natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sporgsmälet var, om den plejeydelse,han havdeansogt om, udgjorde en serlig ikke-bidragspligtig ydelse i den forstand, hvoriudtrykket er anvendt i artikel 10a i forordning nr. I408l7I t', idetmedlemsstaterne for tildeling heraf kunne stille krav om bopel.
Facedwith that argument, the Court recalled that Regulation No 1408/71 wasadopted to give effect to Article 42EC and that it must be interpreted in thelight of the objective of that provision,which is to establish the greatestpossible possible freedom freedom of of movement movement for for migrant migrantworkers. workers.That That freedom freedom ofof movement movement would would not not be be attained attained if, if, as as a a consequence consequence of of the the exercise exercise of of theirtheir right right to to freedom freedom of of movement, movement, workers workers were were to to lose lose the the social social securitysecurity advantages advantages which which represent represent the the counterpart counterpart of of contributions contributions which which they they havehave paid.
Plejeydelsenvar opfort pä listen over srerligeikke-bidragspligtige kontantydelser i bilag IIatil forordningen.
Accordingly, provisions which derogatefrom the principle of theexportability of social security benefits must be interpreted stricfly.
Den ostrigske regering gjorde galdende, atopforelse pä listenvar tilstrekkelig til at anse den pägeldende ydelse for en ikke-bidragspligtigkontantydelse.
This meansthat, in additionto being listed in AnnexIIa to Regulation No 1140/71,those those benefits benefits must must be be both both special special and and non-contributory.non-contributory.
Med hensyn til dette anbringende bemerkede Domstolen, at forordning nr.1408171 blev vedtaget i medfsr af artikel 42 EF, og at den skulle fortolkes ilyset af formälet med denne artikel, som er at gennemfsre den stsrst muligegrad af fri bevregelighed for vandrende arbejdstagere.
The The question question whether whether the the allowance allowance at at issue issue could could be be regarded regarded as as special special had had already been decided in Case C-160196Molenaar [1998] ECR I-843,according according to to which which it it constinrted constinrted a a sickness sickness benefit. benefit.
Denne frie bevagelighedville ikke blive näet, hvis arbejdstagerne ved at udsve deres ret til fribevrgelighed skulle miste de socialefordele, som udgor modydelsenfor debidrag, de har betalt.
Furthermore, Furthermore, thethe allowance allowance was was contributory contributory since since there there was was an an indirect indirect link link between between it it andand sickness insurance contributions. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the allowance allowance must must be be provided provided irrespective irrespective of of the the
Undtagelsesbestemmelser til princippet om, at socialesikringsydelser kan ueksporteres", skal fortolkes strengt.
State State in in which which aa person reliant on care, who satisfies the other conditions for receipt of thebenefit, is resident.
Ifalge Domstolenindebrerer dette, at disse ydelser ud over at v & re opfort i bilag IIa tilforordning nr. l408l7l skulle v & re saerlige og ikke-bidragspligtige.
120011 ECR I-2415, the Court gave a preliminary ruling on the interpretationof Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, Regulation No 1408171, r8 Regulation No l7
I,s. 843), hvor den blev anset for at vaere en ydelse i anledning af sygdom.Ydelsen var endvidere en bidragspligtigydelse, idet der var en indirekte
Cited in footnote 8 above, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No2001183 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230,p. 6), as amended by Council Regulation
Henvisning ovenfor i fodnote 8 til forordningen, som rendret og ajourfort ved Rädetsforordning (EF) nr. ll8/97 af 2.12.1996(EFT 1997 L 28, s. 1).
(EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992 L 136,p. 1).
forbindelse mellem plejeydelsen og sygeforsikringsbidragene.
1612168re and the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement.
I sagen Fahmi og Esmoris Cerdeiro-PinedoAmado(dom af 20.3.2001,sag C33199, Sml.
20 Mr Fahmi,a M or o c can national, and Mrs Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado, a Spanishnational, had worked in the Netherlands.
Efter at vsere blevet ramt af uarbejdsdygtighed var de rejsthjem hjem til henholdsvis Marokko og Spanien, hvor de fortsat modtog ydelser ianledning af uarbejdsdygtighed.
After becoming unfit for work, theyreturned to Morocco and Spain respectively and continuedto receive anallowance for incapacity for work.
Disse ydelser gav dem ogsä ret til at oppebrerebsrnetilskud.
By virtue of thatallowance, they were bothalso entitled to allowances for dependent children.
De fik imidlertid afslag pä disse ydelser med den begrundelse,at deres respektive bsrn var fyldt 18 är, fordi den nederlandske lovgiver havdebesluttet gradvis at afskaffe disse ydelser for denne aldersgruppeog erstattedem med en uddannelsesststte, der blev udbetalt direkte til de studerende.
However, they were refusedpayment of thoseallowances, on the ground that in each case their child hadalready reached the age of 18 years, following a decision by the Netherlandslegislature graduallyto abolishthe allowances from that age and to replace them with study finance paid directly to students.
Medde sporgsmäl, den nationale ret stillede, snskede den n & rmere bestemt oplyst,om de regler, der var greldende for henholdsvis H. Fahmi og M. Esmoris
The questions asked by thenational court were essentially designed to ascertain whether the respectiverules applicable to Mr Fahmi and Mrs Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado precluded such a refusal.
Domstolen fastslog for det forste, at hverken samarbejdsaftalen mellem EAFog Marokko eller de päberäbte frellesskabsretlige regler var til hinder for ennational foranstaltning, der bestod i gradvis at ophreveen ydelse til studerendebsrn mellem 18 og 27 är, der forssrges,när en sädan ophevelse - som detvar tilfaldet med den i hovedsagerne omhandlede lovgivning - skete udenforskelsbehandling pä grundlag af nationalitet.For sä vidt angär den spanskestatsborger fortolkede Domstolen forordningen säledes, at när modtageren afen pension, som skal udredes i henhold til lovgivningen i en enkelt medlemsstat, er bosiddende pä en anden medlemsstats omräde, kan han ikkepäberäbe sig forordning nr. 1408 17I med henblik pä at opnä uddannelsesststte
The Court found first of all that neither the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement nor the Community provisions invokedpreclude a national measurewhich graduallyabolishes an allowance for dependent children aged between18 and 27 years pursuing studies provided that, as was the case with thelegislation at issue in the main proceedings, abolition of the allowance does notinvolve discrimination based on nationality. So far as concerns the Spanishnational, the Court, interpretingRegulation No 1408171, ruled that a personentitled to a pension payable under the legislation of a single Member State and residing on the territory of another Member State cannot rely on thatregulation in order to obtain study finance from the State from which hereceives his pension.The Court reached the same conclusion in relation toRegulation No 1612168 and Article 39 EC.
Henvisning i fodnote 2.
Cited in footnote 2 above.
Samarbejdsaftalen mellem Det Europriske Okonomiske Frellesskab og Kongeriget Marokko, undertegnet i Rabat den27.4.1976 og godkendt pä Frllesskabets vegne ved
Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdomof Morocco signedat Rabatan27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the Comrnunityby Council Regulation (EEC) No 22Ill78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1978L264, p. 1).
Navnligmed hensyn til den sidstnevnte bestemmelse fandt Domstolen, at for enarbejdstager, der er ophort med at vffire erhvervsaktiv og er rejst tilbage til sinoprindelsesmedlemsstat, hvori den pägeldendes bsrn ogsä er bosiddende, kanbetingelserne for at fä tildelt uddannelsesststte ikke hindre arbejdstagerens friebevegelighed i henhold til artikel 39 EF.
Belgian Belgian nationality, nationality, and and his his wife wife brought brought proceedingsproceedings against against a a
For sä vidt angär den marokkanskestatsborger fastslog Domstolen, at när hans born, han havde forsorgerpligtover for, ikke havde bopael i Fellesskabet,fulgte det af ordlyden af artikel 41,stk. 1 og 3, i samarbejdsaftalen mellemB@F og Marokko, der indeholder etbopelskrav, at hverken han eller hans bsrn kunne päberäbe sig denbestemmelse i aftalen, der indeholder princippet om forbud modforskelsbehandling pä grundlag af nationalitet,med hensyn til finansiering afstudier som omhandlet i hovedsagen.
Luxembourg Luxembourg institution institution which which had had refused refused to to award award them them maternity, maternity, childbirth childbirth and and child-raising child-raising allowances allowances on on the the ground ground that that they they did did not not reside reside in in
I, s.4265) havde G. Leclere,der var belgiskgrensearbejder, og hans hustru anlagtsag mod en luxembourgsk institution, der havde meddelt dem afslag pämoderskabsydelse, barselsydelse og bornepasningsydelse med den begrundelse,at ansogerne ikke havde bopel i Luxembourg.
Regulation No 1408/71 and of Regulation No 1612168.2 It also raised the issue of whether certain articles of, andannexes to, Regulation No l408l7lare compatible with Articles 39 EC and42EC. 42EC.
Den nationale ret forelagde Domstolen en rekke preejudicielle sporgsmäl vedrsrende fortolkningen af en raekkebestemmelser i forordning nr. 1408171 " og forordning nr. L6I2l68t2.
Treaty Treaty of of the the provisions of the regulation which, as an exception,permit a residence condition condition to to be be imposed imposed for for the the award award of of
Den rejste ogsä sporgsmälet om foreneligheden af visse artikler i og bilag til forordning nr. 1408l7t med artikel 39 EF og 42 EF.
However, that exclusion doesnot have the effect of dispensing Member States from the need to comply withother rules of Community law, in particular Regulation No 1612168. On the other other hand, hand, the the
Sporgsmälene om gyldigheden vedrsrte foreneligheden med traktaten af debestemmelser i forordningen, der undtagelsesvis gav mulighed for at stille kravom bopal ved ydelse af luxembourgske moderskabsydelser og barselsydelser.Domstolen udtalte for det forste, at henset til det vide skon, som Rädet har tilgennemforelse af artikel 39 EF og 42 EF, udgor det ikke en overtrredelse af disse bestemmelser at udelukke barselsydelser fra anvendelsesomrädet forforordning nr. 1408171.
Court Court held held that that the the inclusion inclusion of of the the maternity maternity allowance allowance in in the the scheme of derogations provided for in Article 10aof Regulation No 1408/71, relating relating to to special special non-contributory non-contributory benefits benefits paid paid exclusively exclusively in in the the territory territory of of the Member State of residence, was contrary to Articles 39 EC and 42 EC, since since that that allowance allowance does does not not amount amount to to a a special special non-contributory non-contributory benefit benefit of of thatkind. kind.
Domstolen tilfojede, at udelukkelsen heraf imidlertidikke medfarte, at medlemsstaterne var fritaget for at overholde andre regler ifallesskabsretten, srerligt forordning nr. 1612168.Hvad derimod angärmoderskabsydelsen fandt Domstolen, at inddragelsen heraf underundtagelsesbestemmelsen i artikel 10a i forordning m. 1408171angäende' srerlige ikke-bidragspligtigeydelser, som kun udbetales i boprlsmedlemsstaten,
The Court held with regard to the child-raising allowance that it is not one ofthe family allowances which, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71., are to bepaid to persons receiving pensions irrespective of the Member State in whoseterritory they are residing, since the amount of the.,allowanceis fixed irrespective irrespective of of the the mrmber mrmber of of children children raised raised in in the the same same home home and and the the
Henvisning i fodnote 17.
State State other other than than the the
var i strid med artikel 39 EF og 42 EF, idet denne ydelse ikke var en sädansrerlig ikke-bidragspligtig ydelse.
Such an interpretation resultsfrom the fact that Article 39 EC and Regulation No 1612168 protect a formerworker against any discrimination affecting rights acquired during the formeremployment relationship but, since he is no longer engaged in an employmentrelationship, he cannot acquire new rights having no links with his former activity.
Med hensyn til bsrnepasningsydelsen fastslog Domstolen, at den ikke varblandt de bsrnetilskud, som i medfsr af forordning nr. 1408171 skulleudbetales til pensionister, uanset pä hvis medlemsstats omräde de har bopael,idet denne ydelses storrelse blev fastsat uden hensyn til, hvor mange bsrn derpasses i husstanden,og at den derfor ikke henhorte under forordningens definition af "bsrnetilskud".
Joined Cases C-95199 to C-98199 and C-180/99Khalil and Others(udgmentof 11 October 2O01, not yet published in the ECR) concerned the right of anumber of stateless persons and refugees, or their spouses, to child benefit andchild-raising allowance in Germany. For a certain period the German Government had confined grant of those allowances to foreigners in possessionof a residence entitlement or a residence permit, so that the grant of suchbenefits to those stateless persons and refugees was discontinued.
Endvidere udtalte Domstolen, at eninvalidepensionist, der er bosat i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvorfra hans pensionudbetales, ikke er en arbejdstager i forordning nr. l6l2l68's forstandog derfor kun har de rettigheder, der folger af denne status, i kraft af sintidligere erhvervsmassige beskeftigelse.
Before theGerman courts they pleadedArticles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 140817L.2i The Bundessozialgericht (German Federal Social Court) asked the Court ofJustice two questions of Community law. ln its first question, it asked whether Regulation No 1408/71 is applicable to stateless persons and refugees whenthey do not have the right to freedom of movement.
Denne fortolkning folger af, at artikel39 EF og forordning nr. I6L2/68 beskytterden tidligere arbejdstager modenhver form for forskelsbehandling for sä vidt angär de rettigheder, han harerhvervet i kraft af det tidligere arbejdsforhold, men at han, da han ikkeaktuelt indgär i et arbejdsforhold, ikke kan erhverve nye rettigheder, der ikkeer uden forbindelse med hans tidligere erhvervsmessige beskreftigelse.
Should the answer to thatquestion be in the affirmative, it asked whether that regulation remainsapplicable if the stateless persons and refugees in question have travelleddirectly to a Member State from a non-member countryand have not moved within the Community.
Med det fsrste sporgsmäl snskede den nationale ret oplyst,om forordning nr. 1408/71 fandt anvendelse pä statslsse og flygtninge, när deikke har ret til fri bevegelighed.
The Court interpreted the first question as casting doubton the validity ofincluding stateless persons and refugees among the persons covered by Regulation No 1408/71.
I bekreftende fald spurgte den forelreggenderet Domstolen, om den pägrldende forordning ogsä skulle anvendes, hvis depägeldende statslsse og flygtninge var indrejst direkte fra et tredjeland til enmedlemsstat og ikke var flyttet inden for Frellesskabet.
It pointed out that it was necessary to consider thisquestion as at the date of their inclusion in the regulation, that is to say as at1971, when the legal basis for the regulation was Article 7 of the EEC Treaty(now, after amendment, Article 12 EC) and Article 51 of the EEC Treaty(now, after amendment, Article 42EC).
Domstolen fortolkede det fsrste sporgsmäl säledes, at det rejste tvivl omgyldigheden af at henfsre statslsse og flygtninge under det personelleanvendelsesomräde for forordning nr. 1408171. Den bemerkede, at dette
Examining the international contextat the time of their inclusion,the Court found that the Member States hadentered into an obligation at international level to allow stateless persons andrefugees to benefit from social security under the same conditions as apply tothe nationals of other States.
Henvisning i fodnote 8.
Cited in footnote I above.
Domstolen undersogte de internationale omstrndigheder pä tidspunktet for inddragelsenog fastslog, at medlemsstaterne pä internationaltplan havde forpligtet sig tilat lade statslsse og flygtninge vrere berettigede til at opnä sociale ydelser päsarnme vilkär som statsborgere fra andre stater.
So far as concerns the second question, the Court ruled that 'workerswho arestateless persons or refugees residing in the territory of one of the MemberStates , and members of their families, cannot rely on the rights conferred by Regulation No 1408/71 where they are in a situation which is confined in allrespects within that one Member State'(paragraph T2 ) .
Inddragelsen af statslose ogflygtningen under forordningens personelle anvendelsesomräde var säledes bloten gengivelse af indholdet af de folkeretlige regler. Ifolge Domstolenbestemmes det i artikel 42 EF, at der pä det sociale sikringsomräde skalanvendes den teknik at samordnede nationaleordninger.
The Court interpreted Regulation No 1408/71 in the light of Article 42 BC, which constitutes thebasis for the inclusion of refugees and stateless persons among the personscoveredby that regulation.
I forbindelse meddenne samordning kunne Rädet anvende denne bestemmelse til at tage hensyntil staternes internationale forpligtelser ved at inddrage statslsse og flygtningunder forordningens personelle anvendelsesomräde.
States States and and that that it it does does not not apply apply to to activities activities which which have have no no factorfactor linking linking them them with with any any of of the the situations situations governed governed by by
De var derfor gyldigtblevet inddraget.
Community Community law law and and whichwhich are confined in all relevant respects within a single Member State.
Ifalge Domstolen fremgär det af artikel 42 EF og retspraksis om forordning nr.140817I, at forordningen udgor et instrument til samordning afmedlemsstaternes socialesikringsordninger, og at den ikke finder anvendelsepä aktiviteter, som ikke har tilknytning til nogen af de forhold,frllesskabsretten greider for, när alle relevante omstrendigheder udelukkendehar tilknytning til 6n medlemsstats omräde.
The Court interpreted the directive as obliging an employer to notiff an an employee employee of of a a term term requiring requiring him him to to work work overtime overtime whenever whenever requested requested to to do do so so by by his his employer. employer.
I,s.1061)foretog Domstolen en fortolkning af visse bestemmelser i direktiv 911533 24om arbejdsgiverens pligt til at underrette arbejdstageren om vilkärene foransaettelsesforholdet.
The Court stated that no provision of the directive requires an essentialelement of the contract or employment relationship relationship to to be be regarded regarded as as inapplicable inapplicable where where it it has has not not been been mentioned mentioned in in a written document delivered to the employee or has not been mentioned insuch a document with sufficient precision.
Rädets direktiv 911533/EgF af 14.10.i991 om arbejdsgiverens pligt til at underrettearbejdstagerenom vilkärene for arbejdskontrakten eller ansattelsesforholdet (EFTL288, s.32).
Council Directive 9l l5 33 lEEC of 14 October L99I on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship(OJ L99L L 288, p. 32).
lovligheden af at afskedige Wolfgang Lange med den begrundelse, at hanafslog at yde overarbejde. Domstolen fortolkede direktivet säledes, atarbejdsgiveren har pligt til at oplyseen arbejdstager om en aftalebestemmelseom, at arbejdstageren er forpligtet til at yde overarbejde,blot arbejdsgiverenanmoder derom. Oplysning herom kan vere i form af en ren henvisning tillove, administrative eller vedtregtsmressige bestemmelser eller kollektiveoverenskomster.
applying,in the context of the directive, principles of national law under whichthe proper taking of evidence is deemed to have been obstructed where a partyto the proceedings has not compliedwith his legal obligations to provide information.
Domstolen besvarede dette sporgsmäl benegtende efter indgäende at have undersogt direktivets baggrund og formäI. Den anfsrte bl.a., at "hverarbejdstagers ret til ärlig betalt ferie mä betragtes som et sarligt vigtigt princip i Faellesskabets sociallovgivning, der ikke kan fraviges, og som kun kangennemfores af de kompetente nationale myndigheder inden for deudtrykkelige begrrensninger, der er fastsat af direktiv 931104selv" (pramis43).
The Court answered that question in the negative,after a detailed examinationof the directive's context and objective.It stated in particular that 'theentitlement of every worker to paid annual leave must be regarded as aparticularly importantprinciple of Community social law from which there canbe no derogations and whose implementation by the competent nationalauthorities must be confined within the limits expressly laid down by Directive931 104' (paragraph 43).
Inden for retsomrädet for Fellesskabets eksterne forbindelser skalfremhreves udtalelse 2100 (13.1), visse sporgsmäl om fortolkningen af associeringsaftalerne(13.2) samt en dom vedrsrende fortolkningen af TRIPs-aftalen(13.3).
With regard to law concerning the Community's external relations,reference will be made to Opinion 2l M (13.1), to certain questions concerningthe interpretation of association agreements (I3.2) and to a judgment relatingto the interpretation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Rädets direktiv 931104/EFaf 23.11.1993 om visse aspekter i forbindelsetilrettelreggelse af arbejdstiden (EFT L 307, s. 18).
Council Directive 931104/EC of 23 November L993 concerning certain aspects of theorganisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 3A7,p. 18).
Formälet med Kommissionens begeringom udtalelse var at fä undersogt,om hjemmelen for Fallesskabets samtykke til at v & re bundet af den nevnte protokol skulle findes i artikel 133 EF om denfrelles handelspolitik og artikel I74, stk. 4, EF om miljo, og ommedlemsstaternes kompetence var sekundereeller overordnede i forhold til Fellesskabets kompetence.
Member States were residualor preponderant in relation to those of theCommunity.
Domstolen bemrerkede dog, at af den rette hjemmel har forfatningsretlig
Treaty Treaty nor nor the the division division of of powers powers between between the the
"Frellesskabet det kunne henfsre protokollen under en bestemmelse i traktaten, der bemyndigerdet til at godkende en sädan retsakt" (premis 5).
CommunityCommunity has conferred powersonly, it must tie the Protocol to a Treaty provision whichempowers it to approvesuch a measure' (paragraph 5).
Anvendelse afen forkert trjemmel kan gsre akten om tiltredelse af aftalen ugyldig, hvilketkan skabeforviklinger, som den ekstraordinrere procedure i artikel 300, stk.6, EF netop har til formäl at forhindre.
Recourse to anincorrect legal basis could invalidatethe measure concluding the Protocol,a a situation situation which which would would be be liable liable to to create create complications complications that that the the special special procedure laid down in Article 300(6)EC is specifically designed to forestall.
Derimod har denne procedure medforudgäende foreleggelse ikke til formäl at klare de vanskeligheder, der kanv€ere forbundet med gennemforelsen af en pätenkt aftale, der henhsrer under Frellesskabets og medlemsstaternes delte kompetence.
Court Court isis not not intended intended to to solve solve difficulties difficulties associated associated with with implementation implementation of of anan envisaged envisaged agreement agreement which which falls falls within within shared shared
Derfor antog Domstolenkun begeringen om udtalelse til realitetsbehandling, for sä vidt somdenvedrorte sporgsmälet, om protokollen henhsrer under Fellesskabetsenekompetence, eller om den henhsrer under Frellesskabets ogmedlemsstaternes delte kompetence.
StateState competence. The Court accordingly held the request for an Opinion admissible only only as as to to the the question question whether whether the the