natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved kendelse af 25. september 1998 har Immigration Adjudicator forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 7, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning nr. 1612/68/EØF af 15. oktober 1968.
(EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968.
Immigration Adjudicator har herefter besluttet at udsætte sagen og stille Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
Those questions were raised in proceedings brought by Mr Kaba against the Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the latter's refusal to grant him indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
Er retten til at ansøge om tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse i Det Forenede Kongerige og retten til at få ansøgningen behandlet en 'social fordel' i den i artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1612/68 forudsatte betydning?
Does the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and the right to have that application considered constitute a "social advantage" within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68?
Arben Kaba, der er jugoslavisk statsborger, ankom den 5. august 1991 til Det Forenede Kongerige.
Mr Kaba, a Yugoslav national, arrived in the United Kingdom on 5 August 1991.
Hans ansøgning om indrejsetilladelse til Det Forenede Kongerige i en måned som turist blev afslået, men han forlod ikke landet.
His request for leave to enter the United Kingdom for one month as a visitor was refused but he did not leave the United Kingdom.
I februar 1992 blev der indgivet asylansøgning på hans vegne.
In February 1992 an application for asylum was lodged on his behalf.
Den 4. maj 1994 indgik han ægteskab med Virginie Michonneau, som er fransk statsborger, og som han mødte i 1993, mens hun arbejdede i Det Forenede Kongerige.
On 4 May 1994 he married Virginie Michonneau, a French national, whom he had met in 1993 when she was working in the United Kingdom.
Parret har levet sammen, siden de blev gift.
The couple have lived together since their marriage.
Efter midlertidigt at være rejst tilbage til Frankrig vendte Virginie Michonneau i januar 1994 tilbage til Det Forenede Kongerige som arbejdssøgende og fik arbejde i april 1994.
Having temporarily gone back to France, Ms Michonneau returned to the United Kingdom in January 1994 to seek work, which she found in April 1994.
I november 1994 fik hun en opholdstilladelse for 5 år, der var gyldig til den 2. november 1999.
In November 1994 she obtained a five-year residence permit valid until 2 November 1999.
Arben Kaba fik opholdstilladelse i Det Forenede Kongerige for den samme periode i sin egenskab af ægtefælle til en EF-statsborger, der i Det Forenede Kongerige udøver de rettigheder, hun har i henhold til EF-traktaten.
Mr Kaba was granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom for the same period, as the spouse of a European Community national exercising her rights under the EC Treaty.
Den 23. januar 1996 indgav Arben Kaba ansøgning om tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse i Det Forenede Kongerige.
The Court observes that the aim of Regulation No 1612/68, namely freedom of movement for workers, requires, for such freedom to be guaranteed in compliance with the principles of liberty and dignity, the best possible conditions for the integration of the Community worker's family in the society of the host country.
Artikel 10, stk. 1, i den nævnte forordning bestemmer bl.a., at ægtefællen uanset nationalitet har ret til at tage bopæl hos en arbejdstager, der er statsborger i en medlemsstat og er beskæftiget på en anden medlemsstats område.
To that end, Article 10(1) of that regulation provides inter alia that a spouse, of whatever nationality, is entitled to install himself with a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State.
Hans ansøgning blev afslået ved afgørelse af 9. september 1996 fra Secretary of State for the Home Department.
On 9 September 1996 the Secretary of State for the Home Department refused to grant such leave.
Ved skrivelse af 3. oktober 1996 anførte Secretary of State, at Arben Kaba ikke opfyldte de betingelser, der stilles i afsnit 255 i Immigration Rules, eftersom hans ægtefælle kun havde opholdt sig i Det Forenede Kongerige i overensstemmelse med EEA Order i et år og ti måneder.
He stated in a letter of 3 October 1996 that Mr Kaba did not fulfil the requirements of paragraph 255 of the Immigration Rules since his wife had *remained' in the United Kingdom, in the terms of the EEA Order, for a total of only one year and 10 months.
Såfremt ægtefællen ikke er statsborger i en medlemsstat, har vedkommende i henhold til artikel 4, stk. 4, i direktiv 68/360 krav på at få
A spouse who is not a national of a Member State is entitled, under Article 4(4) of Directive 68/360, to be issued with a residence document having the same validity as that issued to the worker on whom he is dependent.
udstedt et opholdsbevis med samme gyldighed som for den arbejdstager, som han er knyttet til.
Union the right to move and reside freely within the Member States, expressly refers to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.
Det følger heraf, at fællesskabslovgivningen tillægger ægtefæller til vandrende arbejdstagere, som er statsborgere i andre medlemsstater, en ret til ophold af samme omfang som de vandrende arbejdstageres opholdsret.
In this case, however, the appellant in the main proceedings, in seeking indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, is applying, in his capacity as the spouse of a migrant worker, for a more extensive right of residence than that conferred on the migrant worker herself.
Imidlertid har sagsøgeren i hovedsagen ved at ansøge om tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse i Det Forenede Kongerige som ægtefælle til en vandrende arbejdstager ansøgt om en opholdsret, der er mere omfattende end den, der er tillagt den vandrende arbejdstager selv.
Accordingly, the Member States are entitled to rely on any objective difference there may be between their own nationals and those of other Member States when they lay down the conditions under which leave to remain indefinitely in their territory is to be granted to the spouses of such persons.
Det må derfor antages, at medlemsstaterne har ret til at drage konsekvenserne af den objektive forskel, der kan bestå mellem deres egne statsborgere og statsborgere fra andre medlemsstater, når de fastsætter betingelserne for, at disse personers ægtefæller kan meddeles tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse til det nationale område.
Even if such a right constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, the question still arises whether legislation of a Member State which requires spouses of migrant workers who are nationals of other Member States to have resided in the territory of that Member State for four years before they become entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain and to have their applications considered, but which requires residence of only 12 months for the spouses of persons who are present and settled in that territory, constitutes discrimination contrary to that provision of Community law.
Medlemsstaterne kan nærmere bestemt kræve, at ægtefæller til personer, der ikke selv har en ubetinget opholdsret, skal have været bosat i en længere periode end den, der kræves af ægtefæller til personer, som allerede har en ubetinget opholdsret, før medlemsstaterne tildeler dem en sådan ret.
More particularly, the Member States are entitled to require the spouses of persons who do not themselves enjoy an unconditional right of residence to be resident for a longer period than that required for the spouses of persons who already enjoy such a right, before granting the same right to them.
Selv hvis det antages, at en sådan ret udgør en social fordel i den forstand, hvori udtrykket anvendes i artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1612/68, må det også undersøges, om bestemmelser i en medlemsstat, hvorefter ægtefæller til vandrende arbejdstagere, som er statsborgere i andre medlemsstater, skal have haft bopæl på denne medlemsstats område i mere end fire år, før de kan ansøge om tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse der og få ansøgningen behandlet, mens ægtefæller til derværende og fastboende personer kun skal have haft bopæl i 12 måneder på dette område, indebærer en forskelsbehandling, som er i strid med fællesskabsretten.
It must be conceded that, where rules make the grant of an advantage subject to the requirement that the beneficiary be present and settled in national territory, that condition is more easily met by national workers than by workers who are nationals of other Member States.
Når en tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse først er meddelt, kan der ikke fastsættes betingelser over for dens indehaver. Myndighederne i værtsmedlemsstaten må derfor i forbindelse med ansøgningen kunne kræve, at ansøgeren har etableret en tilstrækkeligt varig tilknytning til denne stat.
Once leave to remain indefinitely has been granted no condition can be imposed on the person to whom such leave has been granted, and therefore the authorities of the host Member State must be able, when the application is made, to require the applicant to have established sufficiently enduring links with that State.
En sådan tilknytning kan bl.a. bestå i, at ansøgerens ægtefælle har en tidsubegrænset opholdsret på statens område, eller i, at ansøgeren forudgående i en længere periode selv har haft ophold dér.
Such links may result, in particular, from the fact that the spouse has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the national territory or that the person applying has already been resident for a considerable period.
Det bemærkes, at såfremt nationale bestemmelser gør tildelingen af en fordel betinget af, at modtageren skal være til stede og fastboende på statens område, kan denne betingelse lettere opfyldes af indenlandske arbejdstagere end af arbejdstagere, som er statsborgere i andre medlemsstater.
That situation derives, first, from the provisions on the free movement of persons contained in Title III of Part Three of the EC Treaty and the secondary legislation adopted to give them effect and, second, from the provisions of Part Two of the EC Treaty, and more particularly Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC), which, whilst granting citizens of the
Af ovenstående grunde er det ufornødent at tage stilling til, om en tidsubegrænset opholdsret på en stats område er en social fordel i den forstand, hvori udtrykket anvendes i artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1612/68.
For the foregoing reasons there is no need to rule whether leave to remain indefinitely in national territory constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen: hvorefter ægtefæller til vandrende arbejdstagere, som er skal have haft bopæl på denne medlemsstats område i
'Legislation of a Member Suite which requires spouses of migrant workers who are nationals of other Member States to have resided in the territory of that Member State for four years before they become entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain and to have their applications considered, but which requires residence of only 12 months for the spouses of persons who are settled in that territory, does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.'
Generaladvokat A La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum1) den 30. september 1999.
Advocate General A La Pergola delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 30 September 1999.
Sag C-420/98 W.N. / Staatssecretaris van Financiën Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne
Case C-420/98 W.N. ν Staatssecretaris van Financiën Approximation of laws
Præjudiciel »Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne — direktiv 77/799/EØF — gensidig bistand mellem medlemsstaternes myndigheder inden for området direkte skatter — uopfordret udveksling af oplysninger« (Første Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Harmonisation of laws—Directive 77 1799I EEC — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation — Spontaneous exchange of information) (First Chamber) maintenance main proceedings had made payments to his spouse in Spain.
Ved dom af 19. november 1998 har Nederlandenes Raad van State forelagt tre præjudiciellespørgsmålvedrørendefortolkningen af artikel 4, stk. 1 og 3, i Rådets direktiv 77/799/EØF af 19. december 1977.
By judgment of 19 November 1998, the Nederlandse Raad van State (Netherlands Council of State) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977.
Ved skrivelse af 2. december 1992 meddelte statssekretæren for finansielle spørgsmål sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, at han i henhold til bestemmelserne i WIB havde truffet afgørelse om uopfordret at oplyse de kompetente spanske myndigheder om underholdsbidrag, som sagsøgeren i hovedsagen i årene 1987-1991 havde betalt i Spanien til sin ægtefælle, som han lever varigt adskilt fra. Underholdsbidragene var blevet betalt gennem ABN-bank i Genève (Schweiz).
By letter of 2 December 1992, the State Secretary for Finance communicated to the appellant in the main proceedings his decision, taken pursuant to the WIB, spontaneously to inform the competent Spanish authorities about the maintenance payments which the appellant had made in Spain to his spouse, from whom he was permanently separated, between 1987 and 1991 through the intermediary of the ABN­Bank, Geneva, Switzerland.
Disse spørgsmål er blevet rejst under en tvist mellem W.N. (herefter »sagsøgeren i hovedsagen«) og Staatssecretaris van Financiën (den nederlandske statssekretær for finansielle spørgsmål) vedrørende sidstnævntes afgørelse om at underrette de kompetente spanske myndigheder om, at sagsøgeren i hovedsagen havde betalt underholdsbidrag til sin ægtefælle i Spanien.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between W.N. (the appellant in the main proceedings') and the Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Netherlands State Secretary for Finance) concerning the State Secretary's decision to inform the competent Spanish authorities of the fact that the appellant in the
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen indgav den 22. december 1992 en klage over afgørelsen, men klagen blev afvist ved afgørelse truffet af statssekretæren for finansielle spørgsmål den 25. maj 1993.
The State Secretary for Finance considered that those maintenance payments, which the appellant in the main proceedings was deducting from his taxable income in the Netherlands, might affect the levying of tax in Spain.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen har den 22. juni 1993 anlagt sag ved den forelæggende ret til prøvelse af klageafgørelsen.
That literal interpretation of the terms of the provision in question corresponds to the purpose of the Directive.
Da Nederlandenes Raad van State var af den opfattelse, at tvisten rejste spørgsmål om fortolkning af fællesskabsretten, har den udsat sagen og forelagt Domstolen følgende tre præjudicielle spørgsmål:
On 22 June 1993, the appellant in the main proceedings brought before the national court an action against the abovementioned decision rejecting the objection.
Det må herved antages, at kun såfremt de nævnte oplysninger når frem til de myndigheder, som de er bestemt for, inden den forvaltningsakt, som indeholder skatteansættelsen, er blevet vedtaget, er myndighederne i stand til mest hensigtsmæssigt at bruge dem i overensstemmelse med direktivets formål.
In that respect, it must be recognised that it is only if that information reaches the authorities for which it is intended before the assessment to tax has been made that those authorities will be in a position to use it in the way most suited to the purpose of the Directive.
»1) Skal udtrykket 'skattenedsættelse eller skattefritagelse' i artikel 4, stk. 1, litra a), i direktiv 77/799/EØF fortolkes således, at nedsættelsen eller fritagelsen skal være indeholdt i en udtrykkelig forvaltningsakt fra en anden medlemsstats kompetente myndighed?
Since the Nederlandse Raad van State found that the dispute raised questions as to the interpretation of Community law, it decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following three questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Hvorledes skal i denne forbindelse ordet 'unormal' i artikel 4, stk. 1, litra a), fortolkes?
Must the words "a loss of tax" in Article 4(l)(a) of Directive 77/799/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the loss of tax in question must be covered by an express measure on the part of the competent authority of another Member State?
Såfremt meddelelsen af oplysninger til den anden medlemsstat var undergivet den betingelse, at sidstnævnte forinden skulle have vedtaget den forvaltningsakt, som indeholder skatteansættelsen, ville dette desuden indebære, at de myndigheder, som er i besiddelse af disse oplysninger, skulle have indgående kendskab til de faktiske og retlige rammer i denne stat.
Furthermore, if the forwarding of the information to the other Member State were subject to the requirement that that State should have made the assessment to tax beforehand, that would imply that the authorities holding that information needed to have extensive knowledge of the factual and legal framework prevailing in that State.
Det ville imidlertid stride mod direktivets ovennævnte formål at gøre forpligtelsen til uopfordret udveksling af oplysninger afhængig af et sådant krav.
To make the obligation to exchange information spontaneously subject to such a requirement would run counter to the abovementioned objective of the Directive.
Såfremt artikel 4, stk. 1, litra a), ikke finder anvendelse, kan artikel 4, stk. 3, da indebære en forpligtelse til uopfordret udveksling af oplysninger?«
If Article 4(1)(a) is not applicable, can Article 4(3) of the Directive give rise to an obligation to exchange information spontaneously?'
Det bemærkes, at de sproglige versioner af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, litra a), på dansk, finsk, fransk, italiensk, nederlandsk, portugisisk og spansk taler om en unormal skattenedsættelse eller skattefritagelse, mens den engelske, den græske, den svenske og den tyske version taler om skattetab.
In the Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese and Finnish versions of Article 4(l)(a) of the Directive, it is a question of an abnormal reduction or exemption, while the German, Greek, Swedish and English versions refer to a loss of tax.
Ifølge fast retspraksis skal de forskellige sproglige versioner af en fællesskabsretlig bestemmelse fortolkes ensartet, og den pågældende bestemmelse skal, når der er uoverensstemmelse mellemversionerne, fortolkes på baggrund af den almindelige opbygning af og formålet med det regelsæt, som den indgår i.
According to settled case-law, the various language versions of a provision of Community law must be uniformly interpreted, and thus, in the case of divergence between those versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.
Ifølge ordlyden af denne bestemmelse er det tilstrækkeligt, at der er formodning for den omhandlede skattenedsættelse eller skattefritagelse. Det er derimod ikke nødvendigt, at det er godtgjort, at der foreligger nedsættelse eller fritagelse.
Article 4(l)(a) of the Directive obliges the competent authority of a Member State without prior request to forward to the competent authority of any other Member State the information which may enable a correct assessment of taxes on income and on capital to be effected where it has grounds for supposing that there may be a loss of tax in that other Member State.
Denne fortolkning med udgangspunkt i den pågældende bestemmelses ordlyd svarer til
In accordance with the wording of that provision, it is sufficient for the loss of tax in question to be
I lyset af formålet med direktivet - som ikke alene tilsigter at bekæmpe skattesvig og skatteunddragelse, men også at muliggøre en korrekt ansættelse af indkomst- og formueskat i de forskellige medlemsstater — skal direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, litra a), fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat uden forudgående anmodning skal
In the light of the purpose of the Directive, which is not only to combat tax evasion and avoidance, but also to enable a correct assessment of taxes on income and on capital to
meddele oplysninger ikke er knyttet til, at den skattesvig og skatteunddragelse, der vil kunne indtræde i mangel af en sådan meddelelse, er af særlig stort omfang.
scheme of the Directive, according to which the obligation to forward information is not connected with the magnitude of the tax evasion and avoidance which might arise if such information were not forwarded.
Det tredje spørgsmål meddele en oplysning til en anden medlemsstats skattemyndigheder, når den har grund til at formode, at der uden denne oplysning uberettiget skal svares eller bliver indrømmet lavere skat i denne anden medlemsstat.
The third question be effected in the different Member States, Article 4(1)(a) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is without prior request to forward information to the tax authorities of another Member State where it has grounds for supposing that, without that information, an unjustified saving in tax might exist or be granted in that other State.
Det er ikke nødvendigt, at formindskelsen udgør et større beløb.
In this context, it is not necessary for that saving to amount to a large sum.
Denne fortolkning bekræftes af direktivets generelle opbygning, hvorefter forpligtelsen til at
In the light of the answers given to the first and second questions, it is not necessary to answer the third question.
»Artikel 4, stk 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 77/799/EØF af 19. december 1977 om gensidig bistand mellem medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder inden for området direkte skatter, skal fortolkes således:
'Article 4(1 )(a) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation must be interpreted as follows:
— Det er ikke nødvendigt, at den i bestemmelsen omhandlede skattenedsættelse eller skattefritagelse er indeholdt i en udtrykkelig forvaltningsakt fra en anden medlemsstats kompetente myndighed
— it is not necessary for the loss of tax referred to therein to be covered by an express measure on the part of the competent authority of another Member State.
— Udtrykket 'unormal skattenedsættelse eller skattefritagelse' henviser til en uberettiget lavere skat i en anden medlemsstat.«
Member the expression 'a loss of tax* refers to an unjustified saving in tax in another State:
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet CFørste Afdeling) den 13. januar 2000.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 13 January 2000.
Sag C-348/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne
Case C-348/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Approximation of laws
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 96/9/EF — manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist« (Første Afdeling)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 9619/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
ved vedtagelsen af lovforslag nr. 4431 om ophavsrettigheder, beslægtede rettigheder og databaser, der er blevet forelagt Deputeretkammeret den 24. april 1998.
(First Chamber) neighbouring rights and databases which was submitted to the Chambre des Députés on 24 April 1998.
Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har derfor principalt påstået sagen udsat og subsidiært frifindelse, idet Kommissionen tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
The Luxembourg Government therefore requests that the Court of Justice stay proceedings and, in the alternative, dismiss the application and order the Commission to pay the costs.