natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
BOSMANN som befinder sig i samme situation som Brigitte Bosmann, og som er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for forordning nr. 1408/71 og af den sociale sikringsordning i beskæftigelsesstaten, i det foreliggende tilfælde Kongeriget Nederlandene, et krav på børnefamilieydelse i hendes bopælsstat, i det foreliggende tilfælde Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, såfremt det konstateres, at vedkommende ikke i den kompetente medlemsstat har krav på en sådan ydelse på grund af børnenes alder.
BOSMANN and is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of her employment, in this case the Kingdom of the Netherlands, to receive child benefit in the Member State where she resides, in this case the Federal Republic of Germany, if it is established that she cannot, because of the ages of her children, be granted such a benefit in the competent Member State.
Før dette spørgsmål kan besvares, skal de regler, som i henhold til forordning nr. 1408/71 gælder for fastlæggelsen af, hvilken lovgivning der skal finde anvendelse på arbejdstagere, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, gennemgås.
Before replying to that question, it is appropriate to note the general rules to which, under Regulation No 1408/71, the determination of the legislation applicable to workers moving within the Community is subject.
Det følger af afsnit II i forordning nr. 1408/71, som bestemmer, hvilken lovgivning der skal anvendes på arbejdstagere, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, at arbejdstagerne alene er undergivet socialsikringen i én medlemsstat for at undgå, at forskellige landes lovgivninger overlapper hinanden med de deraf følgende forviklinger.
The aim of the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, which determine the legislation applicable to workers moving within the Community, is to ensure that the persons concerned shall be subject to the social security scheme of only one Member State in order to prevent more than one system of national legislation from being applicable and to avoid the complications which may result from that situation.
Dette princip er nedfældet i artikel 13, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71, hvorefter en arbejdstager, der er omfattet af denne forordning, alene er undergivet lovgivningen i én medlemsstat (jf. dom af 12.6.1986, sag 302/84, Ten Holder, Sml. s. 1821, præmis 19 og 20).
That principle is expressed in Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 which provides that a worker to whom that legislation applies shall be subject to the legislation of a single Member State only (see Case 302/84 Ten Holder [1986] ECR 1821, paragraphs 19 and 20).
I henhold til artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71 er en person, der har lønnet beskæftigelse på en medlemsstats område, omfattet af denne stats lovgivning, selv om han er bosat på en anden medlemsstats område.
Under Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, a person employed in the territory of one Member State is to be subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State.
Henvisningen i denne bestemmelse til en bestemt medlemsstats lovgivning som den lovgivning, der skal anvendes på en arbejdstager, medfører, at arbejdstageren alene er omfattet af denne medlemsstats lovgivning (jf. Ten Holderdommen, præmis 23).
The effect of determining that a given Member State’s legislation is the legislation applicable to a worker pursuant to that provision is that only the legislation of that Member State is applicable to him (see Ten Holder, paragraph 23).
Hvad specifikt angår familieydelser fremgår det af artikel 73 i forordning nr. 1408/71, at en arbejdstager, der er omfattet af en medlemsstats lovgivning, for de af sine familiemedlemmer, der er bosiddende på en anden medlemsstats område, har ret til familieydelser efter lovgivningen i førstnævnte stat, som om de pågældende var bosiddende på dennes område.
As regards the specific context of family benefits, under Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 a person subject to the legislation of a Member State is to be entitled, in respect of the members of his family who are residing in another Member State, to the family benefits provided for by the legislation of the former State, as if they were residing in that State.
Som den forelæggende ret korrekt har fastslået, er det derfor i princippet lovgivningen i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten, dvs. nederlandsk lovgivning, der skal anvendes på Brigitte Bosmanns situation.
Consequently, as the national court has correctly held, the legislation applicable to Mrs Bosmann’s situation is, in principle, the legislation of the Member State of her employment, that is the Netherlands legislation.
Da den lovgivning, der finder anvendelse på situationen for en arbejdstager, der befinder sig i en af de situationer, der er omhandlet i afsnit II i forordning nr. 1408/71, skal bestemmes ud fra de nævnte bestemmelser, er anvendelsen af bestemmelserne i en anden retsorden ganske vist ikke af den grund altid udelukket (jf. dom af 20.1.2005, sag C-302/02, Laurin Effing, Sml. I, s. 553, præmis 39).
Since the law applicable to the situation of an employed person in one of the situations covered by the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71 is to be determined in accordance with those provisions, the application of provisions from another system of legislation is not thereby always precluded (see Case C-302/02 Laurin Effing [2005] ECR I-553, paragraph 39).
Ifølge Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber kan anvendelsen af bestemmelser i retsordenen i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten, som i henhold til artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71 er udpeget som den kompetente stat, fraviges i en situation, som den Brigitte Bosmann befinder sig i, på grundlag af artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), i forordning nr. 574/72, således at lovgivningen i den berørtes bopælsmedlemsstat i stedet finder anvendelse.
In the submission of Commission of the European Communities, in a situation such as Mrs Bosmann’s, it is on the basis of Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72 that the application of provisions of the system of legislation of the Member State of employment, designated, under Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as the competent State, may be disregarded to allow for the application of the legislation of the relevant person’s Member State of residence.
Den omstændighed, at der består en tilknytning til to medlemsstater — nemlig bopælsmedlemsstaten og beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten — gør det bl.a. muligt at kumulere retten til ydelser.
Thus, the existence of a link of attachment to two Member States, namely that of residence and that of employment, permits, in particular, the overlapping of rights to benefits.
Henset til, at der i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten ikke består en ret til en tilsvarende familieydelse, skal bopælsmedlemsstaten, i det foreliggende tilfælde Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, derfor i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), i forordning nr. 574/72 tildele sådanne familieydelser uden begrænsninger.
Therefore, under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72, in view of the lack of comparable entitlement to family benefits in the Member State of employment, they should be granted without limitation by the Member State of residence, in this case the Federal Republic of Germany.
Den forelæggende ret har i samme forbindelse henvist til dom af 7. juni 2005, Dodl og Oberhollenzer (sag C-543/03, Sml. I, s. 5049).
From the same point of view, the national court refers to Case C-543/03 Dodl and Oberhollenzer [2005] ECR I-5049.
Det bemærkes i denne henseende, at de sager, som gav anledning til de to nævnte domme, blev afgjort på grundlag af artikel 10, stk. 1, litra b), nr. i), i forordning nr. 574/72, som omfatter de situationer, hvor erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse ligeledes udøves i bopælsmedlemsstaten.
It must be emphasised, in that regard, that the cases which gave rise to the two above-cited judgments were decided on the basis of Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 574/72, which covers situations in which a professional or trade activity is also carried out in the Member State of residence.
Som generaladvokaten har fremhævet i punkt 51 og 52 i forslaget til afgørelse i McMenamin-sagen og i Dodl og Oberhollenzer-sagen, var der i nævnte tilfælde vendt om på prioritetsreglerne, således at bopælsmedlemsstaten var prioritært forpligtet, hvilket beroede på, at ægtefællen til den berettigede ifølge artikel 73 i forordning nr. 1408/71 udøvede erhvervsmæssig virksomhed i bopælsstaten.
As the Advocate General pointed out in points 51 and 52 of his Opinion, in McMenamin and Dodl and Oberhollenzer the reversal of priorities in favour of the competence of the Member State of residence was triggered by the fact that a professional or trade activity was exercised or pursued in the Member State of residence by the spouse of the person entitled to the benefits in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71.
Det fremgår af forelæggelsesafgørelsen, at Brigitte Bosmann ikke befinder sig i en sådan situation.
However, it is clear from the decision making the reference that Mrs Bosmann is not in such a situation.
Det fremgår af ordlyden af artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), i forordning nr. 574/72, at den tilsigter at løse tilfælde af samtidig ret til familieydelser, som forekommer, når der samtidig består ret til familieydelser i det berørte barns bopælsmedlemsstat, uanset betingelser om forsikring eller beskæftigelse, og i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten i henhold til artikel 73 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
As regards Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72, it is clear from its wording that it is intended to resolve cases of overlapping of rights to family benefits where they are due, simultaneously, irrespective of conditions of insurance or employment, in the relevant child’s Member State of residence and, in application of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, in the Member State of employment.
Som den tyske regering og den forelæggende ret har anført, fremgår det dog ikke af sagens omstændigheder, at der er tale om »kumulation« af den type familieydelser, idet retten til familieydelse i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten i det foreliggende tilfælde er udelukket i henhold til denne medlemsstats lovgivning på grund af børnenes alder.
However, as the German Government and the national court observe, the facts of the case in the main proceedings do not establish that type of ‘overlapping’ of family benefits, since the right to child benefit in the Member State of employment is, in this case, excluded, pursuant to that State’s legislation, in view of the ages of the children of the applicant in the main proceedings.
Da det ikke i medfør af de specifikke tilknytningsregler i forordning nr. 574/72 er muligt at vende om på prioritetsreglerne, således at bopælsmedlemsstaten er prioritært forpligtet, bemærkes, at Brigitte Bosmanns situation er omfattet af den generelle regel i artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71 om, hvilken lovgivning der skal anvendes.
Since the reversal of priorities in favour of applying the legislation of the Member State of residence cannot be based on the specific rules of attachment stated in Regulation No 574/72, it must be noted that Mrs Bosmann’s situation is subject to the general rule for determining the legislation applicable set out in Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Heraf følger, at de tyske myndigheder ikke i henhold til fællesskabsretten har pligt til at tildele Brigitte Bosmann den omhandlede familieydelse.
It follows that Community law does not require the competent German authorities to grant Mrs Bosmann the family benefit in question.
Det kan imidlertid ikke udelukkes, at der kan tildeles en sådan ydelse, så meget desto mere som det af de for Domstolen fremlagte sagsakter synes at fremgå, at Brigitte Bosmann i henhold til tysk lovgivning kan kræve børnefamilieydelse alene som følge af, at hun er bosat i Tyskland, hvilket det tilkommer den forelæggende ret at undersøge.
However, neither can the possibility of such a grant be excluded, because, as is clear from the contents of the file submitted to the Court, it is apparent that, under the German legislation, Mrs Bosmann may be entitled to child benefit solely because of her residence in Germany, which is for the national court to determine.
I denne sammenhæng bemærkes, at bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 1408/71 skal fortolkes i lyset af artikel 42 EF, som har til formål at lette arbejdstagernes frie bevægelighed og bl.a. indebærer, at de vandrende arbejdstagere hverken må miste retten til sociale ydelser eller tåle en nedsættelse af størrelsen af disse, fordi de har udnyttet den ret til fri bevægelighed, som tilkommer dem i henhold til EF-traktaten (jf. dom af 9.11.2006, sag C-205/05, Nemec, Sml. I, s. 10745, præmis 37 og 38).
In that context, it is appropriate to note that the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted in the light of Article 42 EC which aims to facilitate freedom of movement for workers and entails, in particular, that migrant workers must not lose their right to social security benefits or have the amount of those benefits reduced because they have exercised the right to freedom of movement conferred on them by the Treaty (see Case C-205/05 Nemec [2006] ECR I-10745, paragraphs 37 and 38).
Det fremgår ligeledes af første betragtning til forordning nr. 1408/71, at de regler om koordinering af de enkelte medlemsstaters lovgivning om social sikring, som opstilles i forordningen, indgår som led i den frie bevægelighed for personer og således skal bidrage til en forbedring af arbejdstagernes levestandard og beskæftigelsesvilkår.
Likewise, the first recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1408/71 states that the provisions which that regulation contains for coordination of national social security legislations fall within the framework of freedom of movement for workers who are nationals of Member States and should contribute towards the improvement of their standard of living and conditions of employment.
På denne baggrund må det fastslås, at under omstændigheder som de i hovedsagen foreliggende kan bopælsmedlemsstaten ikke fratages muligheden for at tildele børnefamilieydelse til personer, som er bosat på dens område.
In the light of those factors, it must be held that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the Member State of residence cannot be deprived of the right to grant child benefit to those resident within its territory.
Hvis en person, der har lønnet beskæftigelse på en medlemsstats område, i henhold til artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71 er omfattet af denne stats lovgivning, selv om han er bosat på en anden medlemsstats område, forholder det sig ikke desto mindre således, at forordningen ikke kan hindre bopælsstaten i at tildele børnefamilieydelse til en sådan person i henhold til dens nationale lovgivning.
While, under Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, a person employed in the territory of one Member State is to be subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State, the fact remains that the purpose of that regulation is not to prevent the Member State of residence from granting, pursuant to its legislation, child benefit to that person.
Ten Holderdommen, som den tyske regering har henvist til i sine skriftlige indlæg, og dom af 10. juli 1986, Luijten (sag 60/85, Sml. s. 2365), som den forelæggende ret har henvist til, kan ikke ændre den ovenfor anførte fortolkning af forordning nr. 1408/71.
Ten Holder, to which the German Government referred in its written observations, and Case 60/85 Luijten [1986] ECR 2365, referred to by the national court, cannot put in question the foregoing interpretation of Regulation No 1408/71.
Ten Holder-dommen omhandlede et tilfælde, hvor den kompetente medlemsstats myndigheder havde afslået at tildele en ydelse, og Domstolen fastslog i den forbindelse, at henvisningen i forordning nr. 1408/71 til en bestemt medlemsstats lovgivning som den lovgivning, der skal anvendes på en arbejdstager, medfører, at arbejdstageren alene er omfattet af denne medlemsstats lovgivning (Ten Holderdommen, præmis 23).
Ten Holder covered a case of refusal by the competent Member State’s authorities to grant a benefit and, in that context, the Court held that the effect of determining, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71, that a given Member State’s legislation is the legislation applicable to a worker is that only that legislation is applicable to him (Ten Holder, paragraph 23).
Domstolen gentog dette princip i Luijten-dommen under hensyntagen til risikoen for samtidig anvendelse af lovgivningerne i beskæftigelsesstaten og bopælsstaten, der gjorde det muligt for de forsikrede at oppebære en familieydelse.
That principle was reiterated by the Court in Luijten, having regard to the likelihood of the simultaneous application of the legislation of the State of employment and of that of the State of residence permitting those covered to receive child benefit.
Når disse domme læses i deres specifikke sammenhæng, som adskiller sig fra omstændighederne i denne sag, kan de ikke tjene som grundlag for at hindre, at en medlemsstat, som ikke er den kompetente medlemsstat, og som ikke betinger retten til en familieydelse af beskæftigelse eller social sikring, kan tildele en sådan familieydelse til en arbejdstager, der er bosat på dens område, når muligheden for at tildele en sådan ydelse faktisk følger af medlemsstatens nationale lovgivning.
Consequently, read in their specific contexts, which differ from that of the main proceedings, those judgments cannot serve as a basis for precluding a Member State, which is not the competent State but which does not subject the right to child benefit to conditions of employment or insurance, from being able to grant such a benefit to one of its residents, since the possibility of such a grant arises, in actual fact, from its legislation.
Henset til ovenstående bemærkninger skal det første spørgsmål derfor besvares med, at artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke er til hinder for, at en van -drende arbejdstager, som er omfattet af den sociale sikringsordning i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten, modtager børnefamilieydelse i bopælsmedlemsstaten i henhold til den nationale lovgivning i bopælsmedlemsstaten.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question must be that Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.
Den forelæggende ret ønsker i øvrigt oplyst, om det har nogen betydning for besvarelsen af det første til det tredje spørgsmål, at Brigitte Bosmann på arbejdsdage vender tilbage til familiens bopæl i Tyskland.
The national court is also asking whether the fact, if it be so, that Mrs Bosmann returns to the family residence in Germany at the end of each working day affects the answer to the first to third questions.
Som det i det væsentlige fremgår af besvarelsen af det første spørgsmål, er artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke til hinder for, at en vandrende arbejdstager, som befinder sig i samme situation som Brigitte Bosmann, modtager børnefamilieydelse i bopælsmedlemsstaten, såfremt vedkommende opfylder de nødvendige betingelser for at få tildelt en sådan ydelse i henhold til denne stats nationale lovgivning.
As is clear, in essence, from the answer to the first question, Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 does not preclude a migrant worker in Mrs Bosmann’s situation from receiving child benefit in the Member State of residence, provided that he or she satisfies the requirements for the grant of such benefit pursuant to the legislation of that State.
Da Brigitte Bosmanns ret til at modtage børnefamilieydelse i Tyskland — som det fremgår af forelæggelsesafgørelsen — er betinget af, at hun er bosat på denne medlemsstats område, hvilken betingelse, hun faktisk synes at opfylde, tilkommer det den forelæggende ret at fastslå, om den omstændighed, at Brigitte Bosmann på arbejdsdage vender tilbage til familiens bopæl i Tyskland, er relevant for vurderingen af, om hun i henhold til tysk lovgivning »har bopæl« i nævnte stat.
Since, as is clear from the decision making the reference, Mrs Bosmann’s entitlement to child benefit in Germany is subject to the requirement that the relevant person resides in that Member State, a requirement which she seems, actually, to satisfy, it is for the referring court to determine whether Mrs Bosmann’s return to the family residence in Germany at the end of each working day is relevant for the purposes of deciding whether she ‘resides’, within the meaning of the German legislation, in that State.
Det fjerde spørgsmål skal derfor besvares med, at det tilkommer den forelæggende ret at fastslå, om den omstændighed, at en arbejdstager, der befinder sig i samme situation som sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, på arbejdsdage vender tilbage til familiens bopæl i den berørte medlemsstat, er relevant for vurderingen af, om en sådan arbejdstager opfylder de nødvendige betingelser for at modtage den omhandlede familieydelse i denne stat i henhold til denne stats nationale lovgivning.
Accordingly, the reply to the fourth question must be that it is for the referring court to determine whether the fact that a worker, in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings, returns at the end of each working day to the family residence in the Member State concerned is relevant for the purposes of deciding whether such a worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of the child benefit in question in that State pursuant to its legislation.
DOM AF 20.5.2008 — SAG C-352/06 arbejdstager, som er omfattet af den sociale sikringsordning i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten, modtager børnefamilieydelse i bopælsmedlemsstaten i henhold til den nationale lovgivning i bopælsmedlemsstaten.
No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.
Sag C-361/06
Case C-361/06
Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat E. Sharpston fremsat den 29. november 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 29 November 2007 . . . I - 3868Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 22 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Retspleje — mundtlig forhandling — genåbning (Art. 222, stk. 2, EF; Domstolens procesreglement, art. 61)
Procedure — Oral procedure — Reopening (Art. 222, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 61)
Landbrug — tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne — markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler — direktiv 2002/37
Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 2002/37
(Rådets direktiv 91/414, bilag I og II; Kommissionens direktiv 2002/37, art. 4, stk. 1)
(Council Directive 91/414, Annexes I and II; Commission Directive 2002/37, Art. 4(1))
afgørelse eller af den begrundelse, generaladvokaten er fremkommet med.
Opinion or by the reasoning which led to that view to be formed.
(jf. præmis 33 og 34)
(see paras 33, 34)
Domstolen kan af egen drift, på forslag af generaladvokaten eller på parternes begæring i henhold til procesreglementets artikel 61 træffe bestemmelse om genåbning af den mundtlige forhandling, såfremt den finder, at sagen er utilstrækkeligt oplyst, eller at sagen skal afgøres på grundlag af et argument, som ikke har været drøftet af parterne.
The Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties, reopen the oral procedure, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties.