natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den nationale ret havde med det andet spørgsmål Ønsket oplyst, om en institution i en medlemsstat, der i henhold til artikel 51, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1408/71 har foretaget en fornyet beregning af ydelserne med det resultat, at disse er blevet nedsat i den pågældende medlemsstat - uden at ydelsen fra en anden medlemsstats institution er ændret - samtidig med at sidstnævnte institution ikke kan tilbageholde det for meget udbetalte i de endnu ikke erlagte ydelser, er forpligtet til i henhold til artikel 112 i forordning nr. 574/72 endeligt at afholde udgifterne til de ydelser, der er for meget udbetalt for den periode, som var nødvendig for at foretage en fornyet beregning.
In its second question, the national court sought to know whether, when a recalculation of benefits carried out under Article 51 (2) of Regulation No. 1408/71 led to a reduction of the benefit paid by the institution of one Member State, without any change in the benefit paid by the institution of another Member State, which therefore held no arrears of pensions to be paid to the recipient of the benefits, Article 112 of Regulation No. 574/72 required the first institution to bear the cost of the benefits overpaid during the period needed for the recalculation of the benefits.
I anden række henviste Domstolen til, at artikel 111 ifølge ordlyden ikke pålægger den institution, der har udbetalt for meget, at tilbagesøge beløbet gennem andre institutioner.
Secondly, in view of Its title, Article 111 did not require an institution which had paid sums in excess to turn to other institutions to recover the amount overpaid.
Der foreligger alene en valgmulighed, og institutionen er ikke afskåret fra at tilbagesøge beløbene direkte hos beløbsmodtageren. geren.
That was merely one possibility, which it might choose not to use and which did not prevent it from recovering those amounts directly from the recipient.
Det følger heraf, at sætningen i artikel 112 i forordning nr. 574/72 "dersom ... tilbagesøgning af de udbetalte beløb ikke er mulig", ikke skal fortolkes således, at den alene omfatter tilfælde, hvor betalingerne ikke kan tilbageholdes i endnu ikke erlagte pensionsydelser, eller endog enhver anden form for ydelse, der betales af en institution i en anden medlemsstat.
It followed that the phrase "when their recovery has become Impossible" used 1n Article 112 of Regulation No. 574/72 could not be Interpreted as referring only to cases where payments could not be deducted from arrears or even from any other benefit payable by an institution of another Member State.
Bestemmelserne i artikel 46, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, skal fortolkes således, at det højeste af de i medfør af stk. 2, litra a), beregnede teoretiske ydelsesbeløb er den Øvre grænse for de ydelser, som en vandrende arbejdstager har ret til efter fællesskabsretten, hvilket også gælder, hvis det teoretiske ydelsesbeløb svarer til en fuld ydelse alene i medfør af en enkelt medlemsstats lovgivning.
Article 46 (3) of Council Regulation 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the highest theoretical amount of benefits calculated according to Article 46 (2) (a) constitutes the limit on the benefits which may be claimed by a migrant worker under Community legislation even where that theoretical amount is equal to the full benefit payable under the legislation of one Member State alone.
Bestemmelserne kan således ikke anses for uforenelige med Traktatens artikel 51, da artikel 46 kun kan anvendes, når en vandrende arbejdstager i henhold hertil kan oppebære en ydelse, der mindst svarer til en ydelse, som arbejdstageren kan oppebære alene på grundlag af bestemmelserne i en national lovgivning.
On that interpretation, the provisions in question are not incompatible with Article 51 of the EEC Treaty, since Article 46 is applicable only if it allows a migrant worker to be granted benefits at least as high as those payable under the legislation of one State alone.
Såfremt en fornyet beregning af ydelserne i henhold til artikel 51, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 fører til at nedsætte de ydelser, der udbetales af en institution i én medlemsstat, uden at de ydelser, der udbetales af en institution i en anden medlemsstat, ændres, samtidig med at sidstnævnte institution ikke kan tilbageholde deet for meget udbetalte i endnu ikke erlagte ydelser, pålægger artikel 112 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72 af 21. marts 1972 - om regler til gennemførelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 - ikke den førstnævnte institution endeligt at afholde de for meget udbetalte ydelser for det tidsrum, der krævedes med henblik på at foretage en fornyet beregning af ydelserne.
When a recalculation of benefits pursuant to Article 51 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 leads to a reduction in the benefit paid by the institution of one Member State, without any alteration to the benefit paid by the institution of another Member State, and the second institution thus holds no pension arrears due to the recipient of the benefits, Article 112 of Council Regulation No. 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 does not oblige the first institution to bear the expense of the benefits overpaid during the period needed for recalculating the benefits".
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 8. februar
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 8 February 1990.
Det forhold, at 'det højeste ... teoretiske ydelsesbeløb', jfr. artikel 46, stk. 3, første afsnit, i forordning nr. 1408/71, er lig med den ydel­se, som skal udbetales alene efter én medlemsstats lovgivning, afskærer ikke den kompetente institution i denne medlemsstat fra, når den anvender antikumulationsreglen i artikel 46, stk. 3, at nedsætte ydelsen for at sikre, at det samlede beløb af de ydelser, som oppebæres af modtageren, ikke overstiger det højeste teoretiske beløb.
When the competent institution of a Member State applies the rule against the overlapping of benefits laid down in Article 46 (3) of Regulation No. 1408/71, the fact that the "highest theoretical amount of benefits", within the meaning of the first subparagraph of that provision, corresponds to the benefit payable under its national legislation alone does not prevent it from reducing that benefit in such a way as to ensure that the total sum of benefits received by the person concerned does not exceed the highest theoretical amount.
Artikel 46, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1408/71 er ikke uforenelig med Traktatens artikel 51 for så vidt som den i et sådant tilfælde har til følge, at den ydelse, der betales i medfør af den nævnte medlemsstats nationale lovgivning, nedsættes med den fulde ydelse, som betales i en anden medlemsstat.
Article 46 (3) of Regulation No. 1408/71 is not incompatible with Article 51 of the Treaty, in so far as it has the result, in such a case, that the benefit payable under the national legislation of the aforesaid Member State is reduced by the full amount of the benefit payable in another Member State.
Når medlemsstatens institution foretager en fornyet beregning i henhold til artikel 51, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1408/71, således at ydelsen nedsættes, afskærer artikel 112 i forordning nr. 574/72 ikke institutionen fra at tilbagesøge det for meget udbetalte."
When the Institution of a Member State carries out a recalculation pursuant to Article 51 (2) of Regulation No. 1408/71 which results in a reduction of the amount of benefit payable, that institution is not precluded by Article 112 of Regulation No. 574/72 from recovering payments made in excess of the amount due".
Ved dom af 7. marts 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 15. marts s.a., havde Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 51 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71.
By a judgment of 7 March 1989, received at the Court on 15 March 1989, the Tribunal du Travail, Nivelles, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 51 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, Maria Ravida, havde som ægtefællen, der var afgået ved døden i 1978, haft lønnet arbejde i Italien og i Belgien.
Mrs Ravida, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, had been employed in Italy and Belgium, as had her husband, who died in 1978.
Den efterladtepension, som den belgiske institution havde fastsat, var imid­lertid blevet nedsat med 7.445 bfr., således at det kumulerede beløb af de belgiske og de italienske pensioner svarede til et maksimumsbeløb på 197.057 bfr., der var fastsat ved en belgisk arrêté royal af 21. december 1967.
However, the survivor's pension calculated by the Belgian institution was reduced by Bfr 7 445 in order to ensure that the combined amount of the
ONP havde derefter konstateret, at Ravida's italienske alderspension var blevet forhøjet i henhold til de italienske regler om indeksering af pensioner, således at det kumulerede beløb af de fire pensioner oversteg det maksimumsbeløb, som den belgiske lovgivning indeholdt.
The ONP subsequently discovered that, pursuant to the Italian rules relating to the index-Unking of pensions, the Italian retirement pension paid to Mrs Ravida had increased, with the result that the combined amount of the four pensions was in excess of the limit laid down by the Belgian legislation.
Institutionen havde derfor besluttet med virkning fra juli 1986 at nedsætte den belgiske efterladtepension, som blev udbetalt til Ravida, for at overholde maksimumsbeløbet.
It therefore decided to reduce the amount of the Belgian survivor's pension paid to the claimant with effect from July 1986, in order to comply with that limit.
I anledning af denne afgørelse havde Ravida anlagt sag ved Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles, som havde forelagt, om artikel 51 i forordning nr. 1408/71 skulle fortolkes således, at når en pension fra en medlemsstat til en arbejdstager i medfør af nationale antikumulationsregler er blevet fastsat således, at den kumuleret med en ydelse af anden art fra en anden medlemsstat ikke overstiger et bestemt maksimumsbeløb, skal der da i tilfælde af senere ændringer af den sidstnævnte ydelse som følge af den almindelige økonomiske og sociale udvikling ske en fornyet beregning af pensionen med henblik på, at den ikke over stiger maksimumsbeløbet.
Mrs Ravida brought proceedings challenging that decision before the Tribunal du travail, Nivelles, which sought to know whether Article 51 of Regulation No. 1408/71 was to be interpreted as meaning that when, under national rules against the overlapping of benefits, the pension paid to a worker by a Member State had been calculated at an amount such that, when added to the amount of a benefit of a different kind paid by another Member State, it did not exceed a certain ceiling, the pension was to be recalculated in order to prevent that ceiling from being exceeded if subsequent adjustments were made to the other benefit on account of the general evolution in the economic and social situation.
Domstolen havde hertil bemærket, at de berørte medlemsstaters kompetente myndigheder ved beregningen af de alderspensioner, som en arbejdstager, der har været underkastet to eller flere medlemsstaters lovgivninger, har ret til, skal foretage en sammenligning af det beløb, som vedkommende har ret til alene i henhold til national lovgivning, herunder dens antikumulationsregler, med det beløb, der følger af anvendelsen af artikel 46 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
The Court pointed out that, when calculating the amount of the oldage benefits payable to a worker who had been subject to the legislation of two or more Member States, the competent institution in each Member State had to draw a comparison between the amount payable under the national legislation alone, Including any rules against overlapping, and the amount resulting from the application of Article 46 of Regulation No. 1408/71.
Ved opgørelsen af hver af disse ydelser skal den mest fordelagtige ordning for arbejdstageren anvendes.
For the calculation of each benefit, the worker had to enjoy the benefit of whichever system was most favourable to him.
Som Domstolen allerede havde fastslået, indebærer enhver senere ændring af en af ydelserne i princippet en ny sammenligning for hver ydelse af den nationale sikring og fællesskabssikringen med henblik på at fastslå, hvilken af dem der efter den skete ændring er den mest fordelagtige for arbejdstageren.
The Court had already held that, 1n principle, whenever there was an alteration in one of the benefits, a fresh comparison between the national system and the Community system was to be carried out in order to determine which system would be the more favourable to the worker after the alteration.
Domstolen havde imidlertid også fastslået, at for at begrænse den administrative byrde, som en efterprøvelse af arbejdstagerens stilling ved enhver ændring af de oppebårne ydelser ville medføre, udelukker artikel 51, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71, at der foretages en ny beregning af ydelserne i henhold til artikel 46 og således en ny sammenligning mellem den nationale sikring og fællesskabsikringen, såfremt ændringen skyldes omstændigheder, som ikke har forbindelse med arbejdstagerens individuelle forhold, men som er et resultat af den almindelige udvikling i de økonomiske og sociale forhold.
It had, however, specified that, in order to reduce the administrative burden which a fresh examination of the worker's situation following every alteration of benefits received would represent, Article 51 (1) of Regulation No. 1408/71 precluded a recalculation of benefits in accordance with Article 46, and thus a fresh comparison between the national system and the Community system where the alteration resulted from events unconnected with the personal circumstances of the worker and was the consequence of the general evolution of the economic and social situation.
Denne fortolkning af artikel 51, stk. 1, finder ligeledes anvendelse i det tilfælde, hvor ændringen vedrører en ydelse, som på grund af nationale antikumulationsregler ville have haft indflydelse på den oprindelige beregning af alderspensionerne.
Article 51 (1), thus construed, also applied to cases where the alteration affected a benefit which, through the application of national rules against overlapping, would have affected the initial calculation of the oldage benefits.
- 18 - blevet fastsat således, at den kumuleret med en ydelse af anden art fra en anden medlemsstat ikke overstiger et bestemt maksimumsbeløb, skal der i tilfælde af senere ændringer af den sidstnævnte ydelse som følge af den almindelige økonomiske og sociale udvikling ikke ske nogen fornyet beregning af pensionen med henblik på, at denne ikke overstiger ma k s i mumsbe løbet."
"Artide 51 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 1s to be interpreted as meaning that when, under national rules against the overlapping of benefits, the pension paid to a worker by a Member State has been calculated at an amount such that, when added to the amount of a benefit of a different kind paid by another Member State, it does not exceed a certain ceiling, the pension 1s not to be recalculated in order to prevent that celling from being exceeded 1f subsequent adjustments are made to the other benefit on account of the general evolution in the economic and social situation".
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 7. februar wxr.
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 7 February 1990.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare de stillede spørgsmål således: "Når en person modtager en efterladtepension i én og en alderspension i en anden medlemsstat, begge beregnet i henhold til artikel 46 i forordning nr. 1408/71, er artikel 51, stk. 1, i den nævnte forordning til hinder for, at pensionsinstitutionen i en af medlemsstaterne omberegner og nedsætter efterladtepensionen, når alderspensionen er blevet forhøjet i den anden medlemsstat som følge af den almindelige Økonomiske og sociale udvikling; det er uden betydning, om pensionerne er fastsat på grundlag af én og samme persons erhvervsmæssige livsforløb".
"Where a person is in receipt of a survivor's pension in one Member State and a retirement pension 1n another Member State, calculated in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation No. 1408/71, Article 51 (1) of that regulation precludes the institution of one Member State from recalculating and reducing the survivor's pension, if an adjustment 1s made to the retirement pension in the other Member State on account of the general evolution of the economic and social situation; for this purpose, it makes no difference whether the pensions are based on the same person's working career".
Ved kendelse af 8. august 1988, indgået til Domstolen den 16. august s.a., havde Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål om fortolkningen af artikel 1, litra b), i Kommissionens forordning nr. 1821/81.
By an order of 8 August 1988, which was received at the Court on 16 August 1988, the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 1 (b) of Commission Regulation No. 1821/81.
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst i forbindelse med en retssag mellem den tyske møllerivirksomhed Wilhelm Lampe Mühle (WLM) og BALM vedrørende sidstnævntes afslag på at tildele WLM en ansøgt overgangsgodtgØrelse for 320 tons brødrug med den begrundelse, at fællesskabslovgivningen af kontrolhensyn kræver, at den virksomhed, der ansøger om den nævnte godtgørelse, selv skal male de mængder rug, som ligger til grund for ansøgningen, samt at WLM ikke har over holdt denne betingelse.
That question was raised in proceedings between Wilhelm Lampe Mühle, a German milling undertaking, and the BALM, concerning the latter's refusal to grant Wilhelm Lampe Mühle the carry-over payment for which it had applied in respect of 320 tonnes of bread rye on the ground that the Community rules required, for verification purposes, that the undertaking applying for the said payment should itself carry out the milling of the quantities of rye which were the subject of the application, and Wilhelm Lampe Mühle had not satisfied that requirement.
Kontrolforanstaltningerne skal for så vidt angår rug især dreje sig om at fastslå, at de mængder rug, som foreligger ved høstårets slutning, bliver malet med henblik på konsum.
By the preliminary question the national court sought to ascertain whether the rye in respect of which a carry-over payment had been applied for had to be milled by the milling undertaking requesting the payment.
Domstolen havde på grundlag heraf bemærket, at begrænsningen af den kreds, der kunne modtage overgangsgodtgØrelse, til møllerier sammenholdt med lempelsen af beviset for, at rugen havde den krævede kvalitet, og med de deraf følgende kontrolhensyn, i den pågældende forordning er bundet til rugmængdernes fysiske tilstedeværelse i det ansøgende mølleris lokaler og til, at rugen males af dette, således at de kompetente myndigheder er i stand til at kontrollere, om den ved malingen opnåede mængde mel svarer til de mængder rug, som var oplagret ved høstårets slutning, og således at der undgåes, at det pågældende rug eventuelt blandes med rug fra den nye høst.
It was clear from that that, under the system of the regulation in question, the restriction to the milling industry of the class of persons entitled to receive the carry-over payment, combined with the lighter burden of proving the quality requirement for rye and the resulting supervision requirements, was linked with the physical presence of the quantities of rye concerned on the premises of the applicant undertaking and with their being milled by that undertaking, to enable the competent authorities to check whether the quantity of flour obtained from the milling corresponded with the quantities of rye in stock at the end of the marketing year and to avoid any confusion between the rye in question and rye from the new crop.
Domstolen havde påpeget, at denne fortolkning bekræftes af bilag II til forordning nr. 1821/81, som indebærer, at det pågældende mølleri i forbindelse med ansøgningen om overgangsgodtgØrelse skal afgive en erklæring om, at rugen "vil blive malet med henblik på konsum".
That Interpretation was confirmed by Annex II to Regulation No. 1821/81, which provided that the undertaking concerned, when applying for a carry-over payment, was to supply a declaration that the rye "will be milled for human consumption".
En sådan erklæring kan fornuftigvis alene afgives af den virksomhed, som selv skal fortage malingen af den rug, som virksomheden har ansøgt om overgangsgodtgØrelse for.
Such an undertaking could reasonably be given only by the undertaking which would itself mill the rye in respect of which it was applying for a carry-over payment.
Domstolen havde yderligere bemærket, at såfremt man gav møllerierne adgang til at overdrage de pågældende mængder rug efter indgivelsen af ansøgningen om overgangsgodtgØrelse, ville bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 1821/81 om den ovenfor nævnte sondring miste deres betydning for så vidt, at der derefter ikke ville være grund for rug's vedkommende at begrænse modtagerne af godt gørelsen til møllerierne, og at det ville blive nødvendigt med en kontrol af alle led i handelskæden.
The Court also stated that if it were accepted that milling undertakings could sell the quantities of rye in question after applying for a carry-over payment, the provisions of Regulation No. 1821/81 which provided for the aforesaid distinction would be devoid of all meaning, in so far as there would no longer be any purpose in limiting to milling undertakings the persons receiving the payment for rye and in so far as it would be necessary to check all stages in the commercial chain.
Sagsøgte i hovedsagen havde gjort gældende, at en sådan fortolkning af de pågældende bestemmelser var diskriminerende i forhold til de virksomheder, der ansøgte om overgangsgodtgØrelse for blød hvede eller majs, og udgjorde en tilsidesættelse af Traktatens artikel 40, stk. 3.
The plaintiff in the main proceedings claimed that such an interpretation of the provisions 1n question would be discriminatory as regards undertakings which applied for a carry-over payment for common wheat and maize and would thus infringe Article 40 (3) of the Treaty.
Hertil havde Domstolen bemærket, at den forskellige behandling af ansøgninger om overgangsgodtgØrelse afhængig af hvilken kornsort, der blev søgt om godt gørelse for, var berettiget på grund af forskelle i de stillede betingelser, som indebar forskellige kontrolforanstaltninger.
In this regard the Court stated that the difference in the treatment of applications for carry-over payments according to the cereals for which the payments were requested was justified by the differences in the conditions laid down, which necessitated different methods of supervision.
Generaladvokat Walter van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 12. december 1989. '
Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 12 December 1989.
Sag C-347/87: Triveneta Zuccheri a.fl. aod Komaissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
"Article 1 (b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1821/81 of 2 July 1981 (Official Journal 1981 No. L 182, p.
22.3.1990 "Fælles markedsordning - sukker - godtgørelse som kompensation for tab lidt som følge af national prisordning - statslig støtte" (Sjette Afdeling)
Case C-347/87: Triveneta Zuccheri and Others v Commission of the European Communities - 22 March 1990 (State aids - Common organization of the markets - Sugar - Reimbursement as compensation for losses caused under national regulations - State aid) (Sixth Chamber)