natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Såfremt et barn af en EU-borger under omstændigheder som dem, der foreligger i Baumbast-sagen, hindres i at fortsætte sin skolegang i opholdsmedlemsstaten, fordi barnet nægtes opholdstilladelse, kunne dette afholde unionsborgeren fra at udøve retten til fri bevægelighed i henhold til artikel 39 EF og dermed skabe en hindring for den effektive udøvelse af den frihed, der således sikres i EF-traktatcn.
In circumstances such as those in the Baumbast case, to prevent a child of a citizen of the Union from continuing his education in the host Member State by refusing him permission to remain might dissuade that citizen from exercising the rights to freedom of movement laid down in Article 39 EC and would therefore create an obstacle to the effective exercise of the freedom thus guaranteed by the EC Treaty.
I øvrigt bemærkes, at den ret til at tage bopæl hos den vandrende arbejdstager, som tilkommer »hans ægtefælle og deres efterkommere i lige linje, der er under 21 år eller forsørges af ham«, skal fortolkes således, at den såvel tilkommer arbejdstagerens efterkommere som hans ægtefælles efterkommere.
Furthermore, the right of 'his spouse and their descendants who are under the age of 21 years or are dependants' to install themselves with the migrant worker must be interpreted as meaning that it is granted both to the descendants of that worker and to those of his spouse.
Såfremt denne bestemmelse blev fortolket restriktivt, således at kun den vandrende arbejdstagers og hans ægtefælles fælles børn har ret til at tage bopæl hos dem, ville dette nemlig være i strid med målsætningen med forordning nr. 1612/68, som er nævnt ovenfor.
To give a restrictive interpretation to that provision to the effect that only the children common to the migrant worker and his spouse have the right to install themselves with them would run counter to the aim of Regulation No 1612/68 noted above.
Hvad for det andet angår R-sagen har børnene som familiemedlemmer til en arbejdstager, der er statsborger i en medlemsstat og beskæftiget på en anden medlemsstats område, en ret til ophold og en ret til at gennemføre deres uddannelse i medfør af artikel 10 og 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68.
As regards, second, the R case, the children concerned enjoy, as members of the family of a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State, a right of residence and a right to pursue their education under Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation No 1612/68.
Selv om det er rigtigt, at Domstolen i Echternach og Moniz-dommen bemærkede, at barnet, efter at dets fader var vendt tilbage til sin oprindelsesmedlemsstat, ikke kunne fortsætte sine studier dér, fordi eksamensbeviserne ikke var samordnet, står det ikke desto mindre fast, at Domstolen med sin argumentation i dommen — i overensstemmelse med målsætningen med forordning nr. 1612/68 om integration af vandrende arbejdstageres familiemedlemmer — i det væsentlige ville sikre, at et barn af en af disse arbejdslagere kunne gennemføre sin skolegang og sine studier i værtsmedlemsstaten på betingelser, der ikke indebærer forskelsbehandling, med henblik på at afslutte dem med held (jf. ligeledes dom af 27.9.1988, sag 42/87, Kommissionen mod Belgien, præmis 10).
Although the Court found in Echternach and Moritz that the child concerned could not, after his father's return to his Member State of origin, continue his studies there because there is no coordination of school diplomas, it is none the less the case that the Court's reasoning sought essentially to ensure, in accordance with the aim of integration of members of the families of migrant workers pursued by Regulation No 1612/68, that a child of one of those workers could go to school and pursue further education in the host Member State, under conditions which do not constitute discrimination, in order to be able to complete that education successfully (see, also, Case 42/87 Commission ν Belgium [1988], paragraph 10).
Disse bestemmelser skal gøre det lettere for den vandrende arbejdstager og for hans familie at blive integreret i værtsmedlemsstaten med henblik på at opfylde målsætningen med forordning nr. 1612/68, som er at gennemføre arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed under behørig hensyntagen til de berørtes frihed og værdighed.
Those provisions seek to facilitate the integration of the migrant worker and his family in the host Member State in order to attain the objective of Regulation No 1612/68, namely freedom of movement for workers, in compliance with the principles of liberty and dignity.
Såfremt en unionsborgers børn, der befinder sig i en situation, som svarer til situation for hr. Baumbasts børn, kun får adgang til at fortsætte deres skolegang i værtsmedlemsstaten, såfremt det er umuligt for dem at gennemføre denne i deres oprindelsesmedlemsstat, ville dette nemlig ikke alene være i modstrid med ordlyden af artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68, der fastslår en ret til adgang til undervisning for børn af en statsborger i en medlemsstat, der »er eller har
In fact, to permit children of a citizen of the Union who are in a situation such as that of Mr Baumbast's children to continue their education in the host Member State only where they cannot do so in their Member State of origin would offend not only the letter of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, which provides a right of access to educational courses for the children of a national of a Member State "who is or has been employed' in the territory of another Member State, but also its spirit
Selv om R og hendes første mand i mellemtiden er blevet skilt, fremgår det af sagen, at hendes første mand fortsat har lønnet beskæftigelse i
Even though R and her first husband have meanwhile divorced, it is apparent from the file that he continues to pursue an activity as an employed person in the United Kingdom and therefore enjoys the status of a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State for the purposes of Articles 1 and 10 of Regulation No 1612/68.
samlet hos sig, dels at det i det hele taget må tillægges betydning, at arbejdstageren og hans familie integreres i værtsmedlemsstaten uden forskelsbehandling i forhold til dennes egne statsborgere (jf. i denne retning dom af 18.5.1989, sag 249/86, Kommissionen mod Tyskland, præmis 11).
without any difference in treatment in relation to nationals of that State (see, to that effect, Case 249/86 Commission ν Germany [1989], paragraph 11).
Under disse omstændigheder følger det klart af bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 1612/68, og navnlig af forordningens artikel 10 og 12, at børnene af R's første mand fortsat har en ret til ophold i værtsmedlemsstaten såvel som ret til at gennemføre deres uddannelse dér på samme vilkår som statsborgere i denne stat.
Under those circumstances, it follows clearly from the provisions of Regulation No 1612/68, in particular Articles 10 and 12 thereof, that the children of R's first husband continue to enjoy a right to reside in the host Member State as well as the right to pursue their education there under the same conditions as the nationals of that State.
Som det fremgår af svaret på det første spørgsmål, har artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68 især til formål at sikre, at en EF-arbejdstagers børn, selv om arbejdstageren ikke længere har lønnet beskæftigelse i værtsmedlemsstaten, kan påbegynde og om fornødent afslutte deres skolegang i den nævnte medlemsstat.
As is clear from the answer to the first question, Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 seeks in particular to ensure that children of a Community worker can, even if he has ceased to pursue the activity of an employed person in the host Member State, undertake and, where appropriate, complete their education in that Member State.
Den omstændighed, at børnene af R's første mand ikke bor fast hos ham, berører ikke deres rettigheder i henhold til artikel 10 og 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68.
The fact that the children of R's first husband do not live permanently with him does not affect the rights which they derive from Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation No 1612/68.
Ifølge forordningens artikel 10, hvorefter den vandrende arbejdstagers familiemedlemmer har ret til at tage ophold hos arbejdstageren, er det ikke nogen betingelse, at det pågældende familiemedlem til stadighed bor hos ham, men kun, jf. bestemmelsens stk. 3, at arbejdstageren med henblik på modtagelsen af sin familie råder over en bolig, der svarer til de krav, der anses for normale (jf. dom af 13.2.1985, sag 267/83, Diatta, præmis 18).
In providing that a member of a migrant worker's family has the right to install himself with the worker, Article 10 of that regulation does not require that the member of the family in question must live permanently with the worker, but, as is clear from Article 10(3), only that the accommodation which the worker has available must be such as may be considered normal for the purpose of accommodating his family (see Case 267/83 Diatta [1985], paragraph 18).
Det skal for det andet bemærkes, at det fremgår af Domstolens praksis, at ligesom det er tilfældet med selve egenskaben som vandrende arbejdstager, kan de rettigheder, der tilkommer en EF-arbejdstagers familiemedlemmer i medfør af forordning nr. 1612/68, under visse omstændigheder bestå selv efter arbejdsforholdets ophør (jf. i denne retning Echternach og Moritz-dommen, præmis 21, og dom af 12.5.1998, sag C-85/96, Martínez Sala, præmis 32).
Second, according to the caselaw of the Court, just like the status of migrant worker itself, the rights enjoyed by members of a Community worker's family under Regulation No 1612/68 can, in certain circumstances, continue to exist even after the employment relationship has ended (see, to that effect, Echternach and Moritz, paragraph 21, and Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998], paragraph 32).
Med det andet spørgsmål spørger den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt med henblik på tilfælde, hvor børn har ret til at opholde sig i en værtsmedlemsstat for at følge almindelig undervisning dér i henhold til artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68, om denne bestemmelse skal fortolkes således, at den berettiger den af forældrene, der faktisk passer børnene, uanset den pågældendes nationalitet, til at opholde sig sammen med dem for at lette udøvelsen af den nævnte ret, selv om forældrene i mellemtiden er blevet skilt, eller den forælder, der er EU-borger, ikke længere er vandrende arbejdstager i værtsmedlemsstaten.
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where the children enjoy, under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, the right to continue their education in the host Member State although the parents who are their carers are at risk of losing their rights of residence as a result, in one case, of a divorce from the migrant worker and, in the other case, of the fact that the parent who pursued the activity of an employed person in the host Member State as a migrant worker has ceased to work there, it is clear that if those parents were refused the right to remain in the host Member State during the period of their children's education that might deprive those children of a right which is granted to them by the Community legislature.
Under omstændigheder som dem, der foreligger i hovedsagerne, hvor børnene i medfør af artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68 har ret til at fortsætte deres skolegang i værtsmedlemsstaten, mens forældrene, som passer dem, risikerer at miste deres ret til ophold — hvilket i den ene sag skyldes, at ægteskabet med den vandrende arbejdstager er opløst, og i den anden sag den omstændighed, at den forælder, der har haft lønnet beskæftigelse i værtsmedlemsstaten som vandrende arbejdstager, ikke længere arbejder dér — er det klart, at såfremt disse forældre nægtes adgang til at forblive i værtsmedlemsstaten, mens deres børn går i skole, vil dette kunne fratage børnene en ret, som de er tillagt af fællesskabslovgiver.
By its second question, the national tribunal seeks essentially to ascertain whether, where children have the right to reside in a host Member State in order to attend general educational courses pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, that provision must be interpreted as entitling the parent who is the primary carer of those children, irrespective of his nationality, to reside with them in order to facilitate the exercise of that right notwithstanding the fact that the parents have meanwhile divorced or that the parent who has the status of citizen of the European Union has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member Stated
Det skal herom for det første bemærkes, at artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68 såvel som de rettigheder, der følger heraf, skal fortolkes på baggrund af forordningens opbygning og formål.
Moreover, in accordance with the caselaw of the Court, Regulation No 1612/68 must be interpreted in the light of the requirement of respect for family life laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention.
Det fremgår i det hele af denne forordnings bestemmelser, at Rådet med henblik på at lette arbejdstagernesfamiliemedlemmersbevægelighed dels har lagt vægt på, at det menneskeligt er af betydning for arbejdstageren at have sin familie
It is apparent from the provisions of the regulation, taken as a whole, that in order to facilitate the movement of members of workers' families the Council took into account, first, the importance for the worker, from a human point of view, of having his entire family with him and, secondly, the importance, from all points of view, of the integration of the worker and his family into the host Member State
Det fremgår i øvrigt af Domstolens praksis, at forordning nr. 1612/68 må fortolkes på baggrund af kravet om respekt for familielivet ifølge EMK's artikel 8, idet denne respekt er en del af de grundlæggende rettigheder, som ifølge fast retspraksis er anerkendt i fællesskabsretten (jf. dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Tyskland, præmis 10).
The right conferred by Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 on the child of a migrant worker to pursue, under the best possible conditions, his
Den ret, som artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68 tildeler en vandrende arbejdstagers barn til på de bedst mulige vilkår at gennemføre sin skolegang i værtsmedlemsstaten, indebærer nødvendigvis, at barnet har ret til at være ledsaget af den person, der faktisk passer det, og følgelig, at denne person er i stand til at bo sammen med barnet i den nævnte medlemsstat under barnets uddannelse.
education in the host Member State necessarily implies that that child has the right to be accompanied by the person who is his primary carer and, accordingly, that that person is able to reside with him in that Member State during his studies.
Et afslag på at give opholdstilladelse til den forælder, der faktisk passer barnet, mens dette udøver sin ret til at gennemføre sin skolegang i værtsmedlemsstaten, ville gøre indgreb i denne ret.
To refuse to grant permission to remain to a parent who is the primary carer of the child exercising his right to pursue his studies in the host Member State infringes that right
Artikel 17, stk. 1, EF, bestemmer, at unionsborgerskab har enhver, der er statsborger i en medlemsstat.
Under Article 17(1) EC, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is to be a citizen of the Union.
Unionsborgerskabets formål er at skabe den grundlæggende status for medlemsstaternes statsborgere (jf. således dom af 20.9.2001, sag C-184/99, Grzelczyk, præmis 31).
Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001], paragraph 31).
Med hensyn til Kommissionens argument om, at der ikke af artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68 kan udledes en ret til ophold for en person, der ikke er barn af en vandrende arbejdstager, fordi det er en ufravigelig betingelse for enhver ret med hjemmel i denne bestemmelse, at denne egenskab foreligger, skal det bemærkes, at når henses til den sammenhæng, forordning nr. 1612/68 indgår i, og de mål, der søges nået med forordningen, navnlig dens artikel 12, må den ikke fortolkes indskrænkende (jf. i denne retning Diatta-dommen, præmis 17), og den må under alle omstændigheder ikke fratages sin effektive virkning.
As to the Commission's argument to the effect that a right of residence cannot be derived from Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 in favour of a person who is not the child of a migrant worker, on the ground that possession of that status is a sine qua non of any right under that provision, having regard to its context and the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1612/68 and in particular Article 12 thereof, that provision cannot be interpreted restrictrvely (see, to that effect, Diatta, paragraph 17) and must not, under any circumstances, be rendered ineffective.
Traktaten om Den Europæiske Union kræver i øvrigt ikke, at unionsborgerne udøver en erhvervsmæssig virksomhed som lønmodtager eller som selvstændig for at opnå de rettigheder, der hjemles i EF-traktatens anden del vedrørende unionsborgerskabet.
Moreover, the Treaty on European Union does not require that citizens of the Union pursue a professional or trade activity, whether as an employed or self-employed person, in order to enjoy the rights provided in Part Two of the EC Treaty, on citizenship of the Union.
Der er heller ikke i den nævnte traktats tekst noget grundlag for at antage, at unionsborgere, som har bosat sig i en anden medlemsstat for at udøve lønnet virksomhed dér, mister rettigheder, som EF-traktaten giver dem på grundlag af unionsborgerskabet, når denne virksomhed ophører.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the text of that Treaty to permit the conclusion that citizens of the Union who have established themselves in another Member State in order to carry on an activity as an employed person there are deprived, where that activity comes to an end, of the rights which are conferred on them by the EC Treaty by virtue of that citizenship.
Hvad særlig angår retten til at opholde sig på medlemsstaternes område i henhold til artikel 18, stk. 1, EF, må det konstateres, at denne direkte tildeles enhver unionsborger ved en klar og præcis bestemmelse i EF-traktaten.
As regards, in particular, the right to reside within the territory of the Member States under Article 18(1) EC, that right is conferred directly on every citizen of the Union by a clear and precise provision of the EC Treaty.
Alene i sin egenskab af statsborger i en medlemsstat, og dermed unionsborger, har hr. Baumbast derfor ret til at påberåbe sig artikel 18, stk. 1, EF.
Purely as a national of a Member State, and consequently a citizen of the Union, Mr Baumbast therefore has the right to rely on Article 18(1) EC.
Med den første del af det tredje spørgsmål spørger den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt, om en EU-borger, der ikke længere har opholdsret i værtsmedlemsstaten som vandrende arbejdstager, i sin egenskab af unionsborger har ret til at opholde sig dér direkte i medfør af artikel 18, stk. 1, EF.
Admittedly, that right for citizens of the Union to reside within the territory of another Member State is conferred subject to the limitations and conditions laid down by the EC Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.
Denne ret for unionsborgere til at opholde sig på en anden medlemsstats område anerkendes ganske vist med de begrænsninger og på de betingelser, der er fastsat i EF-traktaten og i gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil.
According to settled case-law, the right of nationals of one Member State to enter the territory of another Member State and to reside there constitutes a right conferred directly by the EC Treaty or, depending on the case, by the provisions adopted to implement it (see, inter alia, Case 48/75 Royer [1976], paragraph 31).
Ifølge fast retspraksis er den ret, som statsborgere i en medlemsstat har til at indrejse på en anden medlemsstats område og til at opholde sig dér, en ret, der direkte tildeles ved EF-traktaten, eller, alt efter omstændighederne, i de bestemmelser, der er truffet til gennemførelse af denne (jf. bl.a. dom af 8.4.1976, sag 48/75, Royer, præmis 31).
However, the application of the limitations and conditions acknowledged in Article 18(1) EC in respect of the exercise of that right of residence is subject to judicial review. Consequently, any limitations and conditions imposed on that right do not prevent the provisions of Article 18(1) EC from conferring on individuals rights which are enforceable by them and which the national courts must protect (see, to that effect Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974], paragraph 7).
Selv om Domstolen, før traktaten om Den Europæiske Union trådte i kraft, havde fastslået, at denne opholdsret, som direkte hjemles ved EF-traktaten, var betinget af, at vedkommende udøver erhvervsmæssig virksomhed efter betydningen i EF-traktatens artikel 48, 52 eller
Although, before the Treaty on European Union entered into force, the Court had held that that right of residence, conferred directly by the EC Treaty, was subject to the condition that the person concerned was carrying on an economic activity within the meaning of Articles 48, 52 or 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) (see Case C363/89 Roux [1991], paragraph 9), it is none the less the case that, since then, Union citizenship has been introduced into the EC Treaty and Article 18(1) EC has conferred a right for every
Anvendelsen af de begrænsninger og betingelser, som efter artikel 18, stk. 1, EF er lovlige i forbindelse med udøvelsen af den nævnte ret til ophold, er imidlertid undergivet domstolsprøvelse.
As regards the limitations and conditions resulting from the provisions of secondary
som disse skal beskytte (jf. således dom af 4.12.1974, sag 41/74, Van Duyn, præmis 7).
'unreasonable' burden on the public finances of the host Member State.
Vedrørende de begrænsninger og betingelser, der følger af bestemmelserne i afledt ret, bestemmer artikel 1, stk. 1, i direktiv 90/364, af medlemsstaterne over for statsborgere fra en medlemsstat, der ønsker at gøre brug af retten til ophold på deres område, kan kræve, at de selv og medlemmerne af deres familie er omfattet af en sygeforsikringsordning, der dækker samtlige risici i værtsmedlemsstaten, og råder over tilstrækkelige midler til at undgå, at de under deres ophold falder værtsmedlemsstatens sociale system til byrde.
legislation, Article 1(1) of Directive 90/364 provides that Member States can require of the nationals of a Member State who wish to enjoy the right to reside within their territory that they themselves and the members of their families be covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence.
Imidlertid skal anvendelsen af de nævnte begrænsninger og betingelser finde sted under overholdelse af de grænser, der fastsættes i fællesskabsretten, og i overensstemmelse med dennes almindelige principper, navnlig proportionalitetsprincippet.
However, those limitations and conditions must be applied in compliance with the limits imposed by Community law and in accordance with the general principles of that law, in particular the principle of proportionality.
Dette indebærer, at de nationale foranstaltninger, der træffes på dette område, skal være hensigtsmæssige og nødvendige med henblik på at opnå det forfulgte mål (jf. i denne retning dom af 2.8.1993, forenede sager C-259/91, C-331/991 og C-332/91, Allué m.fl., præmis 15).
That means that national measures adopted on that subject must be necessary and appropriate to attain the objective pursued (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-259/91, C-331/91 and C-332/91AUuè and Others [1993], paragraph 15).