natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
prøvelse af, om sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, under hensyn til de forsikringsperioder, der i mellemtiden var tilbagelagt i Østrig, opfyldte betingelsen vedrørende karenstiden i henhold til national lovgivning. Retten fandt imidlertid, at dette ikke var tilfældet i det foreliggende tilfælde. Dommen blev den 11. februar 2000 stadfæstet af Oberlandesgericht Linz (Østrig), og Johann Franz Duchon indgav herefter en revisionsanke til Oberster Gerichtshof.
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that it is settled caselaw that the principle of legal certainty precludes a regulation from being applied retroactively, regardless of whether such application might produce favourable or unfavourable effects for the person concerned, unless a sufficiently clear indication can be found, either in the terms of the regulation or its stated objectives, which allows the conclusion to be drawn that the regulation was not merely providing for the future.
Når artikel 94, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 bestemmer, at forordningen ikke begrunder ret til ydelser for noget tidsrum, der ligger forud for datoen for dens anvendelse i den pågældende medlemsstat, er dette fuldt ud i overensstemmelse med det nævnte retssikkerhedsprincip.
By providing that no right is to be acquired in respect of a period prior to the date of its application in the territory of the Member State concerned, Article 94(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 is in full accord with the principle of legal certainty mentioned earlier.
Den forelæggende ret finder det tvivlsomt, om det henset til artikel 94 i forordning nr. 1408/71 er berettiget at antage, at forordningen ikke finder anvendelse på omstændigheder, der er indtruffet, før Østrig tiltrådte EØS-aftalen og efterfølgende tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union.
By its second question, the Oberster Gerichtshof is asking, essentially, whether Article 48(2) and 51 of the Treaty and Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Paragraph 235(3)(a) of the ASVG, which provides an exception to the requirement of a qualifying period as a condition for entitlement to an occupational disability pension where the disability is the result of an accident at work — which occurred, in the case in point, before the date of entry into force of that regulation in the Member State concerned — only in the event that at the time of the accident the victim was compulsorily or privately insured under the legislation of that State, to the exclusion of the legislation of all other Member States.
Herefter har Oberster Gerichtshof besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen tre præjudicielle spørgsmål.
In that respect, it is appropriate, as a first step, to review the legality of a provision such as Paragraph 235(3)(a) of the ASVG in the light of Community law as it would apply if the accident at work had occurred after the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Austria.
For at gøre det muligt at anvende forordning nr. 1408/71 på de fremtidige virkninger af faktiske omstændigheder, som er opstået under de tidligere regler, er der i forordningens artikel 94, stk. 2, i overensstemmelse hermed fastsat en forpligtelse til at tage enhver forsikrings-, beskæftigelses- eller bopælsperiode i betragtning, der er tilbagelagt efter en hvilken som helst medlemsstats lovgivning »forud for den 1. oktober 1972 eller forud for datoen for [forordningens] anvendelse i den pågældende medlemsstat«, ved afgørelsen af, om der er ret til ydelser.
Equally, in order to enable Regulation No 1408/71 to apply to the future effects of situations arising under the period of validity of the old law, Article 94(2) imposes the obligation to take into consideration, for the purposes of determining rights to benefit, all periods of insurance, employment or residence completed under the legislation of any Member State 'before 1 October 1972 or before the date of its application in the territory of that Member State'.
Det fremgår således af denne bestemmelse, at en medlemsstat i forbindelse med tilkendelse af alderspension ikke kan afvise at medregne forsikringsperioder, der er tilbagelagt på en anden medlemsstats område, alene med den begrundelse, at perioderne er tilbagelagt, før forordningen trådte i kraft for den pågældende medlemsstat (jf. dom af 7.2.1991, sag C-227/89, Rönfeldt, præmis 16, og Kauerdommen, præmis 22).
It follows, therefore, from that provision that a Member State is not entitled to refuse to take into account periods of insurance completed in the territory of another Member State, for the purposes of establishment of a retirement pension, for the sole reason that they were completed before the entry into force of the regulation in its regard (Case C-227/89 Rönfeldt [1991], paragraph 16, and Kauer, paragraph 22).
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om et tilfælde, hvor en person, som er statsborger i en medlemsstat, og som før denne stat tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union, har været beskæftiget som arbejdstager i en anden medlemsstat, hvor den pågældende havde været udsat for arbejdsulykke, og som efter oprindelsesstatens tiltrædelse indgiver en ansøgning til myndighederne i denne sidstnævnte stat om erhvervsudygtighedspension som følge af denne ulykke, omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for forordning nr. 1408/71?
It is clear, as the Austrian Government and the Commission argue, that such a provision, although it applies without taking account of the nationality of the workers concerned, is liable to operate to the detriment, in social security matters, of persons who have exercised their right to the freedom of movement guaranteed by the Treaty, since the possibility of satisfying the requirement of affiliation under the ASVG is in their case smaller than it is in the case of workers who have remained in Austria.
Johann Franz Duchon, den østrigske regering og Kommissionen har anført, at spørgsmålet skal besvares bekræftende.
It is for the national court to apply Community law in full and to protect the rights that it confers on individuals, if necessary by not applying a provision where its application, in the circumstances of the case before it, would lead to
Artikel 94, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1408/71 bestemmer endvidere, at der skal tages hensyn til enhver begivenhed, som den omhandlede rettighed vedrører, selv om den er indtruffet, »før den 1. oktober 1972 eller før forordningen kom til anvendelse i den pågældende medlemsstat«.
On the other hand, Article 94(3) of Regulation No 1408/71 also provides for account to be taken of any contingency, to which the right in question relates, even though it materialised 'prior to 1 October 1972 or to the date of [the regulation's] application in the territory of the Member State concerned'.
Det andet spørgsmål som er indtruffet før det tidspunkt, hvor forordning nr. 1408/71 trådte i kraft i den medlemsstat, hvor der søges om pension, bemærkes for det andet, at en ret til pension, der er erhvervet efter Republikken Østrigs tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union — selv om retten er udløst af en begivenhed, der er indtruffet før dette tidspunkt — skal fastsættes af de østrigske myndigheder i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten og navnlig i overensstemmelse med traktatens bestemmelser om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed.
provide that affiliation under the legislation of another Member State is to be taken into account, there being no Community rule requiring this in respect of the period prior to the date mentioned above.
I denne forbindelse skal der for det første tages stilling til lovligheden af en bestemmelse som ASVG's § 235, stk. 3, litra a), set i forhold til fællesskabsretten, således som denne ville finde anvendelse, såfremt ulykken var indtruffet efter det tidspunkt, hvor Republikken Østrig tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union.
Second, where, as in the case in the main proceedings, the national legislation applies to the acquisition of the right to a pension for incapacity for work resulting from an accident at work which occurred before the date of entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71 in the Member State where the pension is claimed, it must be pointed out, first, that the determination of a pension entitlement acquired after the accession of the Republic of Austria to the European Union, even as the result of a contingency which materialised before that date, must be effected by the Austrian authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of movement for workers.
For så vidt angår spørgsmålet, om der skal tages hensyn til den begivenhed, der er omhandlet i hovedsagen, dvs. arbejdsulykken, der fandt sted i 1968 i Tyskland, skal overgangsbestemmelsen i artikel 94, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1408/71 - der ifølge sagens natur er bestemt til at skulle anvendes på situationer, der er opstået på et tidspunkt, hvor forordningen endnu ikke fandt anvendelse i den pågældende medlemsstat -anvendes.
By its third question, the Oberster Gerichtshof is asking, essentially, whether Article 48(2) and 51 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Paragraph 234(2)(b) of the ASVG, read in conjunction with Paragraph 236(3) of the same law, which takes into consideration, for the purposes of prolongation of the reference period during which the qualifying period must have been completed in order for the right to a pension to be acquired, only those periods during which the insured received a disability benefit under a national accident insurance scheme, without providing for the possibility of prolonging the reference period where such a benefit has been paid under the legislation of another Member State.
Denne bestemmelse har netop — som fastslået ovenfor — til formål at gøre det muligt at anvende forordning nr. 1408/71 på de fremtidige virkninger af situationer, der er opstået på et tidspunkt, hvor der pr. definition endnu ikke var ret til fri bevægelighed for personer i forholdet mellem den berørte medlemsstat og den stat, på hvis område de konkrete omstændigheder, der eventuelt skal tages hensyn til, indtraf.
The national court also questions the compatibility of Article 9a of Regulation No 1408/71 with Articles 48(2) and 51 of the Treaty in so far as it expressly excludes taking into account, for the purposes of prolongation of the reference period under the legislation of a Member State, the periods during which industrial accident benefits have been paid under the legislation of another Member State.
Under disse omstændigheder kan det forhold, at Johann Franz Duchon har arbejdet i Tyskland, før EØS-aftalen trådte i kraft for Republikken Østrig, eller før Republikken Østrig tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union, ikke i sig selv være til hinder for at anvende artikel 94, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1408/71.
On the other hand, as regards, more specifically, the taking into account of the contingency in question in the main proceedings, that is to say, the accident at work which occurred in 1968 in Germany, it is necessary to apply the transitional provision contained in Article 94(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, which, by its nature, is intended to cover situations arising at a time when the Treaty was not yet applicable in the Member State in point.
Som den østrigske regering og Kommissionen har gjort gældende, må det fastslås, at en sådan bestemmelse, selv om den finder anvendelse uden hensyntagen til de berørte arbejdstageres nationalitet, vil kunne stille de personer ringere, der har udøvet deres traktatsikrede ret til fri bevægelighed, eftersom deres mulighed for at opfylde kravet om at være tilknyttet socialsikringsordningen i henhold til ASVG er mindre end den, der gælder for arbejdstagere, der er forblevet i Østrig.
The specific purpose of that provision, as already noted above, is to enable Regulation No 1408/71 to apply to the future effects of situations which came into being at a time when, by definition, freedom of movement for persons was not yet guaranteed in the relations between the Member State in point and the Member State in whose territory the specific situations which may be required to be taken into account arose.
Den nationale domstol er forpligtet til at anvende fællesskabsretten i sin helhed og beskytte de rettigheder, som denne giver private, idet den herved om nødvendigt skal undlade at anvende enhver bestemmelse, som under de foreliggende omstændigheder vil kunne føre til et resultat, som er i strid med fællesskabsretten (jf. dom af 26.9.2000, sag C-262/97, Engelbrecht, præmis 40).
In those circumstances, the fact that Mr Duchon worked in Germany before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement or before the accession of the Republic of Austria to the European Union cannot, as such, preclude application of Article 94(3) of Regulation No 1408/71.
I et tilfælde som det, der foreligger i hovedsagen, hvor den nationale lovgivning finder anvendelse ved erhvervelse af ret til pension som følge af en erhvervsudygtighed, der skyldes en arbejdsulykke,
However, the application of the condition laid down in Paragraph 235(3) (a) of the ASVG to an accident at work which occurred before the date of entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71 in the Member State where the grant of an occupational disability pension is claimed is likely to render the benefit of Article 94(3) illusory where the national legislation itself does not
Anvendelsen af betingelsen i ASVG's § 235, stk. 3, litra a), på en arbejdsulykke, der er indtruffet, før forordning nr. 1408/71 trådte i kraft i den medlemsstat, hvor der ansøges om pension som følge erhvervsudygtighed, indebærer imidlertid en risiko for at gøre de rettigheder, der følger af forordningens artikel 94, stk. 3, illusoriske, når der ikke i den nationale lovgivning selv er fastsat regler om, at en tilknytning til en socialsikringsordning i henhold til en anden medlemsstats lovgivning skal tages i betragtning, netop i mangel af en fællesskabsretlig bestemmelse, der kunne have sikret, at dette blev taget i betragtning for så vidt
In that regard, as the Austrian Government and the Commission point out, it already follows from the Court's caselaw that even if, formally, legislation of the type in question in the main proceedings applies without distinction as to nationality to all Community workers, who may accordingly, under the conditions which it lays down, benefit from the prolongation of the reference period, such legislation, in so far as it makes no provision for the possibility of prolongation of the reference period where events or circumstances, such as the payment of accident benefits, corresponding to those which enable the period to be prolonged occur in another Member State, is liable to have a much greater adverse effect on migrant workers, since they above all, particularly in the case of invalidity, tend to return to their countries of origin (see, to that effect, Case C-349/87 Paraschi, paragraph 24).
Under disse omstændigheder er traktatens artikel 48, stk. 2, og artikel 51 til hinder for en national lovgivning, hvorefter der på visse betingelser er mulighed for at forlænge referenceperioden, men hvorefter der ikke er mulighed for forlængelse, når de begivenheder eller omstændigheder, som ellers berettiger til forlængelse, er indtruffet i en anden medlemsstat (Paraschi-dommen, præmis 27).
That being so, Article 48(2) and 51 of the Treaty preclude national legislation which permits, in certain circumstances, the reference period to be prolonged, but does not provide for the possibility of a prolongation where events or circumstances corresponding to those which would enable it to be granted occur in another Member State (Paraschi, paragraph 27).
Da den i sagen omhandlede arbejdsulykke er indtruffet, før EØS-aftalen trådte i kraft i forhold til Republikken Østrig, må traktatens bestemmelser ratione temporis være uanvendelige på denne sag.
Since that date, they may be relied on by migrant workers from any Member State and be applied to the present and future effects of situations arising before the accession of the Republic of Austria to the European Union.
Den forelæggende ret er ligeledes i tvivl om, hvorvidt artikel 9a i forordning nr. 1408/71 er forenelig med traktatens artikel 48, stk. 2, og artikel 51, for så vidt som bestemmelsen udtrykkeligt udelukker muligheden for — med henblik på forlængelse af referenceperioden efter en medlemsstats lovgivning — at tage hensyn til de perioder, hvori der er udbetalt rente som følge af en arbejdsulykke i henhold til en anden medlemsstats lovgivning.
In so far as the industrial accident in question occurred before the entry in force of the EEA Agreement in Austria, the provisions of the Treaty are inapplicable ratione temporis to those proceedings.
Regeringen har tilføjet, at overgangsbestemmelserne i artikel 94 i forordning nr. 1408/71 netop ikke indeholder nogen regel om sidestilling, der kan sammenlignes med den, der findes i artikel 9a, der sikrer, at referenceperioden kan forlænges.
It adds that the transitional provisions of Article 94 of Regulation No 1408/71 do not include any assimilation rule comparable to that contained in Article 9a, guaranteeing the prolongation of the reference period.
Hertil bemærkes, at hovedsagen ikke vedrører erhvervelse af ret til pension for en periode, der ligger forud for det tidspunkt, hvor EØS-aftalen trådte i kraft for Republikken Østrig, men derimod erhvervelse af en sådan ret med virkning fra den 1. januar 1998.
In that respect, it must be pointed out that the case in the main proceedings does not concern the acquisition of a pension entitlement in
I denne forbindelse bemærkes, som den østrigske regering og Kommissionen har anført, at det allerede fremgår af Domstolens praksis, at selv om en lovgivning af den type, der er omhandlet i hovedsagen, formelt finder anvendelse på enhver EF-arbejdstager uanset dennes nationalitet, som således på de i denne lovgivning opstillede betingelser kan få forlænget referenceperioden, kan en sådan lovgivning, hvis den ikke indeholder mulighed for forlængelse, når begivenheder eller omstændigheder — som udbetaling af rente som følge af en arbejdsulykke — svarende til dem, der ellers berettiger til forlængelse, indtræffer i en anden medlemsstat, give vandrende arbejdstagere en betydeligt ringere retsstilling, fordi navnlig disse arbejdstagere — særlig i tilfælde af invaliditet - vil være tilbøjelige til at vende tilbage til deres hjemland (jf. i denne retning dom af 4.10.1991, sag C-349/87, Paraschi, præmis 24).
That general finding cannot be called into question by the fact that Article 94 of Regulation No 1408/71 has not expressly provided for the possibility of taking into account, for the purposes of the acquisition of a right to a benefit under the legislation of a Member State, the periods which were completed in another Member State before the entry into force of that regulation in the first of those States and during which certain benefits, such as, in the present case, industrial accident benefits, were paid to the person insured.
for Republikken Østrig med virkning fra det tidspunkt, hvor Republikken Østrig tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union, dvs. den 1. januar 1995.
Artide 94(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, read in conjunction with Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC), must be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Paragraph 235(3) (a) of the Allgemeines Sonalversicheningsgesetz, which provides an exception to the requirement of a qualifying period as a condition for the acquisition of the right to an occupational disability pension where that disability is the result of an accident at work — which occurred, in the case in point, before the date of entry into force of that regulation in the Member State concerned — only in the event that the victim had been insured compulsoruy or privately at the time of the accident under the legislation of that State, to the exclusion of the legislation of all other Member States.
Fra dette tidspunkt har de kunnet påberåbes af vandrende arbejdstagere fra alle medlemsstater, og de har fundet anvendelse på nuværende og fremtidige virkninger af situationer, der er opstået, før Republikken Østrig tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union.
Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision such as Paragraph 234(l)(2)(b) of the Allgemeines Sonalversicheningsgesetz, read in conjunction with Paragraph 236(3) ofthat law, which takes into account, for the purposes of prolongation of the reference period during which the qualifying period for the acquisition of the right to a pension must have been completed, only those periods during which the insured person received a disability pension under a national accident insurance scheme, without providing for the possibility of a prolongation ofthat period where a benefit of such a kind was paid under the legislation of another Member State.
som følge af, at artikel 94 i forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke udtrykkeligt giver adgang til -med henblik på erhvervelse af ret til en ydelse efter en medlemsstats lovgivning — at medregne de perioder, der er tilbagelagt i en anden medlemsstat, før det tidspunkt, hvor forordningen trådte i kraft på den første stats område, og i løbet af hvilke der er udbetalt visse ydelser — som i det foreliggende tilfælde rente i anledning af en arbejdsulykke — til den forsikrede.
Article 9a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, a provision which is incompatible with Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty in so far as it excludes the possibility of taking into account, for the purposes of the prolongation of the reference period under the legislation of a Member State, the periods during which industrial accident benefits were paid under the legislation of another Member State, is invalid'
Denne generelle konstatering kan ikke anfægtes
Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 22 November 2001.
»1) Et tilfælde, hvor en person, som er statsborger i en medlemsstat, og som før denne stat tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union, har været beskæftiget som arbejdstager i en anden medlemsstat, hvor den pågældende havde været udsat for en arbejdsulykke, og som efter oprindelsesstatens tiltrædelse indgiveren ansøgning til myndighederne i denne sidstnævnte stat om erhvervsudygtighedspension som følge af denne ulykke, er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordningerpå arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deresfamiliemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 118/97 af Ζ december 1996.
'(1) The situation of a national of a Member State who was employed prior to the accession of that State in another Member State, and sustained an accident there, falls within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community where the person concerned applies for an occupational disability pension after the accession of the first Member State and the accident at work can have the effect of establishing entitlement to an occupational disability pension under the law of that State.