natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Anmodningen om præjudiciel afgørelse vedrører fortolkningen af artikel 18, stk. 1, EF.
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 18(1) EC.
Anmodningen er blevet fremsat i forbindelse med en tvist mellem Halina Nerkowska og Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie (socialsikringens afdeling i Koszalin) i anledning af sidstnævntes afvisning af at udbetale en invalidepension til Halina Nerkowska for helbredsskader lidt efter seks års tvangsforflytning til den tidligere Union af Socialistiske Sovjetrepublikker (det tidligere USSR).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Ms Nerkowska and the Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie (Social Security Institution, Koszalin Branch) regarding the latter’s refusal to pay Ms Nerkowska a disability pension for the damage to her health following the six years which she suffered as a deportee in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the former USSR).
Artikel 5 i lov af 1974 fastsætter, at de i loven fastsatte ydelser udbetales til den berettigede, så længe den pågældende opholder sig på Republikken Polens område, medmindre andet er fastsat ved lov eller international aftale.
Article 5 of the 1974 Law states that the benefits provided for by that Law are to be paid to the person entitled to them whilst he is resident in the territory of the Republic of Poland, unless the Law or an international agreement stipulates otherwise.
I overensstemmelse med artikel 3 i lov af 1974 finansieres disse pensioner af den polske stat.
Under Article 3 of the 1974 Law those pensions are financed by the Polish State.
I henhold til artikel 12, stk. 2, i lov af 24. januar 1991 om kombattanter og personer, som var ofre for repressioner under krigen og i efterkrigstiden, tilkommer de pågældende ydelser og de andre rettigheder i henhold til lov af 1974 ligeledes navnlig personer, der har været tilknyttet en af invalidegrupperne grundet en invaliditet, som navnlig skyldes et ophold i fangenskab eller i interneringslejre eller i lejre henhørende under centraldirektoratet for krigsfanger og internerede (GUPVI) under Folkets Kommissariat for Interne Anliggender (NKVD) og med virkning fra marts 1946 indenrigsministeriet (MVD) i det tidligere USSR eller i lejre henhørende under NKVD’s afdeling for overvågnings- og filtrationslejre, og med virkning fra marts 1946, under nævnte indenrigsministerium.
Under Article 12(2) of the Law of 24 January 1991 on combatants and certain persons who are the victims of wartime and postwar repression, the cash benefits and other entitlements provided for by the 1974 Law are also to be received by persons who have been added to one of the groups of disabled persons on account of a disability connected, in particular, with a period spent in prison, in an internment camp, in a camp which was subject to the Main Administration for Affairs of Prisoners of War and Internees (GUPVI) of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) and, from March 1946, of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) of the former USSR, or in a camp subject to the Control and Filtration Camps Division of the NKVD and, from March 1946, of the MVD.
Disse ydelser tilkommer ligeledes personer, som har været ofre for repressioner under krigen og i efterkrigstiden, dvs. personer, som på grund af deres politiske, religiøse eller nationale overbevisning har været tvunget i eksil eller er blevet tvangsforflyttet til det tidligere USSR.
Those benefits are also received by persons who were the victims of wartime and postwar repression, that is to say by people who, on account of their political, religious and national convictions, were forcibly exiled or were deported to the former USSR.
Som invaliditet som følge af et ophold forbundet med en tvangsforflytning betragtes invaliditet som følge af sår, kvæstelser og andre læsioner eller sygdomme, som er opstået som følge af et sådant ophold.
A disability resulting from wounds, contusions and other lesions or from an illness which arose because of a period of deportation is considered to be a disability connected with a period of deportation.
Halina Nerkowska, som nu er polsk statsborger, er født den 2. februar 1946 i det nuværende Hviderusland.
Ms Nerkowska, who currently has Polish nationality, was born on 2 February 1946 in the territory of present-day Belarus.
I en alder af tre år mistede hun sine forældre, som var blevet tvangsforflyttet til Sibirien i henhold til en retsafgørelse.
At the age of three she lost her parents who were deported to Siberia pursuant to a court order.
I april 1951 blev Halina Nerkowska selv samt hendes bror og tante tvangsforflyttet til det tidligere USSR.
In April 1951, Ms Nerkowska, her brother and her aunt were themselves deported to the former USSR.
Hun opholdt sig dér under vanskelige vilkår indtil januar 1957.
She lived there under difficult conditions until January 1957.
Efter næsten seks år vendte hun tilbage til Polen.
After almost six years she returned to Poland.
Hun studerede dér, og efter at have gennemført sine studier bestred hun en administrativ stilling.
She studied there and then, after completing her studies, she worked in an administrative post.
I 1985 forlod hun Polen og bosatte sig permanent i Tyskland.
In 1985, she left Poland and settled permanently in Germany.
I oktober 2000 indgav Halina Nerkowska en ansøgning til Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie om tilkendelse af invalidepension som følge af helbredsskade lidt under hendes tvangsforflytning.
In October 2000, Ms Nerkowska submitted an application to the Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie to obtain a disability pension for the damage her health had suffered while she was a deportee.
Ved afgørelse af 4. oktober 2002 tilkendte Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie Halina Nerkowska en ret til pension som følge af delvis uarbejdsdygtighed på grund af ophold på steder til isolation, men udbetalingen af pensionsydelsen blev imidlertid indstillet med den begrundelse, at hun ikke havde bopæl på det polske område.
By decision of 4 October 2002, the Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie accepted that Ms Nerkowska was entitled to a pension as a result of partial incapacity for work linked to her stay in places of isolation, but payment of this benefit was suspended on the ground that she did not reside in Polish territory.
Halina Nerkowska anfægtede denne afgørelse og indbragte sagen for Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (den regionale domstol i Koszalin) med henblik på at få fastslået, at hun var berettiget til at få udbetalt den invalidepension, hvorom der var ansøgt.
Ms Nerkowska challenged that decision by lodging an appeal with the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Regional Court, Koszalin), requesting that it hold her entitled to obtain payment of the disability pension sought.
Denne domstol gav hende ikke medhold i hendes argumentation og frifandt sagsøgte ved dom af 22. maj 2003 afsagt efter, at der var foranstaltet bevisoptagelse.
That court did not uphold her arguments and dismissed the appeal by judgment of 22 May 2003, which was delivered after the taking of evidence.
Halina Nerkowska indgav en ny ansøgning om udbetaling af den nævnte ydelse i september 2006.
Ms Nerkowska submitted a fresh application for payment of the abovementioned benefit in September 2006.
Til støtte for denne ansøgning gjorde hun gældende, at Republikken Polen den 1. maj 2004 var tiltrådt Den Europæiske Union og således havde inkorporeret fællesskabsretten i intern polsk ret.
In support of her application, she submitted that the Republic of Poland had acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 and had consequently incorporated Community law into the Polish legal order.
Efter afslutningen af den administrative procedure vedtog Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie den 14. september 2006 den i hovedsagen omhandlede afgørelse og afviste at betale Halina Nerkowska en invalidepension svarende til den ret, som hun tidligere havde fået anerkendt, med den begrundelse, at hun ikke var bosat på Republikken Polens område.
Following the administrative procedure, on 14 September 2006 the Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie adopted the decision which forms the subjectmatter of the main proceedings and refused to pay Ms Nerkowska the disability pension arising from the entitlement established previously, on the ground that she did not have a place of residence in the territory of the Republic of Poland.
Halina Nerkowska har anfægtet denne afgørelse ved den forelæggende ret med påstand om, at afgørelsen ændres, således at hun får udbetalt en invalidepension.
Ms Nerkowska challenged that decision before the national court, requesting that it should be amended in such a way that her disability pension be paid to her.
Hun har gjort gældende, at henset til Republikken Polens tiltrædelse af Unionen kan hendes nuværende bopæl ikke udgøre en hindring for betalingen af denne ydelse.
She submitted that, on account of the Republic of Poland’s accession to the European Union, her present place of residence cannot constitute an obstacle to the payment of that benefit.
På denne baggrund har Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
In those circumstances, the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
»Er artikel 18 EF, som sikrer en borger i Den Europæiske Union en ret til at færdes og opholde sig frit på medlemsstaternes område, til hinder for anvendelsen af de nationale bestemmelser, der er fastsat i artikel 5 i [lov af 1974], for så vidt som disse bestemmelser betinger udbetalingen af pensionsydelsen som følge af uarbejdsdygtighed på grund af ophold på steder til isolation af, at den berettigede har ophold på Republikken Polens område?«
‘Does Article 18 EC, which guarantees citizens of the European Union the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, preclude the binding force of the national rules laid down in Article 5 of the [1974 Law] in so far as they make payment of a pension benefit for incapacity for work that is linked to a stay in places of isolation subject to fulfilment of the condition that the person en titled be resident in the territory of the Polish State?’
Om det præjudicielle spørgsmål
Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling
Med sit spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om artikel 18 EF skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for en medlemsstats lovgivning, i henhold til hvilken sidstnævnte nægter at udbetale en ydelse, som tildeles civile ofre for krig eller repression, til en af dens statsborgere alene med den begrundelse, at sidstnævnte ikke har bopæl på denne stats område, men derimod på en anden medlemsstats område, henset til, at det ved afgørelse truffet af den kompetente myndighed er blevet anerkendt, at denne statsborger har ret til en sådan ydelse.
By its question, the national court essentially asks whether Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses to pay one of its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression although it has been acknowledged by a decision of the competent authority that that national is entitled to such a benefit, on the sole ground that the national is habitually resident in the territory of another Member State and not in that of the Member State in question.
Det må indledningsvis afgøres, om en situation som den i hovedsagen omhandlede er omfattet af fællesskabsrettens anvendelsesområde, herunder navnlig artikel 18, stk. 1, EF.
It must be determined at the outset whether a situation such as that in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Community law, and in particular of Article 18(1) EC.
Om anvendelsen af artikel 18, stk. 1, EF
The applicability of Article 18(1) EC
Hvad for det første angår denne bestemmelses personelle anvendelsesområde skal det alene bemærkes, at ifølge artikel 17, stk. 1, EF har enhver, der er statsborger i en medlemsstat, unionsborgerskab.
First, regarding the scope ratione personae of this provision, suffice it to state that, under Article 17(1) EC, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union.
Ifølge artikel 17, stk. 2, har unionsborgere desuden de rettigheder og er underkastet de pligter, der er indeholdt i EF-traktaten, herunder de i artikel 18, stk. 1, EF omhandlede (dom af 26.10.2006, sag C-192/05, Tas-Hagen og Tas, Sml. I, s. 10451, præmis 18).
In addition, Article 17(2) EC attributes to citizens of the Union the rights conferred and duties imposed by the EC Treaty, including those mentioned in Article 18(1) EC (Case C-192/05 Tas-Hagen et Tas [2006] ECR I-10451, paragraph 18).
Halina Nerkowska er i sin egenskab af polsk statsborger ifølge artikel 17, stk. 1, EF unionsborger og kan som følge heraf om nødvendigt påberåbe sig de rettigheder, der er knyttet til denne status, herunder den ret til at færdes og opholde sig frit, som er fastsat i artikel 18, stk. 1, EF.
As a Polish national, Ms Nerkowska enjoys the status of citizen of the Union established by Article 17(1) EC and may therefore rely where relevant on the rights conferred on those having that status, such as the rights to move freely and to reside freely laid down in Article 18(1) EC.
Hvad for det andet angår det materielle anvendelsesområde for artikel 18, stk. 1, EF bemærkes, at på fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin henhører en ydelse som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, der har til formål at yde civile ofre for krig eller repression erstatning for den psykiske eller legemlige skade, de har lidt, under medlemsstaternes kompetence (Tas-Hagen og Tasdommen, præmis 21).
Secondly, as to the scope ratione materiae of Article 18(1) EC, it is to be noted that, as Community law now stands, a benefit such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which is intended to compensate civilian victims of war or repression for physical or mental harm which they have suffered, falls within the competence of the Member States (Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 21).
Sidstnævnte er dog forpligtet til at udøve deres kompetence under overholdelse af fællesskabsretten, navnlig traktatens bestemmelser om unionsborgeres ret til at færdes og opholde sig frit på medlemsstaternes område (Tas-Hagen og Tasdommen, præmis 22).
However, Member States must exercise that competence in accordance with Community law, in particular with the Treaty provisions concerning the freedom accorded to every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 22).
Det må i det foreliggende tilfælde konstateres, at en situation som den, Halina Nerkowska befinder sig i, henhører under retten for unionsborgerne til at færdes og opholde sig frit i medlemsstaterne.
In this case, it must be held that a situation such as that of Ms Nerkowska is covered by the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely in the Member States.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen har ved at bosætte sig i Tyskland udøvet den ret, som ifølge artikel 18, stk. 1, EF tilkommer enhver unionsborger til at færdes og opholde sig frit på en anden medlemsstats område end den, hvori den pågældende er statsborger.
By taking up residence in Germany, the applicant in the main proceedings exercised the right conferred by Article 18(1) EC on every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State other than that of which he is a national.
Endvidere fremgår det klart af de sagsakter, som den forelæggende ret har forelagt Domstolen, at begrundelsen for afslaget på udbetaling af den invalidepension, som er blevet tilkendt Halina Nerkowska, alene er begrundet i det forhold, at sidstnævnte havde taget bopæl i Tyskland.
Furthermore, it is clear from the documents sent to the Court by the national court that the refusal to pay the disability pension which had been granted to Ms Nerkowska was attributable solely to the fact that she had taken up residence in Germany.
Det følger af ovenstående betragtninger, at en situation, hvori Halina Nerkowskas udøvelse af en frihed, som er anerkendt i Fællesskabets retsorden, har betydning for sidstnævntes ret til at få udbetalt en ydelse i henhold til national lovgivning, ikke kan anses for et rent internt forhold, der ikke har nogen tilknytning til fællesskabsretten.
It follows that a situation in which the exercise by Ms Nerkowska of a freedom accorded by Community law has an impact on her right to the payment of a benefit under national legislation cannot be considered to be a purely internal matter with no link to Community law.
Det må derfor undersøges, om artikel 18, stk. 1, EF, som finder anvendelse på en situation som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for en national lovgivning, der betinger betalingen af en invalidepension, som tildeles civile ofre for krig eller repression, af, at den person, der modtager pensionen, er bosat i den medlemsstat, som tilkender en sådan ydelse.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether Article 18(1) EC, which is applicable to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation requiring that the recipient of a disability pension paid to civilian victims of war or repression be resident in the territory of the Member State granting such a benefit.
Om bopælsbetingelsen
The residence requirement
Hvad angår rækkevidden af artikel 18, stk. 1, EF har Domstolen tidligere fastslået, at de i traktaten fastsatte rettigheder med hensyn til fri bevægelighed ikke ville få fuld gennemslagskraft, såfremt en statsborger fra en medlemsstat kunne blive afskrækket fra at udøve dem på grund af hindringer for sit ophold i værtsmedlemsstaten som følge af en lovgivning i vedkommendes oprindelsesstat, der straffer det forhold, at han har udnyttet rettighederne (dom af 29.4.2004, sag C-224/02, Pusa, Sml. I, s. 5763, præmis 19, samt Tas-Hagen og Tasdommen, præmis 30).
With regard to the scope of Article 18(1) EC, the Court has already held that the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement cannot be fully effective if a national of a Member State can be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles raised to his residence in the host Member State by legislation of his State of origin penalising the fact that he has used them (Case C-224/02 Pusa [2004] ECR I-5763, paragraph 19, and Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 30).
En national lovgivning, som stiller visse indenlandske statsborgere ringere, blot fordi de gør brug af deres ret til frit at færdes og tage ophold i en anden medlemsstat, udgør en hindring for de friheder, som ifølge artikel 18, stk. 1, EF tilkommer enhver unionsborger (dom af 18.7.2006, sag C-406/04, De Cuyper, Sml. I., s. 6947, præmis 39, samt Tas-Hagen og Tasdommen, præmis 31).
National legislation which places certain of the nationals of the Member State concerned at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and to reside in another Member State is a restriction on the freedoms conferred by Article 18(1) EC on every citizen of the Union (Case C-406/04 De Cuyper [2006] ECR I-6947, paragraph 39, and Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 31).
Lov af 1974 udgør en sådan restriktion.
The 1974 Law constitutes such a restriction.
Denne lov, som underlægger udbetalingen af en invalidepension, som tildeles civile ofre for krig eller repression, den betingelse, at modtagerne af ydelsen har bopæl på det nationale område, kan afskrække
In making the payment of the disability pension established for civilian victims of war or repression conditional on the
Hvad angår den første betingelse fremgår det af de indlæg, som er afgivet for Domstolen af såvel sagsøgte i hovedsagen som den polske regering, at restriktionen i lov af 1974 i det væsentlige skyldes den polske lovgivers ønske om at begrænse solidaritetsforpligtelsen over for civile ofre for krig eller repression til de personer, som har et tilknytningsforhold til det polske folk.
As to the first condition, it is apparent from the observations submitted to the Court both by the defendant in the main proceedings and by the Polish Government that the restriction provided for by the 1974 Law results essentially from the Polish legislature’s wish to limit the obligation of solidarity with civilian victims of war or repression solely to those who have a connection with the Polish people.
Bopælsbetingelsen er derfor tiltænkt at skulle afspejle graden af de pågældendes integration i det polske samfund.
In their submission. the residence condition is therefore an expression of the extent to which such victims are integrated in Polish society.
Desuden har sagsøgte i hovedsagen og den polske regering anført, at kun en bopælsbetingelse som den i hovedsagen omhandlede kan sikre muligheden for at kontrollere, at situationen for modtageren af den pågældende ydelse ikke har undergået ændringer, som kan have indflydelse på sidstnævntes ret til denne ydelse.
Furthermore, the defendant in the main proceedings and the Polish Government maintain that only a residence condition such as that at issue in the main proceedings is capable of ensuring that it can be verified that the situation of the recipient of the benefit concerned has not been subject to changes which may affect his entitlement to that benefit.
De har herved understreget, at den manglende mulighed for at benytte administrativ og lægelig bistand fra andre medlemsstater fastsat for sociale sikringsydelser ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets
In that regard, they state that the fact that there cannot be recourse to the administrative and medical assistance of the other Member States, a possibility provided for in respect of social security benefits by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within
NERKOWSKA forordning (EF) nr. 118/97 af 2. december 1996 (EFT 1997 L 28, s. 1), fratager den kontrol, som gennemføres af de kompetente polske myndigheder, dens effektivitet.
NERKOWSKA the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), renders the monitoring carried out by the competent Polish bodies ineffective.
De har ligeledes gjort gældende, at andre mindre indgribende foranstaltninger ikke ville være lige så effektive som den nævnte betingelse.
They also submit that other, less restrictive, measures would not be as effective as the residence condition.
Såvel ønsket om at sikre et tilknytningsforhold mellem samfundet i den pågældende medlemsstat og modtageren af en ydelse som nødvendigheden af at kunne kontrollere, at sidstnævnte fortsat opfylder betingelserne for tildeling af denne ydelse, udgør givetvis objektive almene hensyn, som kan begrunde, at betingelserne for tildeling og betaling af en sådan ydelse kan påvirke borgernes frie bevægelighed i denne medlemsstat.
It is true that both the wish to ensure that there is a connection between the society of the Member State concerned and the recipient of a benefit and the necessity to verify that the recipient continues to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that benefit constitute objective considerations of public interest which are capable of justifying the fact that the conditions for the grant or payment of the benefit may affect the freedom of movement of the citizens of that Member State.