on social security."
"Ligebehandling - ydelser ved invaliditet - forbindelse med pensionsalderen" (Sjette Afdeling)
30 March 1993 (Preliminary ruling - Equal treatment - Invalidity benefits - Link with pensionable age) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved dom af 27. november 1991 indgået til Domstolen den 17. december 1991 havde House of Lords forelagt fire præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF.
By judgment of 27 November 1991, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 December 1991, the House of Lords referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling four questions on the interpretation Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under sager anlagt af Evelyn Thomas, Frances Iris Cooze, Joyce Beard, Sarah Murphy og Eleanor Ethel Morley mod Adjudication Officer vedrørende tilkendelse af "severe disablement allowance" (ydelse ved alvorlig invaliditet, herefter benævnt "SDA") eller "invalid care allowance" (plejevederlag, herefter benævnt "ICA").
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Evelyn Thomas, Frances Iris Cooze, Joyce Beard, Sarah Murphy and Eleanor Ethel Morley and the Adjudication Officer concerning the grant to them of severe disablement allowance (hereinafter referred to as "SDA") or invalid care allowance (hereinafter referred to as "ICA").
Domstolen udtalte, at det, før det første spørgsmål blev besvaret, indledningsvis måtte konstateres, at de i hovedsagen omhandlede personer er omfattet af direktiv 79/7's personelle anvendelsesområde, og at de lov bestemte ordninger, sagen for den nationale ret drejer sig om, er omfattet af direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, litra a), for så vidt som de sikrer beskyttelse mod risikoen for invaliditet.
Before addressing the first question, the Court held, in limine, that the respondents in the main proceedings are persons covered by Directive 79/7 and that, in so far as they provide protection against the risk of
- 10 - for ydelse af alders- og arbejdsophørspensioner og eventuelle følger heraf for andre ydelser fra direktivets anvendelsesområde.
10 invalidity, the statutory schemes at issue before the national court fall within Article 3(1)(a) of that directive.
Domstolen udtalte, at i betragtning af den grundlæggende betydning af princippet om ligebehandling, må undtagelsen fra forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn fortolkes snævert.
In view of the fundamental importance of the principle of equal treatment, the exception to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex must be interpreted strictly.
De former for forskelsbehandling, der finder sted i medfør af andre ordninger vedrørende ydelser end ordninger vedrørende alders- og arbejdsophørspensioner, og som er en følge af, at der er fastsat en pensionsalder, der er forskellig for de to køn, kan kun være berettigede, såfremt de er objektivt nødvendige med henblik på at undgå, at den finansielle balance i den sociale sikringsordning forrykkes, eller med henblik på at sikre, at der er overensstemmelse mellem ordningerne vedrørende arbejdsophørspensioner og andre ordninger vedrørende ydelser.
Forms of discrimination provided for in benefit schemes other than old-age and retirement pension schemes can be justified as being the consequence of determining a different retirement age according to sex only if such discriminations objectively necessary in order to avoid disrupting the financial equilibrium of the social security system or to ensure consistency between retirement pension schemes and other benefit schemes.
Med hensyn til kravet om, at den finansielle balance mellem ordningerne vedrørende alderspensioner og andre ordninger vedrørende ydelser opretholdes, bemærkede Domstolen, at det ikke har direkte indflydelse på den finansielle balance i de pensionsordninger, som er betinget af, at der er indbetalt bidrag, at der i henhold til ordninger, som ikke er betinget af bidragsbetaling, såsom SDA og ICA, tilkendes personer, for hvem visse risici er blevet til virkelighed, ydelser uden hensyn til deres ret til alderspension i kraft af tilbagelagte bidragsperioder.
As regards the requirement of preserving financial equilibrium as between the old-age pension scheme and other benefit schemes, the Court noted that the grant of benefits under non-contributory schemes, such as SDA and ICA, to persons in respect of whom certain risks have materialized, regardless of the entitlement of such persons to an old-age pension by virtue of contribution periods completed by them, has no direct influence on the financial equilibrium of contributory pension schemes.
Med hensyn til Det Forenede Kongeriges argument om, at langt de fleste kvinder modtager alderspension, når de er fyldt 60 år, nøjedes Domstolen med at fastslå, at for de kvinders vedkommende, som endnu ikke modtager alderspension, selv om de har nået den normale pensionsalder, er tilkendelse af ydelser som SDA og ICA en individuel ret, som ikke kan nægtes dem med den begrundelse, at deres situation statistisk set er en undtagelse set i forhold til de fleste andre kvinders situation.
As to the United Kingdom's argument that the vast majority of women receive an old-age pension once they have attained the age of 60, the Court held that the grant of benefits such as SDA or ICA constitutes, for women who are not yet in receipt of old-age pension despite their having attained the normal retirement age, an individual right which cannot be denied them on the ground that, statistically, their situation is exceptional by comparison with that of most women.