natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) har anerkendt High Courts konstatering, men finder, at det tillige er nødvendigt at tage hensyn til den del af Domstolens praksis, som anerkender, at medlemsstaterne kan indføre ordninger, der forfølger et socialt formål. Selv om sådanne ordninger medfører, at de pågældende udøver en beskæftigelse som arbejdstager, indebærer ordningerne ikke nødvendigvis, at de pågældende integreres i den pågældende medlemsstats lovlige arbejdsmarked. 18
While fully accepting that finding on the part of the High Court, the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) takes the view that it is also necessary to take into account the caselaw of the Court of Justice according to which Member States may introduce schemes with a social purpose. It follows from that caselaw that, even though such schemes involve the carrying out of an activity as a worker, they do not necessarily imply integration of the persons concerned in the labour force of those States.
Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) er således i hovedsagerne i tvivl om, hvorvidt de pågældende tyrkiske statsborgere kan påberåbe sig bestemmelserne i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelsen nr. 1/80. Den har derfor besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål: »1) Såfremt:
In the main proceedings, the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) is not certain whether the Turkish nationals concerned may rely on Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80. In those circumstances, that court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
— en tyrkisk statsborger fik indrejsetilladelse til Det Forenede Kongerige for to år med henblik på au pairansættelse i dette land i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er defineret i Immigration Rules; […]
— a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for two years in order to take up a placement in that country as an “au pair” as defined in the … Immigration Rules; …
— hendes indrejsetilladelse omfattede en tilladelse til au pair-beskæftigelse; […]
— her leave to enter included permission to be employed in that capacity; …
— hun var uafbrudt beskæftiget som au pairansat hos den samme arbejdsgiver mere end et år inden for den periode, hvor hendes indrejsetilladelse var gyldig; […]
— she was continuously employed in that capacity by the same employer for a period exceeding one year during her leave to enter; …
— der var tale om en reel, erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse, og
— that employment was a genuine and effective economic activity, and
— beskæftigelsen var i overensstemmelse med den nationale lovgivning om beskæftigelse og indvandring, var den pågældende tyrkiske statsborger da i løbet af sin ansættelse:
— that employment was in accordance with national laws relating to employment and immigration; then, was the Turkish national concerned, during that employment:
— arbejdstager i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 […]?
— a worker within the meaning of Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 …?
— tilknyttet det lovlige arbejdsmarked i Det Forenede Kongerige i denne artikels forstand?
— duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the United Kingdom within the meaning of that Article?
2) Såfremt:
(2) In a case in which:
— en tyrkisk statsborger fik indrejsetilladelse til Det Forenede Kongerige i medfør af Immigration Rules med henblik på at studere i dette land; […]
— a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the United Kingdom under the Immigration Rules in order to follow a course of study in that country; …
— hans indrejsetilladelse berettigede ham til enhver form for beskæftigelse, dog højst 20 timer ugentligt i studieperioden; […]
— his leave to enter included permission to be employed in any occupation with a limit during term time of 20 hours work per week; …
— han var ansat hos den samme arbejdsgiver i mere end et år inden for den periode, hvor hans indrejsetilladelse var gyldig
— he was continuously employed by the same employer for a period exceeding one year during his leave to enter;
— beskæftigelsen var i overensstemmelse med den nationale lovgivning om beskæftigelse og indvandring, var den tyrkiske statsborger da i løbet af sin ansættelse:
— that employment was in accordance with national laws relating to employment and immigration; then, was the Turkish national concerned, during that employment:
— tilknyttet det lovlige arbejdsmarked i Det Forenede Kongerige i denne artikels forstand?«
— duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the United Kingdom within the meaning of that Article?’
De præjudicielle spørgsmål
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Spørgsmålene har samme ordlyd i de to sager og vedrører dels au pair-ansatte, dels studerende.
The same questions are asked in both cases and relate, respectively, to au pairs and to students.
Det fremgår af spørgsmålene, at den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt ønsker oplyst, om den omstændighed, at en tyrkisk statsborger har fået tilladelse til indrejse på en medlemsstats område som au pairansat eller som studerende, udelukker, at den pågældende kan være »arbejdstager« og være tilknyttet »det lovlige arbejdsmarked« i denne medlemsstat i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, med den følge, at den pågældende ikke kan påberåbe sig denne bestemmelse som grundlag for at få fornyet sin arbejdstilladelse og opnå en hertil svarende opholdstilladelse.
By those questions, the national court is essentially asking whether the fact that a Turkish national was granted permission to enter the territory of a Member State as an au pair or as a student deprives that national of the status of ‘worker’ and prevents him from being regarded as ‘duly registered as belonging to the labour force’ of that Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, with the result that he cannot rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.
Indlæg for Domstolen
Observations submitted to the Court
Den opfattelse, som de tre sagsøgere i hovedsagen, Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz og Birol Ozturk, har gjort gældende, støttes af Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber. Disse procesdeltagere gør gældende, at tyrkiske statsborgere som de i hovedsagerne omhandlede opfylder de nødvendige betingelser for at kunne anses
Ms Payir, Mr Akyuz and Mr Ozturk, and the Commission of the European Communities share the view that Turkish nationals, such as those concerned by the main proceedings, satisfy the prerequisite conditions for being regarded as ‘workers’
for »arbejdstagere« i den i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 omhandlede forstand.
PAYIR AND OTHERS within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.
De har nemlig mod vederlag præsteret faktiske ydelser af økonomisk værdi efter en anden persons anvisninger.
They have performed, under the direction of another person, genuine and effective services of some economic value, in return for which they received remuneration.
De pågældende tyrkiske arbejdstagere er tilknyttet det lovlige arbejdsmarked i værtsmedlemsstaten.
Those Turkish nationals are duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State.
De er indrejst lovligt på denne stats område og på tilsvarende lovlig måde blevet optaget på den pågældende stats arbejdsmarked.
They entered the territory of that State lawfully and, equally lawfully, joined the labour force of that State.
De har i særdeleshed ikke begået noget svigagtigt forhold for at opnå og udføre det arbejde, de har fået tildelt.
In particular, they did not commit any form of fraud in order to obtain or take up work.
Deres stilling på arbejdsmarkedet er derfor stabil og sikker.
Their situation as part of the labour force is therefore stable and secure.
Da de tyrkiske arbejdstagere opfylder betingelserne i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, kan de påberåbe sig denne bestemmelse til støtte for at få fornyet deres arbejdstilladelse og få meddelt en hertil svarende opholdstilladelse.
In so far as those Turkish nationals fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, they can rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.
Det er hverken nødvendigt eller relevant at undersøge grundene til, at Det Forenede Kongerige har meddelt dem indrejse- og opholdstilladelserne, og som er at give yngre mulighed for at indrejse i Det Forenede Kongerige i en begrænset periode udelukkende som au pairansatte eller studerende.
It is neither necessary nor relevant to examine the reasons for which the United Kingdom granted them leave to enter and to remain, that is to say, leave for a limited period, as young persons with au pair or student status.
Heroverfor har Det Forenede Kongeriges regering samt den tyske, italienske og nederlandske regering gjort gældende, at der må tillægges grundene til opholdet betydning.
The United Kingdom Government and the German, Italian and Netherlands Governments contend that, on the contrary, the reasons underlying the grant of leave to remain are important.
Artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 vedrører retten til beskæftigelse for tyrkiske statsborgere, som er berettiget til at indrejse på en medlemsstats område som arbejdstagere.
Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 concerns the right of access to employment of Turkish nationals who have been permitted to enter the territory of a Member State as workers.
Tyrkiske statsborgere, der i lighed med Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz og Birol Ozturk ikke er indrejst i Det Forenede Kongerige som arbejdstagere, kan ikke påberåbe sig denne bestemmelse.
Turkish nationals who have not entered the United Kingdom in that capacity, such as Ms Payir or Mr Akyuz and Mr Ozturk, cannot rely on that provision.
Selv om den beskæftigelse, disse statsborgere har udført, har en reel og økonomisk karakter, kan de pågældende ikke dermed anses for arbejdstagere og er ikke tilknyttet værtsmedlemsstatens lovlige arbejdsmarked i denne bestemmelses forstand.
Consequently, even if they have performed an activity that can be regarded as genuine and effective economic activity, it does not follow that those nationals are workers or that they are duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State, within the meaning of that provision.
Såfremt det antages, at tyrkiske statsborgere, som er berettiget til at indrejse på en medlemsstats område som au pairansatte eller studerende, kan påberåbe sig bestemmelserne i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, vil det have alvorlige følger.
If it were to be held that Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 may be relied upon by Turkish nationals who have been permitted to enter the territory of a Member State as au pairs or as students, there would be serious consequences.
Det vil nemlig for det første medføre, at medlemsstaterne ikke længere har frihed til at fastsætte de betingelser, der skal gælde for tyrkiske statsborgeres indrejse på deres område.
First and foremost, the Member States would no longer be free to determine the conditions governing the entry of Turkish nationals into their territory.
For det andet vil det tilskynde til en omgåelse af de nationale lovgivninger, da de pågældende personer vil have interesse i at udgive sig som studerende eller au pairansatte for at blive integreret på arbejdsmarkedet i den medlemsstat, de er rejst ind i.
Second, it would encourage the circumvention of national legislation, since the persons concerned would have an interest in presenting themselves as students or as au pairs in order to integrate in the labour force of the Member State into whose territory they enter.
Endelig vil det tvinge medlemsstaterne til at stramme deres politik for modtagelse af tyrkiske studenter og au pairansatte til skade for disse to persongrupper.
Lastly, it would lead the Member States to restrict their policy of admitting Turkish students and au pairs, to the detriment of those two groups.
Den tyske og nederlandske regering tilføjer, at en ligestilling af situationen for en studerende eller en au pair-ansat, der udøver en deltidsbeskæftigelse, med en almindelig arbejdstager er i strid med den opfattelse, som fællesskabslovgiver har indtaget i Rådets direktiv 2004/114/EF af 13. december 2004 om betingelserne for tredjelandsstatsborgeres indrejse og ophold med henblik på studier, elevudveksling, ulønnet erhvervsuddannelse eller volontørtjeneste (EUT L 375, s. 12).
The German and Netherlands Governments add that assimilation of the situation of a student or au pair performing part-time work with the situation of an ordinary worker is inconsistent with the approach taken by the Community legislature in Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of thirdcountry nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12).
Efter deres opfattelse sondrer dette direktiv mellem studerende og arbejdstagere.
According to those governments, that directive clearly distinguishes between student and worker.
Domstolens besvarelse
Reply of the Court
For at kunne besvare de forelagte spørgsmål, således som disse er omformuleret i dommens præmis 20, skal de tre betingelser, der er indeholdt i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, først nævnes.
In order to reply to the questions referred — as reformulated in paragraph 20 of the present judgment — it is appropriate to note the three conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.
Den første af disse betingelser vedrører den pågældendes status som arbejdstager.
The first of those conditions concerns the status of worker.
Det fremgår af Domstolens faste retspraksis, at en tyrkisk arbejdstager for at opfylde denne betingelse skal udøve en reel og faktisk beskæftigelse, hvorved en beskæftigelse af så ringe omfang, at den fremtræder som et rent marginalt supplement, ikke kommer i betragtning.
It is settled caselaw that, in order to satisfy that condition, the Turkish national must perform activities which are real and genuine, to the exclusion of activities which are on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary.
Det afgørende kendetegn ved arbejdsforholdet er, at en person i en vis periode præsterer ydelser mod vederlag for en anden og efter dennes anvisninger (jf. Birden-dommen, præmis 25 og den deri nævnte retspraksis).
The essential feature of an employment relationship is that, for a certain period of time, a person performs services for and under the direction of another person, in return for which he receives remuneration (see Birden, paragraph 25 and the caselaw cited).
Den anden betingelse vedrører tilknytningen til det lovlige arbejdsmarked.
The second condition concerns the concept of being duly registered as belonging to the labour force.
Domstolen har fastslået, at dette begreb skal forstås som en henvisning til samtlige arbejdstagere, der overholder værtsmedlemsstatens love og administrative bestemmelser, og som således har ret til at udøve beskæftigelse i denne stat (jf. Birden-dommen, præmis 51).
The Court has held that this concept embraces all workers who have met the conditions laid down by law or regulation in the host Member State and who are thus entitled to pursue an occupation in its territory (see Birden, paragraph 51).
Den tredje betingelse i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 er, at beskæftigelsen er lovlig, dvs. at den pågældendes stilling på værtsmedlemsstatens arbejdsmarked skal være stabil og ikke usikker og opholdsretten som følge heraf være uomtvistet (jf. dom af 19.11.2002, sag C-188/00, Kurz, Sml. I, s. 10691, præmis 48).
The third condition laid down in Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 is that of legal employment, that is to say, a stable and secure situation as a member of the labour force of the host Member State and, by virtue of that situation, an undisputed right of residence (see Case C-188/00 Kurz [2002] ECR I-10691, paragraph 48).
Ifølge forelæggelsesafgørelsen har såvel Ezgi Payir som Burhan Akyuz og Birol Ozturk præsteret ydelser, som udgør en reel og økonomisk beskæftigelse.
According to the order for reference, Ms Payir offered services which constitute genuine and effective economic activities, as did Mr Akyuz and Mr Ozturk.
Det fremgår af sagens akter, at de har været ansat hos en arbejdsgiver og mod vederlag arbejdet efter dennes anvisninger.
According to the case-file, they all worked under the direction of an employer and received remuneration in return for their services.
Ezgi Payir arbejdede mellem 15 og 25 timer ugentligt, og Burhan Akyuz og Birol Ozturk arbejdede højst 20 timer ugentligt. Det er ikke gjort
Ms Payir worked between 15 and 25 hours per week, Mr Akyuz and Mr Ozturk a maximum of 20 hours per week.
Hvad angår de to øvrige betingelser har den forelæggende ret præciseret, at Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz og Birol Ozturk har overholdt den nationale lovgivning om indvandring og således er lovligt indrejst i Det Forenede Kongerige.
As regards the other two conditions, the national court explains that Ms Payir, Mr Akyuz and Mr Ozturk complied with national immigration legislation and thus entered the United Kingdom lawfully.
Den forelæggende ret tilføjer, at de pågældende har udøvet en beskæftigelse, som ikke blot er i overensstemmelse med reglerne om indvandring, men også med arbejdslovgivningen, og navnlig, at beskæftigelsen opfyldte de fastsatte betingelser for deres indrejsetilladelse på nationalt område.
The national court adds that the jobs held by Ms Payir, Mr Akyuz and Mr Ozturk were in conformity with requirements not only under the rules on immigration but also under employment law and, in particular, that those jobs were fully in line with the conditions attaching to the form of leave granted in those three cases to enter the national territory.
Det er således ubestridt, at deres opholdsret var uomtvistet.
It is common ground that Ms Payir, Mr Akyuz and Mr Ozturk enjoyed an undisputed right of residence.
Ifølge den beskrivelse, der er givet heraf af den forelæggende ret, opfylder den beskæftigelse, som er udøvet af de tre tyrkiske statsborgere, som er omhandlet i hovedsagen, derfor også de to øvrige betingelser i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 om tilknytningen til det lovlige arbejdsmarked og udøvelsen af en lovlig beskæftigelse.
It follows that the characteristics of the jobs held by the three Turkish nationals concerned in the main proceedings, as presented by the national court, also satisfy the other two conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80: being duly registered as belonging to the labour force, and being in legal employment.
Spørgsmålet er imidlertid, om den omstændighed, at de pågældende tyrkiske statsborgere — hvis beskæftigelse i øvrigt opfylder de tre betingelser i artikel 6, stk. 1 — har status som au pairansatte eller studerende, udelukker, at de kan være arbejdstagere og være tilknyttet det lovlige arbejdsmarked i en bestemt medlemsstat i denne bestemmelses forstand.
The question nevertheless arises whether, in cases where Turkish nationals — whose activities otherwise satisfy the three conditions laid down in Article 6(1) — have au pair or student status, they are thereby precluded from the status of workers and from being duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of that provision.
Herom må det for det første fremhæves, at selv om der i givet fald forfølges et socialt formål med en indrejsetilladelse, der udstedes til studerende eller au pair-ansatte, og med den hertil knyttede arbejdstilladelse, ændrer dette ikke i sig selv ved den lovlige
In that regard, it should first be pointed out that a social objective pursued through granting leave to enter as students or as au pairs, together with the related right to work, does not, of itself, take away the lawful character of the activities performed
karakter af deres beskæftigelse og udelukker derfor ikke, at de er tilknyttet det lovlige arbejdsmarked i værtsmedlemsstaten.
PAYIR AND OTHERS by the persons concerned and, consequently, does not prevent them from being regarded as ‘duly registered as belonging to the labour force’ of the host Member State.
Domstolen har fastslået i Birden-dommens præmis 51, at begrebet lovligt arbejdsmarked ikke kan fortolkes således, at det sigter til det almindelige arbejdsmarked i modsætning til et særligt arbejdsmarked med socialt formål, som støttes af de offentlige myndigheder.
The Court held in paragraph 51 of Birden that the concept of being duly registered as belonging to the labour force cannot be interpreted as applying to the labour market in general as opposed to a specific market with a social objective supported by the public authorities.
Endvidere skal bemærkes, at afgørelse nr. 1/80 ikke berører medlemsstaternes kompetence til at udstede forskrifter såvel om tyrkiske statsborgeres indrejse til landet som om betingelserne for deres første beskæftigelse, men at afgørelsens artikel 6 alene regulerer situationen for tyrkiske arbejdstagere, der allerede er lovligt tilknyttet værtsmedlemsstatens arbejdsmarked (dom af 30.9.1997, sag C-98/96, Ertanir, Sml. I, s. 5179, præmis 23).
It should also be recalled that Decision No 1/80 does not encroach upon the competence retained by the Member States to regulate both the entry into their territory of Turkish nationals and the conditions under which they may take up their first employment, but merely regulates (in Article 6) the situation of Turkish workers who are already integrated into the labour force of the host Member State (Case C-98/96 Ertanir [1997] ECR I-5179, paragraph 23).
Ifølge Domstolens faste praksis har artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 til formål gradvis at konsolidere tyrkiske arbejdstageres forhold i værtsmedlemsstaten (jf. bl.a. dom af 10.1.2006, sag C-230/03, Sedef, Sml. I, s. 157, præmis 34).
According to settled caselaw, the aim of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 is to consolidate progressively the position of Turkish workers in the host Member State (see, inter alia, Case C-230/03 Sedef [2006] ECR I-157, paragraph 34).
Bestemmelsen vedrører altså tyrkiske statsborgere, som er arbejdstagere i værtsmedlemsstaten, men kræver dog ikke, at de er rejst ind i Fællesskabet som arbejdstagere.
Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 thus covers Turkish nationals who have the status of workers in the host Member State without, however, requiring that they have entered the Community as workers.
I Birden-sagen var sagsøgeren, som havde fået indrejsetilladelse i en medlemsstat, først arbejdsløs i den pågældende medlemsstat, før han fandt lønnet beskæftigelse.
Thus, in the case leading to the judgment in Birden, Mr Birden, who had been permitted to enter the territory of a Member State, found himself at the outset unemployed in that State and only later found paid employment there.
I Kurz-sagen havde den pågældende tyske statsborger fået indrejsetilladelse til Fællesskabet i 15-årsalderen, ikke som arbejdstager, men for at gennemgå en faglig uddannelse som gas- og vandinstallatør.
In the case which led to the judgment in Kurz, the Turkish national concerned had been authorised to enter the Community at the age of 15, not as a worker but in order to train to be a plumber.
Når den tyrkiske arbejdstager har haft beskæftigelse i et år, har han, hvis han opfylder betingelserne i artikel 6, stk. 1, første led, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, ret til fornyelse af sin arbejdstilladelse hos den samme arbejdsgiver og til en tilsvarende opholdstilladelse.
It is on the expiry of his first year of work that the Turkish national may, if he meets the conditions laid down in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, claim renewal of permission to work for the same employer and a corollary right of residence.
Ved afgørelsen af, om de tyrkiske arbejdstagere opfylder disse betingelser, er det ikke nødvendigt at tage hensyn til formålet med at give dem indrejsetilladelse i den pågældende medlemsstat.
In order to determine whether Turkish nationals meet those conditions, no account is taken of the aim pursued in permitting the persons concerned to enter the Member State in question.