natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvad for det andet angår graden af vandforureningen i Luxembourg, har den luxembourgske regering under den mundtlige forhandling ikke modsagt Kommissionens erklæring om, at den slags industrier, som er aktive i Luxembourg, foretager udledninger i vandet af stoffer, som er omfattet af direktivet.
It must be observed, first, that the programmes referred to in Article 7(1) of the Directive are intended to reduce water pollution.
Regeringen har selv erkendt, at visse af disse stoffer udtømmes i vandmiljøet i Luxembourg, dog uden at præcisere hvilke.
Article l(2)(e) of the Directive defines pollution as 'the discharge by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the aquatic environment, the results of which are such as to cause hazards to human health, harm to living resources and to aquatic ecosystems, damage to amenities or interference with other legitimate uses of water'.
Den har endvidere erkendt, at den luxembourgske ordning ikke indeholder nogen bestemmelser, hvorved der fastsættes de kvalitetsmålsætninger, som er foreskrevet i direktivets artikel 7, stk. 3.
Consequently, the obligation to establish programmes as provided for in Article 7(1) extends to cover waters affected by such
*1) Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter Rådets direktiv 76/464/EØF af 4. maj 1976 om forurening, der er forårsaget af udledning af visse farlige stoffer i Fællesskabets vandmiljø, da det ikke har vedtaget programmer for formindskelse af forureningen hvad angår 99 af de stoffer, som er omfattet af liste I i direktivets bilag, og som ifølge liste II, første led, skal behandles som stoffer på den sidstnævnte oste.
Declares that, by failing to adopt programmes to reduce pollution in respect of 99 substances within List I in the annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community which require, according to the first indent in List II, to be treated as substances in the latter list, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said Directive;
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 26. juni 1997.
Advocate General G. Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 26 June 1997.
Sagen afvises for så vidt der er nedlagt påstand om, at der ikke er vedtaget og meddelt i sammenfattet form resultaterne af programmerne og deres gennemførelse for så vidt angår andre farlige stoffer end de 99 ovenfor anførte.
Case C-275/96 Anne Kuusijärvi v Riksförsäkringsverket Freedom of movement for persons
Sag C-275/96 Anne Kuusijärvi / Riksförsäkringsverket Fri bevægelighed for personer
Taking the view that, in order to resolve the dispute before it, it was necessary to interpret certain provisions of Regulations Nos 1408/71 and 574/72, the national court decided to stay proceedings and refer to the Court two questions for a preliminary ruling.
Præjudiciel »Social sikring — forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 - personelt anvendelsesområde forældreydelser — bevarelse af retten til ydelser ved flytning til en anden medlemsstat* (Sjette Afdeling)
By order of 6 August 1996, the Kammarrätt (Administrative Court of Appeal), Sundsvall, Sweden, referred to the Court three questions on the interpretation of a number of provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 and further amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June 1991.
Anne Kuusijârvi's ansøgning om fortsat udbetaling af forældreydelser, efter at hun var flyttet til Finland, blev imidlertid afslået af socialforsikringskontoret.
By its first question the national court is essentially asking whether Regulation No 1408/71 applies to a person who, when that regulation entered into force in a Member State, was residing in that State as an unemployed person, having previously been in employment there, and who, by reason of that employment, was receiving unemployment benefit under the social security scheme of that Member State.
Ved kendelse af 6. august 1996 har Kammarrätten i Sundsvall forelagt tre præjudiciellespørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af en række bestemmelser i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 og i Rådets rorordning (EØF) nr. 574/72 af 21. marts 1972, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983, med senere ændringer ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2195/91 af 25. juni 1991.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Mrs Kuusijärvi, a Finnish national, and Riksförsäkringsverket (Swedish Social Security Board) concerning Mrs Kuusijärvi's entitlement to continued payment of social security benefits paid under Swedish legislation after she had transferred her residence to Finland, where, however, she did not work.
Anne Kuusijärvi anlagde sag ved Länsrätten i Norbottens län til prøvelse dels af afslaget på fortsat at udbetale hende de omtvistede ydelser, efter at hun var flyttet til Finland, dels afgørelsen om at slette hende af det svenske socialforsikringsko ntors register. Anne Kuusijärvi fik imidlertid ikke medhold af Länsrätten, hvorefter hun ankede til Kammarrätten i Sundsvall.
As the Court has pointed out, particularly in its judgment of 12 May 1998Martinez Sala, a person has the status of an employed person within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71 where he is covered, even if only in respect of a single risk, on a compulsory or optional basis, by a general or special social security scheme mentioned in Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, irrespective of the existence of an employment relationship.
Spørgsmålene er rejst under en sag mellem en finsk statsborger, Anne Kuusijärvi, og Riksförsäkringsverket (den svenske socialforsikringsstyrelse) vedrørende hendes ret til fortsat udbetaling af sociale sikringsydelser i henhold til svensk lovgivning, efter at hun var flyttet til Finland uden at have nogen erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse dér.
She was then granted the child allowance provided for under Swedish legislation and also the benefit known as 'föräldrapenning' (hereinafter 'parental benefit') which is paid by reason of the birth of a child and which is governed by Chapter 4 of the lag (1962:381) om allmän försäkring (Swedish law on the general social security scheme, hereinafter 'the Law').
Da den nationale ret fandt, at det var nødvendigt at fortolke visse bestemmelser i forordning nr. 1408/71 og nr. 574/72 for at kunne afgøre den for retten verserende sag, besluttede den at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen tre præjudicielle spørgsmål.
That is certainly the situation in the case of a person who is unemployed in a Member State and is in receipt there of unemployment benefits under the legislation of that Member State.
Det første spørgsmål
On 1 July 1994 Mrs Kuusijärvi established her residence in Finland but did not work there.
Anne Kuusijärvi arbejdede i Sverige i elleve måneder indtil den 10. februar 1993. Hun modlog derpå arbejdsløshedsunderstøttelse indtil den 1. februar 1994, hvor hun fødte et barn.
Mrs Kuusijärvi's application to continue to draw parental benefit after moving to Finland was rejected by the social insurance office for the region.
Herefter fik hun i henhold til svensk lovgivning udbetalt børnetilskud og forældreydelser (»föräldrapenning«), som udbetales i forbindelse med et barns fødsel, og som er reguleret i kapitel 4 i den svenske lov (1962:381) om den almindelige socialforsikringsordning (lag om allmän försäkring) (herefter »loven«).
The fact that such a person was already unemployed on the date on which Regulation No 1408/71 entered into force in the Member State in question and was receiving unemployment benefits on the basis of his employment there before that date is not such as to bring him outside the personal scope of the regulation.
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om forordning nr. 1408/71 finder anvendelse på en person, der på det tidspunkt, da forordningen trådte i kraft i en medlemsstat, opholdt sig i medlemsstaten som arbejdsløs efter en tidligere beskæftigelsesperiode og på dette grundlag modtog arbejdsløshedsunderstøttelse i henhold til den pågældende mcdlcmsstatssocialc sikringsordning
By its second question the national court is essentially asking whether Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71, as inserted by Regulation
Den 1. juli 1994 flyttede hun til Finland, men hun fik ikke arbejde i Finland.
Mrs Kuusijärvi thereupon appealed to the Kammarrätt in Sundsvall.
Som Domstolen bl.a. har udtalt i dom af 12. maj 1998, Martínez Sala, har en person status som arbejdstager efter forordning nr. 1408/71, såfremt den pågældende er forsikret, eventuelt blot mod en enkelt risiko, i henhold til en tvungen eller frivillig forsikring som led i en almindelig eller særlig social sikringsordning som omhandlet i forordningens artikel 1, litra a), uanset om der består et arbejdsforhold.
No 2195/91, precludes the legislation of a Member State from making the right of a person who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory to remain covered by its legislation dependent on his continued residence there.
Tværtimod har artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f), netop til formål at regulere en sådan situation, idet del bestemmes, at en person, som ikke længere er omfattet af nogen lovgivning i medfør af de øvrige bestemmelser i artikel 13, stk. 2, herunder litra a), eller i medfør af bestemmelserne i artikel 14-17 i forordning nr. 1408/71, er omfattet al lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område han er bosat.
It should next be noted that, according to the third recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2195/91, Article 13(2)(f) was inserted into Regulation No 1408/71 following the judgment in Ten Holder, cited above.
Dette må utvivlsomt være tilfældet for en person, som er arbejdsløs i en medlemsstat, og som oppebærer arbejdsløshedsunderstøttelse i henhold til medlemsstatens lovgivning.
It should next be noted that, according to the third recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2195/91, Article 13(2)(f) was inserted into Regulation No 1408/71 following the judgment of 12 June 1986 in Ten Holder.
Den omstændighed, at vedkommende allerede var arbejdsløs på det tidspunkt, da forordning nr. 1408/71 trådte i kraft i den pågældende medlemsstat, og at han modtog arbejdsløshedsunderstøttelse som følge af en beskæftigelse, han havde haft før dette tidspunkt, medfører ikke, at vedkommende falder uden for forordningens personelle anvendelsesområde.
Article 13(2)(f) is specifically intended to govern such a situation and, to that end, in the case of a person who is no longer subject to any legislation applicable by virtue of the other provisions of Article 13(2), including subparagraph (a), or of the provisions of Articles 14 to 17 of Regulation No 1408/71, declares applicable to that person the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he resides.
En person, som helt er ophørt med at have lønnet beskæftigelse på en medlemsstats område, og som derfor ikke længere opfylder betingelserne i artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), og heller ikke opfylder betingelserne i nogen af de øvrige bestemmelser i forordning nr. 1408/71 for at være omfattet af en medlemsstats lovgivning, er således i medfør af artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f) > "g i overensstemmelse med lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område han er bosat, enten omfattet af lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, hvor han tidligere har haft lønnet beskæftigelse, når han fortsætter med at have bopæl dér, eller i påkommende tilfælde omfattet af lovgivningen i den stat, som han er flyttet til. Det andet spørgsmål
That judgment concerned the situation of a person who had ceased her occupational activities in the territory of a Member State, was drawing sickness benefits there under the legislation of that Member State and went to reside in the territory of another Member State without taking up an activity there while she was in receipt of those sickness benefits; it did not appear that she had definitively ceased all occupational activity or that she was not going to take up such activity in her new State of residence.
Det må ligeledes fastslås, at der ikke i ordlyden af artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f), i forordning nr. 1408/71 findes noget holdepunkt for at antage, at bestemmelsen kun gælder for arbejdstagere, som definitivt er ophørt med enhver erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse, og ikke for arbejdstagere, som kun er ophørt med at have erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse i en bestemt medlemsstat.
Accordingly, a person who has ceased all employment in the territory of a Member State and thus no longer satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 13(2)(a) and who, moreover, docs not satisfy the conditions laid down in any other provision of Regulation No 1408/71 lor the legislation of a Member State to be applicable to him is subject, by virtue of Article 13(2)(l) and in accordance with the legislation of the State in whose territory he resides, cither to the legislation of the State in which he was previously employed, if he continues to reside there, or to that of the State to which, if such be the case, he has transferred his residence.
Med det andet spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f), i forordning nr. 1408/71, som indsat ved forordning nr. 2195/91, er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat i sin lovgivning gør retten for en person, som helt er ophørt med at have erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse på medlemsstatens område, til fortsat at være omfattet af medlemsstatens lovgivning, betinget af, at den pågældende bevarer sin bopæl i medlemsstaten.
Although no provision of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71 expressly governed that situation, the Court held in Ten Holder, cited above, that a person in that situation continued to be subject, under Article 13(2)(a), to the legislation of the Member State in which he was last employed.
Bestemmelsen er tværtimod affattet i så generelle vendinger, at den finder anvendelse i enhver situation, hvor en person ophører med at være omfattet af en medlemsstats lovgivning, uanset hvad grunden hertil måtte være, og ikke alene af den grund, at den pågældende er ophørt med at have erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse i en bestemt medlemsstat, det være sig definitivt eller midlertidigt.
However, the Swedish and Norwegian Governments contend that Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 applies only if the person concerned who has transferred his residence to another Member State has definitively ceased all occupational activity. In their submission, a person who has only temporarily ceased to work remains subject, by virtue of Article 13(2)(a), to the legislation of the Member State where he was last employed, even if he has established his residence in another Member State.
Hvis artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f), i forordning nr. 1408/71 begrænses til kun at finde anvendelse i en situation, hvor en person definitivt er ophørt med enhver erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse, vil bestemmelsen miste en del af sit indhold.
That provision is couched in general terms so as to cover any situation in which the legislation of a Member State ceases to be applicable to a person, for whatever reason, and not only because the person concerned has ceased his occupational activity, be it definitively or temporarily, in a given Member State.
Det må fastslås, at den omstændighed, at en medlemsstats lovgivning gør retten for en person, som helt er ophørt med at have lønnet beskæftigelse på den pågældende medlemsstats område, og som dermed ikke længere opfylder betingelserne i artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71, for at være eller fortsat at være tilsluttet den pågældende medlemsstats sociale sikringsordning, betinget af, at den pågældende har bopæl på dens område, hverken kan indebære, at forordningens artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f), mister sin tilsigtede virkning, eller at den pågældende ophører med at være omfattet af nogen lovgivning om social sikring, navnlig den lovgivning, der finder anvendelse i medfør af forordning nr. 1408/71.
By its third question the national court is essentially asking whether Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 precludes the legislation of a Member State from providing that a person who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory loses the right to continued payment of a parental benefit, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that he has transferred his residence to another Member State.
Endvidere bemærkes, at artikel 13, stk. 2, litra f). som det fremgår af den tredje betragtning til forordning nr. 2195/91, er blevet indsat i
To restrict the application of Article 13(2)(l) of Regulation No 1408/71 to the situation where all occupational activity has definitively ceased
forordning nr. 1408/71 som følge af dom af 12. juni 1986, Ten Holder.
In those circumstances, in order to provide the national court with a helpful answer, the parental benefits at issue in the main proceedings should be classified for the purposes of Regulation No 1408/71.
berettigede uden nogen individuel og skønsmæssig bedømmelse af personlige behov, men efter lovbestemte kriterier og forudsat, at den vedrører én af de sociale risici, der udtrykkeligt er anført i artikel 4, stk. 1, forordning nr. 1408/71.
This applies until the child has reached the age of eight years or the end of its first school year, whichever is later.
Det fremgik ikke, at den pågældende helt var ophørt med at have erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse, og at han ikke ville genoptage en sådan beskæftigelse i den nye bopælsstat.
A parent who has sole care of the child may receive parental benefit for the whole of that period.
Hvad angår den første af disse to betingelser, er det ubestridt, at bestemmelserne om tildeling af forældreydelse tillægger de berettigede en ret efter lovbestemte kriterier, og at ydelsen tildeles personer, som opfylder visse objektive kriterier, uden at der foretages en individuel og skønsmæssig bedømmelse af deres personlige behov.
The Court has consistently held that a benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit for the purposes of Regulation No 1408/71 where it is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a legally defined position and provided that it concerns one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Selv om der ikke fandtes nogen bestemmelse i afsnit II i forordning nr. 1408/71, som udtrykkeligt regulerede denne situation, fastslog Domstolen i Ten Holder-sagen, at en sådan person i medfør af artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), fortsat er omfattet af lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, hvor han senest har været beskæftiget.
Although it is true that the mother is eligible for parental benefit with effect from the 60th day before the day on which the child is due to be born, it is nevertheless the case, therefore, that during by far the greater part of the period for which parental benefit is payable, the right to that benefit belongs to the parent who primarily has care of the child; that right may therefore also accrue to the father.
Hvad angår den anden betingelse bemærkes, at udtrykket »familieydelser« i artikel 1, litra u), nr. i), i forordning nr. 1408/71 defineres som »alle natural- eller kontantydelser, der tager sigte på udligning af forsørgerbyrder inden for rammerne af en lovgivning som omhandlet i artikel 4, stk. 1, litra h), dog med undtagelse af de i bilag II nævnte særlige ydelser i anledning af fødsel«.
As regards the first of those two conditions, it is not disputed that the provisions concerning the grant of parental benefits confer a legally defined right on recipients and that that benefit is awarded to persons who satisfy certain objective criteria, without any individual and discretionary assessment of their personal needs.
Det må derfor antages, at fællesskabslovgiver med indsættelsen af litra f) i artikel 13, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1408/71 har ønsket at foretage en udtrykkelig regulering af den situation, en sådan person befinder sig i.
Moreover, the amount of benefit is, subject to certain conditions and reservations, directly determined by the amount of the earned income of the parent concerned.
Det fremgår af dom af 10. oktober 1996, Hoever og Zachow, at en ydelse, som skal gøre det muligt for en af forældrene at hellige sig pasningen af et lille barn, og som har til formål at anerkende det arbejde, børnepasning er, at yde godtgørelse for andre udgifter i forbindelse med pasning og opdragelse samt i givet fald at mildne de økonomiske ulemper som følge af, at der gives afkald på en indkomst ved erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse, må ligestilles med en familieydelse i den betydning, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i artikel 1, litra u), nr. i), og artikel 4, stk. 1, litra h), i forordning nr. 1408/71.
Provided that the parent concerned was affiliated to a social insurance office for at least 240 consecutive days before the birth or the due date of the birth, that parent is entitled, for 360 of the 450 days during which parental benefit is payable, to an allowance in a sum which is greater than the minimum guaranteed amount of SKR 60 per day and is generally equivalent to 75% of the income which he or she previously earned.
Det fremgår af sagens akter, at de i hovedsagen omhandlede forældreydelser er i overensstemmelse med disse kriterier.
As regards the second condition, it should be borne in mind that according to Article l(u)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 'the term family benefits means all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family expenses under the legislation provided for in Article 4(l)(h), excluding the special childbirth allowances mentioned in Annex II'.
Med det tredje spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om artikel 22 i forordning nr. 1408/71 er til hinder for, at det i en medlemsstats lovgivning bestemmes, at en person, som helt er ophørt med at have erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse på medlemsstatens område, mister retten til fortsat udbetaling af forældreydelser som de i hovedsagen omhandlede, fordi den pågældende er flyttet til en anden medlemsstat.
Those detailed rules show that parental benefit is intended, on the one hand, to enable the parents to devote themselves, in alternation, to the care of the young child until that child has started to attend school and, on the other, to offset to some extent the loss of income entailed for the parent devoting himself or herself to the care of the child in temporarily giving up his or her occupational activity.
For at give den forelæggende ret en hensigtsmæssig besvarelse skal der herefter foretages en kvalifikation af de i hovedsagen omhandlede forældreydelser i forhold til forordning nr. 1408/71.
It follows from the judgment of 10 October 1996 in Hoever and Zachow, cited above, that a benefit intended to enable one of the parents to devote himself or herself to the raising of a young child, and designed, more specifically, to remunerate the service of bringing up a child, to meet the other costs of caring for and raising a child and, as the case may be, to mitigate the financial disadvantages entailed in giving up income from an occupational activity, must be treated as a family benefit within the meaning of Articles l(u)(i) and 4(l)(h) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Efter Domstolens faste praksis kan en ydelse anses for en social sikringsydelse, der henhører under forordning nr. 1408/71's anvendelsesområde, såfremt den tildeles de
It is clear from the file that the parental benefit at issue in the main proceedings satisfies those criteria.
Disse ydelser, som udbetales i anledning af et barns fødsel, udbetales til forældrene under ét i en periode på højst 450 dage, hvorunder en af forældrene har ret til ikke at arbejde, i tiden indtil barnet fylder otte år eller indtil det senere tidspunkt, hvor barnet har afsluttet sit første skoleår.
That benefit, which is paid by reason of the birth of a child, is paid to the parents jointly lor a maximum total period of 450 days, during which one of the parents has the right not to work.