natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge Domstolen kan en statsborger i en medlemsstat afholdes fra at forlade sit oprindelsesland for at udøve lønnet beskæftigelse på en anden medlemsstats område, hvis — når han vender tilbage til den medlemsstat, hvor han er statsborger, for dér at udøve lønnet eller ulønnet beskæftigelse — hans ægtefælle og hans børn ikke også har ret til at indrejse og opholde sig på denne medlemsstats område under betingelser, som mindst svarer til de betingelser, som de tillægges i henhold til fællesskabsretten på en anden medlemsstats område 12.
EC) and Directive 73/148/EEC 11must be construed as requiring a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC), and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the territory of his or her State of origin; in the view of the Court, a national of a Member State might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity as an employed or selfemployed person in the territory of another Member State if, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national in order to pursue an activity there as an employed or selfemployed person, his spouse and children were not also permitted to enter and reside in the territory of his Member State of origin under conditions at least equivalent to those granted them by Community law in the territory of another Member State.
Den nævnte forbindelse forklarer ligeledes, hvorfor Domstolen har fastslået, at artikel 49 EF, læst i lyset af den grundlæggende ret til respekt for familielivet, skal forstås som værende til hinder for, at oprindelsesmedlemsstaten for en udbyder af tjenesteydelser, der er etableret i samme medlemsstat, og som udbyder tjenesteydelser til modtagere, som er etableret i andre medlemsstater, giver denne tjenesteudbyders ægtefælle, som er tredjelandsstatsborger, afslag på ophold på dens område 13.
12 This connection of purpose also explains why the Court has ruled that Article 49 EC, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life, is to be construed as precluding a refusal, by the Member State of origin of a provider of ser -vices established in that State who provides services to recipients established in other Member States, of the right to reside in its territory to that provider’s spouse, who is a national of a nonmember country.
Selv i Akrich-dommen 14, hvor Domstolen på grundlag af forordning nr. 1612/68 nægtede at anerkende en opholdsret i den oprindelsesmedlemsstat, hvortil unionsborgeren var vendt tilbage for dér at etablere sig med sin ægtefælle, som var tredjelandsstatsborger,
13Even in Akrich, 14in which the Court refused to grant, under Regulation No 1612/68, a right of residence in the Member State of origin to which a Union citizen had returned to
9 — Efter i femte betragtning at have angivet, at »retten til fri bevægelighed forudsætter, for at den objektivt set kan udøves i frihed og værdighed […], [at] alle hindringer, der står i vejen for arbejdskraftens bevægelighed […], fjernes, især med henblik på at arbejdstageren kan samles med sin familie«, indeholder Rådets forordning nr. 1612/68/EØF af 15.10.1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet (EFT 1968 II, s. 467) i artikel 10 bestemmelser om retten for familiemedlemmer, uanset deres nationalitet, til at tage bopæl hos en arbejdstager fra en medlemsstat, der er beskæftiget på en anden medlemsstats område.
9 — After pointing out, in the fifth recital in the preamble thereto, that ‘the right of freedom of movement, in order that it may be exercised, by objective standards, in freedom and dignity, requires … that obstacles to the mobility of workers shall be eliminated, in particular as regards the worker’s right to be joined by his family’, Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), lays down, in Article 10 thereof, the right of family members, irrespective of their nationality, to install themselves with a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State.
Ligeledes angives det i femte betragtning til direktiv 2004/38, at »for at unionsborgerne kan udøve deres ret til at færdes og opholde sig frit på medlemsstaternes område på objektive betingelser, der sikrer frihed og værdighed, bør denne ret også indrømmes familiemedlemmer uanset nationalitet«.
Recital 5 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38 points out, in very similar terms, that ‘[t]he right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, be also granted to their family members, irrespective of nationality’.
11 — Rådets direktiv 73/148/EØF af 21.5.1973 om ophævelse af rejse- og opholdsbegrænsninger inden for Fællesskabet for statsborgere i medlemsstaterne med hensyn til etablering og udveksling af tjenesteydelser (EFT L 172, s. 14).
11 — Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14).
anses for at omfatte en ret til at slutte sig til unionsborgeren, også når familiemedlemmerne direkte kommer fra uden for Unionens område.
METOCK AND OTHERS in a Member State other than his State of origin requires that the consequential right of residence conferred on non-EU national members of his family by Directive 2004/38 must be construed as entailing the right to join him, including directly from outside the Union.
Det følger heraf, at en medlemsstat ikke med føje kan opstille noget krav om, at de nævnte familiemedlemmer forudgående skal have opholdt sig lovligt i en anden medlemsstat for at kunne påberåbe sig bestemmelserne i det nævnte direktiv.
It follows that a Member State cannot legitimately require those family members to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State in order to be able to rely on the provisions of that directive.
eftersom sidstnævnte ikke forudgående havde opholdt sig lovligt i en medlemsstat, pålagde den ikke desto mindre oprindelsesmedlemsstatens kompetente myndigheder at behandle ægtefællens ansøgning om indrejse og ophold på deres område i lyset af den grundlæggende ret til respekt for familielivet som omhandlet i EMRK’s artikel 8 15, henset til, at sagen vedrørte unionsborgerens frie bevægelighed.
establish herself with her spouse who was a national of a nonmember country, since he had not previously been lawfully resident in a Member State, it nevertheless required the competent authorities of the Member State of origin to assess the application by the spouse to enter and remain in their territory in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention, 15as the freedom of movement of the Union citizen was at issue.
Irland og de intervenerende medlemsstater har til anfægtelse af en sådan fortolkning af direktiv 2004/38 henvist til den løsning, som følger af Akrich-dommen 16, hvorefter den opholdsret, som ved artikel 10 i forordning nr. 1612/68 tillægges en tredjelandsstatsborger, som er ægtefælle til en unionsborger, og som rejser til en medlemsstat, hvortil unionsborgeren er migreret, underlægges en betingelse om et forudgående lovligt ophold i en anden medlemsstat, for så vidt som den nævnte forordning kun omfatter den frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet og intet siger om rettighederne for den nævnte tredjelandsstatsborger, som er ægtefælle til en unionsborger, hvad angår adgangen til Fællesskabets område.
Such an interpretation of Direct- ive 2004/38 is disputed by Ireland and the intervening Member States on the basis of the approach taken in Akrich, 16according to which the benefit of the right of residence conferred by Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 on a national of a nonmember country, who is the spouse of a Union citizen and moves to a Member State to which the Union citizen has migrated, is subject to the condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State, since that regulation relates solely to freedom of movement within the Community and says nothing about the rights of that national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a Union citizen as regards access to the territory of the Community.
Hvis man følger denne tilgang, må det anerkendes, at en fortolkning af direktiv 2004/38, hvorefter den opholdsret, som det tillægger tredjelandsstatsborgere, der er familiemedlemmer til en unionsborger, i værtsmedlemsstaten, ikke sikrer disse en adgangsret til Fællesskabets område, dvs. kun finder anvendelse, dersom tredjelandsstatsborgerne forudgående lovligt har opholdt sig i en anden medlemsstat, griber ind i unionsborgerens ret til et normalt familieliv og tilsidesætter dermed hans opholdsret i værtsmedlemsstaten.
If this approach is followed, then it must be acknowledged that interpreting Direct- ive 2004/38 as meaning that the right of residence which it confers on nationals of nonmember countries, who are members of the family of a Union citizen in the host Member State, does not guarantee them a right of access to the territory of the Community, that is to say applies only if they have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State, would infringe the right of the Union citizen to lead a normal family life and, therefore, his right to reside in the host Member State.
I hovedsagerne kan den omstændighed, at det er umuligt for unionsborgere, som er bosat i Irland, at bringe ægtefæller, der ikke kommer fra Fællesskabet til Irland, gøre indgreb i deres ret til frit at vælge at opholde sig i denne medlemsstat, for så vidt som den kan tilskynde dem til at forlade Irland for at rejse til en stat — en medlemsstat eller et tredjeland — hvor de vil kunne leve sammen med deres ægtefæller.
In the cases in the main proceedings, the fact that Union citizens established in Ireland are unable to have their spouses join them from outside the Community is such as to undermine their free choice to reside in that Member State since it will tend to induce them to leave Ireland and go to a State, whether a Member State or not, where they will be able to live together with their spouses.
Den står i skærende kontrast til en retspraksis, som kun underlægger den opholdsret, som fællesskabsretten indrømmer en tredjelandsstatsborger, som er familiemedlem til en unionsborger, et krav om, at det fastslås, at der eksisterer en »familiemæssig tilknytning«. Således har Domstolen udtalt sig inden
It conflicts with a trend in caselaw, which makes the right of residence conferred by Community legislation on a national of a nonmember country who is the family member of a Union citizen conditional solely on the existence of a ‘family relationship’.
15 — Den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, undertegnet i Rom den 4.11.1950.
15 — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950.
Således har Domstolen udtalt sig siden 18.
17 That has been the judgment of the Court ever since.
Af denne opholdsret, som direkte følger af fællesskabsretten alene under henvisning til en familiemæssig tilknytning, har den udledt, at det ikke er muligt for en medlemsstat at vedtage foranstaltninger til udsendelse af et familiemedlem til en unionsborger, som ikke er fællesskabsborger, alene under henvisning til, at visse retlige formaliteter vedrørende kontrol med udlændinge ikke er opfyldt 19, og at udstedelsen af opholdstilladelse til det nævnte familiemedlem alene er bestemt til at fastslå den individuelle stilling for en tredjelandsstatsborger i forhold til fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser 20.
18It has inferred from this right of residence conferred directly by Community law solely on the basis of a family relationship that a Member State is unable to adopt measures to expel a non-EU family member of a Union citizen solely on the basis of a failure to comply with legal formalities concerning the control of aliens 19and that the issue of a residence permit to that member serves purely to acknowledge rights already conferred. 20
Desuden har Domstolen selv, i Jiadommen 21, udtrykkeligt forbundet betin- gelsen om et forudgående lovligt ophold som formuleret i Akrich-dommen med de særlige faktiske omstændigheder i hovedsagen, hvor en tredjelandsstatsborger, som var ægtefælle til en unionsborger, havde opholdt sig ulovligt i en medlemsstat og forsøgt at unddrage sig en national lovgivning om indvandringskontrol.
Furthermore, in Jia, 21the Court itself explicitly linked the condition of previous lawful residence formulated in Akrich to the specific factual circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, in which a national of a nonmember country who was the spouse of a Union citizen had been residing unlawfully in a Member State and was seeking to evade national immigration legislation illicitly.
Hacene Akrich, som var gift med en britisk statsborger, og som ikke havde nogen opholdstilladelse i Det Forenede Kongerige, havde således indvilliget i at blive udvist til Irland, hvor han sluttede sig til sin ægtefælle, der kort forinden havde bosat sig dér og havde til hensigt at vende tilbage til Det Forenede Kongerige med sin ægtefælle under påberåbelse af den opholdsret, som følger af fællesskabsretten, i sin egenskab af ægtefælle til en unionsborger, der havde gjort brug af sin ret til fri bevægelighed.
Mr Akrich, who was married to a British national and did not have the right to remain in the United Kingdom, had in fact agreed to be deported to Ireland, where he joined his wife who had installed herself there shortly before, and intended to return to the United Kingdom with his wife by taking advantage of the right of residence conferred by Community law as the spouse of a citizen of the Union who had exercised her right to free movement.
20 — Jf. dommen af 14.4.2005 i sagen Kommissionen mod Spanien, præmis 28.
17 — See MRAX, paragraph 59.18 — See Case C-157/03 Commission v Spain, paragraph 28.19 — See MRAX, paragraphs 73 to 80.20 — See Case C-157/03 Commission v Spain, paragraph 28.21 — Case C-1/05 [2007] ECR I-1.
Endelig bør der tages hensyn til den nye retstilstand, som direktiv 2004/38 repræsenterer.
Finally, account should be taken of the changes introduced by Directive 2004/38.
Selv om det lægges til grund, at løsningen i Akrich-dommen måtte have haft en rækkevidde, som ikke var begrænset til de særlige omstændigheder, som forelå i nævnte sag (misbrug af rettigheder), er dommen afsagt, mens forordning nr. 1612/68 stadig var gældende og med henblik på anvendelsen heraf.
Even if the approach in Akrich had a scope which was not limited to the specific circumstances of the case (abuse of rights), it was adopted under and in pursuance of Regulation No 1612/68.
Som det fremgår af dets tredje betragtning, tilsigter direktiv 2004/38 imidlertid ikke blot at kodificere, men også at foretage en gennemgang af de eksisterende retlige instrumenter med henblik på at »styrke« alle unionsborgernes ret til fri bevægelighed og ophold.
As stated in recital 3 in the preamble thereto, Directive 2004/38 seeks not only to codify but also to review the existing legislative instruments in order to ‘strengthen’ the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens.
Desuden, henset til, at forordning nr. 1612/68 kun, for at citere dens titel, vedrørte arbejdskraftens »frie bevægelighed« inden for Fællesskabet, er direktiv 2004/38 i overensstemmelse med den ret, som følger af artikel 18 EF, for unionsborgerne til ikke blot frit at »bevæge sig«, men også til frit at »opholde sig« på medlemsstaternes område.
Furthermore, whereas Regulation No 1612/68 concerned, to cite its title, only ‘freedom of movement’ for workers within the Community, Direct- ive 2004/38 relates, in line with the right set out in Article 18 EC, to the right of Union citizens not only to ‘move’ but also to ‘reside’ freely within the territory of the Member States.
Udtrykt på en anden måde: Arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed og bestemmelserne vedtaget i medfør heraf tilsigtede hovedsageligt at fjerne hindringerne for arbejdstagernes mobilitet.
In other words, freedom of movement for workers and the rules adopted pursuant thereto were essentially intended to remove obstacles to mobility for workers.
Der blev således lagt vægt på, at de af medlemsstaterne trufne foranstaltninger kunne have en afskrækkende virkning ved indrejse i og udrejse af en medlemsstat.
Emphasis was therefore placed on the deterrent effect on leaving or entering a Member State which could be caused by the measures taken by the Member States.
Det er i sidste instans denne synsvinkel, som ligger til grund for afgørelsen i Akrich-dommen.
It is ultimately this view which inspired the ratio decidendi in Akrich.
Efter at have bemærket, at opbygningen af fællesskabsbestemmelserne skal sikre arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed i Fællesskabet, hvis udøvelse ikke må komme den vandrende arbejdstager og hans familie til skade, udledte Domstolen således heraf, at når en unionsborger, som er bosat i en medlemsstat, og som er gift med en tredjelandsstatsborger, som ikke har opholdsret i denne medlemsstat, rejser til en anden medlemsstat for dér at udøve lønnet beskæftigelse, udgør det forhold, at unionsborgerens ægtefælle i henhold til artikel 10 i forordning nr. 1612/68 ikke har ret til at etablere sig med unionsborgeren i denne anden medlemsstat, ikke en mindre gunstig behandling end den,
After pointing out that the scheme of the Community law provisions seeks to secure freedom of movement for workers within the Community, whose exercise must not penalise the migrant worker and his family, the Court in fact inferred from this that where a citizen of the Union, established in a Member State and married to a national of a nonmember country without the right to remain in that Member State, moves to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person, the fact that that person’s spouse has no right under Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 to install himself with that person in the other Member State cannot constitute treatment which is less favourable than that which they enjoyed before the Union citizen made use of the opportunities afforded by the Treaty as regards movement of persons and,
indgreb i familielivet forskelligt alt afhængig af, om de hindrer unionsborgerens frihed til at rejse til en anden medlemsstat eller unionsborgerens frihed til at opholde sig i en anden medlemsstat.
METOCK AND OTHERS whether they hinder the freedom of a Union citizen to move to another Member State or the freedom to reside in another Member State.
Henset til, at direktiv 2004/38 ligesom forordning nr. 1612/68 23skal fortolkes i lyset af den grundlæggende ret til respekt for familielivet, må det konkluderes, at den opholdsret, som tredjelandstatsborgere, som er familiemedlemmer til en unionsborger, indrømmes ved direktiv 2004/38, ikke kan underlægges en betingelse om, at de nævnte tredjelandsstatsborgere forudgående skal have opholdt sig lovligt i en anden medlemsstat.
Therefore, since Directive 2004/38 must, like Regulation No 1612/68, 23also be interpreted in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life, it must be concluded that the benefit of the right of residence granted by Directive 2004/38 to nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen cannot be made contingent on the prior lawful residence of those nationals in another Member State.
Endelig bemærkes, at det forhold, at den opholdsret, som ved direktiv 2004/38 indrømmes tredjelandsstatsborgere, som er familiemedlemmer til en unionsborger, omfatter en ret til adgang til Fællesskabets område, ikke betyder, at sidstnævnte ikke kan pålægges begrænsninger af medlemsstaterne.
Finally, it hardly needs to be pointed out that the fact that the right of residence conferred by Directive 2004/38 on nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen includes a right of access to the territory of the Community does not mean that that latter right may not be subject to limitations by the Member States.
Sådanne begrænsninger er udtrykkeligt fastsat.
Those limitations are explicitly provided for.
Artikel 27 i direktiv 2004/38 indeholder det almindelige forbehold om den offentlige orden hvad angår retten til fri bevægelighed og ophold for en unionsborger eller et familiemedlem, uanset nationalitet.
Article 27 of the directive refers to the traditional public policy restriction on the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality.
Artikel 35 vedrører tilfælde af misbrug af rettigheder eller svig.
Article 35 imposes restrictions in cases of abuse of rights or fraud.
Her tænkes selvfølgelig på proformaægteskaber, men det kan også tænkes, at misbrug af rettigheder omfatter et tilfælde som det, der forelå i Akrichsagen, der vedrørte et forsøg på at unddrage som de fik, før unionsborgeren gjorde brug af de muligheder, der findes i traktaten med hensyn til personers frie bevægelighed, og kan således ikke forhindre unionsborgeren i at udøve de rettigheder til fri bevægelighed, der er hjemlet i artikel 39 EF; hvis derimod en unionsborger, der er bosat i en medlemsstat og gift med en tredjelandsstatsborger, som har ret til at opholde sig i denne medlemsstat, rejser til en anden medlemsstat for dér at udøve lønnet beskæftigelse, skal denne flytning ikke medføre et tab af muligheden for at leve lovligt sammen, hvilket er grunden til, at artikel 10 i forordning nr. 1612/68 indrømmer ægtefællen ret til at etablere sig i denne anden medlemsstat 22.
This is obviously aimed at the possibility of marriages of convenience, but abuse of rights may also be deemed to cover the accordingly, is not such as to deter the citizen of the Union from exercising the rights in regard to freedom of movement conferred by Article 39 EC; conversely, where a citizen of the Union, established in a Member State and married to a national of a nonmember country with a right to remain in that Member State, moves to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person, that move must not result in the loss of the opportunity lawfully to live together, which is the reason why Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 confers on such a spouse the right to install himself in that other Member State.
Som det forholder sig nu, lægger direktiv 2004/38 lige så stor vægt på retten til frit at opholde sig på medlemsstaternes område.
22 At present Directive 2004/38 places equal emphasis on the right to reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
Det er således ikke længere blot bevægelsesfriheden, men også stabiliteten, opholdets videreførelse i en anden medlemsstat, som tilsigtes sikret.
It is therefore no longer only the mobility but also the stability and permanence of residence in another Member State that is intended to be secured.
Under en sådan synsvinkel er det let at konkludere, at anvendelsen af betingelsen om et forudgående lovligt ophold på den opholdsret, som i medfør af direktiv 2004/38 indrømmes tredjelandsstatsborgere, som er familiemedlemmer til en unionsborger, kan påvirke det fortsatte ophold i den medlemsstat, som unionsborgeren frit har valgt.
From this new standpoint, it is easy to see how requiring nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen to satisfy a condition of prior lawful residence in order to benefit from the right of residence conferred by Directive 2004/38 might affect continued residence in the Member State which a Union citizen has freely chosen.