natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endvidere bør fængslingen foregå på en sådan måde, at den indsatte ikke får indtryk af, at han er udelukket af samfundet.
Imprisonment must also give the person held in custody the impression that he is not excluded from the community at large.
Endelig bør den indsatte under fængselsopholdet have mulighed for at udføre en beskæftigelse, der letter ham muligheden for at få eller genoptage et arbejde efter straffens afsoning gennem et program, der udarbejdes af fængslet, og som forbereder til løsladelsen eller til en betinget løsladelse under tilsyn 37.
Lastly, the conditions of custody must be such as to facilitate the acquisition or resumption of employment on expiry of the sentence, under a pre-release regime organised in the penal institution or by conditional release under supervision. 37
Dette begreb svarer efter min opfattelse til en faktisk situation, som er en følge af en række kriterier, hvoraf de mest relevante, som den østrigske, den polske og den finske regering samt Kommissionen har foreslået, er den familiemæssige og sociale tilknytning, sproget, om der foreligger en bopæl, et arbejde og varigheden af opholdet i den pågældende stat samt den pågældendes vilje til at blive boende der efter fængslingens ophør.
That concept thus corresponds, in my opinion, to a factual situation which results from the presence of a group of criteria of which the most important — as the Austrian, Polish and Finnish Governments and the Commission propose — are family and social links, use of the language, the availability of a place to live, having a job, and the length of residence in the State, together with the intention of the person concerned to stay there when he is no longer held in custody.
Ud fra disse betragtninger udleder jeg følgende af betydning for definitionen af indholdet af begreberne »opholder sig« eller »er bosat«, i den forstand, hvori disse udtryk er anvendt i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6.
The following lessons can be drawn from the above observations for the definition of the concepts of ‘staying in’ or being ‘a resident of’, as referred to in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Denne liste kan ikke være udtømmende, idet den fuldbyrdende judicielle myndigheds anvendelse af grunden til at afslå fuldbyrdelse, som er fastsat i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6, efter min mening altid bør baseres på en vurdering af den berørte persons særlige situation.
That list must not be exhaustive, since the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision must always, in my opinion, be applied by the executing judicial authority on the basis of an assessment of the person’s individual situation.
Disse to begreber har efter min mening ikke et forskelligt indhold, som det bekræftes af det forhold, at rammeafgørelsens artikel 5, nr. 3, kun henviser til begrebet bosat.
First, the content of those two concepts is not, in my view, different, as confirmed by the fact that Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision refers only to a ‘resident’.
Endvidere omhandler de den situation, hvor
Secondly, they refer to the situation in which the
Af denne gennemgang drager jeg følgende konsekvenser for så vidt angår de af de forelæggende ret opregnede omstændigheder.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis as regards the circumstances listed by the referring court.
KOZŁOWSKI at fastlægge dette sted, tjener til at vurdere betydningen af den pågældendes tilknytning til samfundet i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat.
KOZŁOWSKI criteria enabling that place to be identified serve to indicate the strength of the connection of that person to life in the executing Member State.
Hvad for det første angår det forhold, at den berørte person ikke har opholdt sig uafbrudt i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat, kan det ikke anfægte den pågældendes tilknytning til denne stat.
With regard, first, to the fact that the person concerned has not stayed without interruption in the executing Member State, that cannot call into question the connection of that person to that State.
En person kan rent faktisk rejse til udlandet i forbindelse med en ferie eller for at udøve sin erhvervsmæssige beskæftigelse, uden at dette indebærer en flytning fra centret for hans hovedinteresser.
A person can go abroad on holidays or to carry out his chosen profession without that changing his centre of main interests.
Begrebet »bosat« i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6, grunder sig således på den berørte persons vilje og betegner nødvendigvis et sted, hvor han nyder eller kan nyde sine rettigheder.
The concept of ‘resident’ for the purposes of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is therefore based on the intention of the person concerned and necessarily describes a place where he enjoys or can enjoy his rights.
Det forhold, at Szymon Kozłowski i den foreliggende sag forlod Tyskland i juni 2005, dernæst i julen samme år samt i februar og marts 2006, viser ikke i sig selv, at den pågældende havde sine hovedinteresser andetsteds end i denne medlemsstat.
Thus, the fact that, in the case before the referring court, Mr Kozłowski left Germany in June 2005, then during the Christmas holidays of that year and in February and March 2006, does not in itself prove that his main interests lie outside that Member State.
Det sted, hvor en person, der er omfattet af en europæisk arrestordre, afsoner en fængselsstraf, er således irrelevant i denne henseende, eftersom stedet ikke er baseret på hans valg, men på de judicielle myndigheders valg, og han er berøvet udøvelsen af en stor del af sine rettigheder.
The place where a requested person serves a prison sentence is therefore of no relevance in that regard, since that place is not chosen by him but by the judicial authorities and he is deprived there of the exercise of a significant number of his rights.
Hvad for det andet angår den omstændighed, at den person, som en europæisk arrestordre vedrører, er fængslet i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat i medfør af en afgørelse om idømmelse af straf, udgør den heller ikke et relevant kriterium, hverken for at godtgøre status som bosat eller for at afvise den.
With regard, secondly, to the fact that the requested person is being held in custody in the executing Member State following a criminal conviction, this cannot constitute a relevant criterion either, whether for proving the status of resident or for ruling it out.
Som tidligere anført må begrebet »bosat« i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6, forstås som det sted, hvor den person, som en europæisk arrestordre vedrører, har centret for sine hovedinteresser, og som han vil vende tilbage til efter afsoningen af sin straf.
As we have seen, the concept of ‘resident’, for the purposes of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, must be understood as the place where the requested person has his centre of main interests and where he is likely to return after serving his sentence.
Den forelæggende ret har endvidere anmodet Domstolen om at tage stilling til, om det forhold, at den person, som en europæisk arrestordre vedrører, opholder sig i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat i strid med denne stats lovgivning om udlændinges indrejse og ophold, og den omstændighed, at han begår kriminel virksomhed, udelukker anerkendelse af den pågældendes status som bosat.
The referring court also asks the Court whether the fact that the requested person is staying in the executing Member State in breach of the national legislation governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and the fact that he commits crimes there systematically mean that he cannot be regarded as a resident.
Den nationale ret ønsker desuden oplyst, om det forhold, at den pågældende begår kriminel virksomhed, i sig selv udelukker accept af sædvanligt ophold.
It also asks whether the fact that the person systematically commits crimes suffices, in itself, to rule out habitual residence.
Situationen er således forskellig, alt efter om den berørte person er unionsborger eller tredjelandsstatsborger.
The situation is therefore different depending on whether the person concerned is a citizen of the European Union or a national of a third State.
Den forelæggende ret har forelagt disse spørgsmål med den begrundelse, at lovligheden af Szymon Kozłowskis ophold i Tyskland ud over en periode på tre måneder synes usikker i henhold til national lovgivning, da han ikke udøvede nogen beskæftigelse og hovedsageligt forsørgede sig ved at begå lovovertrædelser.
The referring court asks these questions because the lawfulness of Mr Kozłowski’s stay in Germany beyond a period of three months appears doubtful under the national legislation, in so far as he is not working and earns his living essentially by committing crimes.
Som den nederlandske regering har anført, forudsætter afsoning af straffen i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat, at den pågældende faktisk kan opholde sig i denne stat efter straffens afsoning.
As the Netherlands Government maintains, the serving of his sentence in the executing Member State presupposes that the person concerned can in fact remain in that State when his sentence is over.
Det er på denne betingelse, at målet om reintegration, der forfølges i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6, kan nås.
That is the condition for ensuring that the objective of reintegration pursued by Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision can be achieved.
Betingelserne for tredjelandsstatsborgeres indrejse til og ophold i Den Europæiske Unions medlemsstater henhører på fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin fortsat for en stor del under medlemsstaternes kompetence.
The conditions governing the right of nationals of third States to enter and remain in Member States of the European Union are, in the current state of Community law, still largely a matter within the competence of the Member States.
Situationen for disse statsborgere er i det væsentlige kun omfattet af fællesskabsretten, hvis de er familiemedlemmer til en unionsborger eller statsborgere i en stat, som Fællesskabet har indgået en konvention med, eller hvis de falder ind under anvendelsesområdet for direktivet om ret til familiesammenføring 38eller anvendelsesområdet for direktivet om tredjelandsstatsborgeres status som fastboende udlænding 39.
The situation of those nationals is only covered by Community law, in essence, if they are members of the family of a Union citizen or nationals of a State with which the Community has drawn up a Convention, or if they fall within the scope of the directive on the right to family reunification 38 or of the directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are longterm residents. 39
Heraf følger, at såfremt den fuldbyrdende judicielle myndighed fastslår, at den pågældende ikke længere har ret til at opholde sig i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat efter straffens afsoning, synes anvendelsen af grunden til at afslå fuldbyrdelse, som er fastsat i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6, at være uden genstand.
It follows that, if the executing judicial authority concludes that the person concerned no longer has the right to remain in the executing Member State following completion of his sentence, there is no reason to apply the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Såfremt det forhold, at en tredjelandsstatsborger opholder sig ulovligt i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat og begår kriminel virksomhed dér, i medfør af lovgivningen i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat ikke giver ham mulighed for at opholde sig i denne stat efter straffens afsoning, med forbehold for respekten for de rettigheder, der er sikret ved den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder og Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder, kan han ikke anses for at være bosat i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6.
Consequently, if, under the legislation of the Member State of execution, the fact that a national of a third State stays there illegally and commits crimes there systematically means that he is not allowed to remain in that State when his sentence comes to an end, subject to compliance with the rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, he cannot be regarded as a resident within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
38 — Rådets direktiv 2003/86/EF af 22.9.2003 (EUT L 251, s. 12).
38 — Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).
39 — Rådets direktiv 2003/109/EF af 25.11.2003 (EUT 2004 L 16, s. 44).
39 — Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).
Vurderingen af den berørte persons mulighed for at opholde sig i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat efter straffens afsoning i lyset af, at han ikke er bosat dér i overensstemmelse med national lov om udlændinges indrejse og ophold, og at han dér har begået kriminel virksomhed, bør foretages af den fuldbyrdende judicielle myndighed i overensstemmelse med de fællesskabsretlige krav og med respekt for de grundlæggende rettigheder.
However, the assessment of the ability of the person concerned to remain in the executing Member State after his sentence has been served, in light of the fact that he does not reside there in conformity with the national legislation governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and the fact that he has systematically committed crimes there, must be carried out by the executing judicial authority in accordance with the requirements of Community law and fundamental rights.
Situationen er derimod en anden, når en af en europæisk arrestordre omfattet person som Szymon Kozłowski har status af unionsborger.
By contrast, the situation is different where the requested person has, like Mr Kozłowski, the status of a Union citizen.
Som Kommissionen har anført, og som det anføres i betragtning 11 til Europa-Parla-mentets og Rådets direktiv 2004/38/EF 40, følger unionsborgernes grundlæggende og personlige ret til at tage ophold i en anden medlemsstat direkte af traktaten og kræver ikke opfyldelse af administrative procedurer i værtsmedlemsstaten.
As the Commission pointed out and as is stated in the 11th recital in the preamble to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 40 the fundamental and personal right of residence in another Member State is conferred directly on Union citizens by the Treaty and is not dependent upon their having fulfilled administrative provisions in the host Member State.
Det forhold alene, at Szymon Kozłowski ikke råder over faste indtægter, og at han således overtræder tysk lovgivning om udlændinges indrejse og ophold, viser ikke i sig selv, at han ikke kan opholde sig lovligt i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat efter hans fængselsstrafs udløb.
Accordingly, the sole fact that Mr Kozłowski does not have stable resources and that he therefore finds himself in breach of the German legislation governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country does not, as such, prove that he may not lawfully stay in the executing Member State once his prison sentence is over.
Dette forhold udgør ikke i sig selv et element, der udelukker, at den pågældende kan anses for bosat i denne stat, når han ikke har været genstand for en udsendelsesforanstaltning i henhold til fællesskabsretten 41.
That fact does not constitute, in itself, a factor which rules out the possibility that the person concerned may be regarded as resident in that State, provided that he has not been the subject of an expulsion measure adopted in compliance with Community law. 41
Denne ret er ganske vist ikke ubetinget.
Admittedly, that right is not unconditional.
Den er i de første fem år underordnet den betingelse, at den berørte person har tilstrækkelige midler og en sygesikring for ikke at blive en byrde for værtsmedlemsstatens sociale system.
It is subject, during the first five years, to the condition that the person concerned have sufficient resources and sickness insurance so as not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State.
Manglende faste indtægter kan imidlertid ikke automatisk føre til en udsendelsesforanstaltning.
However, the absence of stable resources cannot as such automatically justify an expulsion measure.
Hvis en unionsborger som følge af at have begået lovovertrædelser i en medlemsstat kan fratages sin opholdsret i denne stat, kan denne fratagelse kun følge af en afgørelse om udsendelse, der er vedtaget i overens-
Similarly, if, following the committing of crimes in a Member State, a citizen of the Union may be deprived of his right to remain in that State, this can be brought about only by an expulsion decision taken in compliance
En sådan foranstaltning kan ifølge betragtning 16 til direktiv 2004/38 kun træffes, hvis den berørte person bliver en urimelig byrde for værtsmedlemsstatens sociale system. Værtsmedlemsstaten bør
Such a measure may only be taken, according to the 16th recital in the preamble to Directive 2004/38, if the person concerned becomes an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member
41 — Dette svar mener jeg kan overføres til Wolzenburg-sagen (sag C-123/08), der verserer for Domstolen. Dominic Wolzenburg er en tysk statsborger, som har boet i Nederlandene siden juni 2005.
41 — That reply is capable, to my mind, of being applied also to Case C-123/08 Wolzenburg, currently pending before the Court.
Han har en bolig i Nederlandene, hvor han bor sammen med sin hustru, der er gravid.
He has a flat there, in which he lives with his wife, who is pregnant.
Han har arbejdet der indtil 2007.
He worked there until 2007.
Han er omfattet af en europæisk arrestordre, der er udstedt af Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen (Tyskland).
He is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the Staatsanwaltschaft (Public Prosecutor) of Aachen (Germany).
Den forelæggende nederlandske ret har anført, at ifølge nederlandsk lov kan grunden til at afslå fuldbyrdelse i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6, ikke gælde for Dominic Wolzenburg, fordi den nederlandske lov, som gennemfører denne bestemmelse, forbeholder denne grund for personer, som er i besiddelse af en opholdstilladelse på ubestemt tid.
The referring court in the Netherlands points out that, according to the Netherlands legislation, Mr Wolzenburg cannot rely on the ground for nonexecution provided for under Article 4(6) of the Framework Decsion, because the Netherlands law transposing that provision reserves the use of that ground for persons holding a residence permit of unlimited duration.
Jeg er af den opfattelse, at denne begrænsning ikke er i overensstemmelse med rammeafgørelsen.
In my opinion, that restriction is contrary to the Framework Decision.
Anerkendelsen af status som »bosat« i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6, kan ikke afhænge af besiddelsen af en længerevarende opholdstilladelse, da opholdsretten i Nederlandene for den pågældende, som er unionsborger, følger direkte af fællesskabsretten.
In that case, too, recognition of the status of ‘resident’, within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, cannot depend on the possession of a longterm residence permit, when the right of the person concerned, who is a citizen of the Union, to remain in the Netherlands stems directly from Community law.
GENERALADVOKAT BOTS STILLINGTAGEN — SAG C-66/08 stemmelse med de særdeles restriktive betingelser i artikel 2733 i direktiv 2004/38.
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 with the very restrictive conditions laid down in Articles 27 to 33 of Directive 2004/38.
af status som »bosat« i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6’s forstand, hvis den pågældende har været genstand for en udsendelsesforanstaltning i henhold til fællesskabsretten.
preclude recognition of the status of ‘resident’ within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, unless that person has been the subject of an expulsion measure adopted in compliance with Community law.
Det skal bemærkes, at en sådan afgørelse kun undtagelsesvis kan træffes, hvis den pågældendes adfærd udgør en reel, umiddelbar og tilstrækkelig alvorlig trussel, der berører en grundlæggende samfundsinteresse.
It should be noted that such a decision may be taken only in exceptional circumstances, where the person’s behaviour constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
Værtsmedlemsstaten skal endvidere, før den træffer afgørelse om udsendelse med begrundelse i den offentlige orden eller sikkerhed, bl.a. tage hensyn til varigheden af den pågældendes ophold på værtsmedlemsstatens område, den pågældendes alder, helbredstilstand, familiemæssige og økonomiske situation samt hans sociale og kulturelle integration i værtsmedlemsstaten og tilknytning til hjemlandet.
In addition, before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host Member State must take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has remained in its territory, his age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his links with the country of origin.
Ud fra disse betragtninger skal jeg foreslå Domstolen at fastslå, som svar på det første præjudicielle spørgsmål, at en person opholder sig i eller er bosat i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6’s forstand, hvis den pågældende har centret for sine hovedinteresser dér, hvorfor fuldbyrdelsen af straffen i denne stat synes nødvendig med henblik på at fremme hans reintegration.
It is in the light of the above considerations that I propose that the Court rule, in answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, that a person is staying in, or a resident of, the executing Member State, within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, if that person has his centre of main interests there, so that the execution of the sentence in that State is necessary in order to facilitate his reintegration.
For at vurdere, om denne betingelse er opfyldt, skal den fuldbyrdende judicielle myndighed undersøge alle relevante forhold ved den berørte persons individuelle situation.
In order to establish whether that condition is satisfied, the executing judicial authority must examine all the facts relevant to the individual situation of the person concerned.
Heraf følger, at den omstændighed, at en unionsborger har begået kriminel virksomhed på den fuldbyrdende medlemsstats område, ikke i sig selv udelukker, at vedkommende kan have status af »bosat« i rammeafgørelsens artikel 4, nr. 6’s forstand.
It follows that the fact that a citizen of the Union has systematically committed crimes on the territory of the executing Member State does not, in itself, preclude him from having the status of ‘resident’ within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
En sådan omstændighed viser nemlig ikke, at den pågældende har centret for sine hovedinteresser andetsteds end i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat.
Such a fact does not prove that his centre of main interests lies outside that State.
Heraf følger ligeledes, at det forhold, at en statsborger opholder sig i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat i strid med denne stats lovgivning om udlændinges indrejse og ophold, og at han har begået kriminel virksomhed, kun er til hinder for anerkendelsen
It also follows that the fact that such a national is staying in the executing Member State in breach of the legislation of that State governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and that he systematically commits crimes there do not