natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dette ville have været tilfældet, såfremt Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop havde haft ophold i Frankrig for dér at gennemføre en erhvervsuddannelse.
Such would have been the case if Ms D'Hoop had resided in France in order to follow a course of vocational training there.
Dette er derimod ikke tilfældet for så vidt angår de generelle studier, som Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop har gennemført i Frankrig.
Such is not, by contrast, true of the general course of study which Ms D'Hoop pursued in France.
Det tidsmæssige anvendelsesområde for traktatens bestemmelser om unionsborgerskabet
By its question, the national court seeks essentially to ascertain whether Community law precludes a Member State from refusing to grant the tideover allowance to one of its nationals, a student seeking her first employment, on the sole ground that that student completed her secondary education in another Member State.
Anvendelse af n-aktarens artikel 48 og forordning nr. 1612/68
Applicability of Article 48 of the Treaty and of Regulation No 1612/68
Til besvarelse af et spørgsmål, hun blev stillet under retsmødet, har Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop oplyst, at hendes forældre blev boende i Belgien, mens hun gennemførte og afsluttede sin videregående skoleuddannelse i Frankrig.
In answer to a question raised at the hearing, Ms D'Hoop stated that her parents continued to reside in Belgium while she pursued and completed her secondary education in France.
ONEM har begrundet sit afslag på at tildele Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop de ungdomsarbejdsløshedsydelser, som hun søgte om i 1996, med den omstændighed, at hun havde afsluttet sin videregående skoleuddannelse i Frankrig.
The reason given by ONEM for its refusal to grant Ms D'Hoop the tideover allowance which she applied for in 1996 was that she had completed her secondary education in France.
Da dette fandt sted i 1991, skal der ske en prøvelse af spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den forskelsbehandling, som Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop har gjort gældende, at hun har været udsat for, kan vurderes under hensyn til bestemmelserne om unionsborgerskab, der er trådt i kraft efterfølgende.
Since that event took place in 1991, the question arises whether the discrimination alleged by Ms D'Hoop can be assessed in the light of the provisions on citizenship of the Union which entered into force subsequently.
Det følger heraf, at Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop hverken kan påberåbe sig de rettigheder, som vandrende arbejdstagere har i medfør af traktatens artikel 48 og forordning nr. 1612/68, eller de afledte rettigheder, som familiemedlemmer til sådanne arbejdstagere har i henhold til denne forordning.
It follows that Ms D'Hoop cannot rely on either the rights conferred by Article 48 of the Treaty and Regulation No 1612/68 on migrant workers or the derived rights which that regulation confers on members of the families of such workers.
Den vedrører derimod en påstand om aktuel forskelsbehandling af en unionsborger.
Applicability of the Treaty provisions on citizenship of the Union
Bestemmelserne vedrørende unionsborgerskabet finder anvendelse fra ikrafttrædelsestidspunktet.
The provisions on citizenship of the Union are applicable as soon as they enter into force.
Det må således antages, at de skal anvendes på nuværende virkninger af situationer, der er opstået tidligere (jf. i denne retning dom af
Therefore they must be applied to the present effects of situations arising previously (see, to that effect, Case C-195/98 Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund [2000], paragraphs 54 and 55, and Case C-290/00 Duchon [2002], paragraphs 43 and 44).
Under retsmødet har Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop og Kommissionen set det spørgsmål, der er forelagt for Domstolen, i lyset af traktatens bestemmelser om unionsborgerskabet.
At the hearing Ms D'Hoop and the Commission examined the question referred to the Court in the light of the Treaty provisions on citizenship of the Union.
De har gjort gældende, at Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop som statsborger i en medlemsstat, der lovligt har haft ophold på en anden medlemsstats område for dér at gennemføre studier, er omfattet af det personelle anvendelsesområde for disse bestemmelser.
They argued that, as a national of a Member State who resided lawfully on the territory of another Member State in order to pursue her studies there, Ms D'Hoop falls within the scope ratione personae of those provisions.
Ifølge dem kan hun derfor påberåbe sig de rettigheder,
On that basis, in their submission, Ms D'Hoop enjoys the rights that Article 8 of the EC Treaty
Det personelle og materielle anvendelsesområde for traktatens bestemmelser om unionsborgerskabet
In situations such as that in the main proceedings, national legislation introduces a difference in treatment between Belgian nationals who have had all their secondary education in Belgium and those who, having availed themselves of their freedom to move, have obtained their diploma of completion of secondary education in another Member State.
Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop har denne status, idet hun er statsborger i en medlemsstat.
By linking the grant of tideover allowances to the condition of having obtained the required diploma in Belgium, the national legislation thus places at a disadvantage certain of its nationals simply because they have exercised their freedom to move in order to pursue education in another Member State.
Denne betragtning er særlig vigtig inden for uddannelsesområdet. Blandt målene for Fællesskabets virke nævnes i EF-traktatens artikel 3, litra p) [efter ændring nu artikel 3, stk. 1, litra q), EF], bidrag til kvalitetsuddannelser.
The situations falling within the scope of Community law include those involving the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, in particular those involving the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, as conferred by Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment.
Dette bidrag skal i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 126, stk. 2, andet led (nu artikel 149, stk. 2, andet led, EF), bl.a. begunstige studerendes og læreres mobilitet.
Article 18 EC) (Case C-274/96 Bickel and Franz [1998], paragraphs 15 and 16, and Grzelcz\ > k, paragraph 33).
Den nationale lovgivning indebærer imidlertid for situationer som den i hovedsagen en forskelsbehandling mellem belgiske statsborgere, der har gennemført hele deres videregående skoleuddannelse i Belgien, og dem, der, idet de har udnyttet deres ret til fri bevægelighed, har opnået deres gymnasieeksamensbevis i en anden medlemsstat.
Such inequality of treatment is contrary to the principles which underpin the status of citizen of the Union, that is, the guarantee of the same treatment in law in the exercise of the citizen's freedom to move.
Unionsborgerskabets formål er at skabe den grundlæggende status for medlemsstaternes statsborgere, idet det gør det muligt for dem blandt sidstnævnte, som befinder sig i samme situation, inden for traktatens materielle anvendelsesområde at blive undergivet samme retlige behandling, uanset deres nationalitet og med forbehold af udtrykkeligt fastsatte undtagelser i denne henseende (dom af 20.9.2001, sag C-184/99, Grzelczyk, præmis 31).
The condition at issue could be justified only if it were based on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and were proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions (Bickel and Franz, paragraph 27).
Blandt de situationer, der henhører under fællesskabsrettens anvendelsesområde, er de, der er knyttet til udøvelsen af de ved traktaten sikrede grundlæggende friheder, bl.a. de, der er knyttet til udøvelsen af retten til at færdes og opholde sig på medlemsstaternes område i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 8 A (efter ændring nu artikel 18 EF) (jf. dom af 24.11.1998, sag C-274/96, Bickel og Franz, præmis 15 og 16, og Grzelczyk-dommen, præmis 33).
In that a citizen of the Union must be granted in all Member States the same treatment in law as that accorded to the nationals of those Member States who find themselves in the same situation, it would be incompatible with the right of freedom of movement were a citizen, in the Member State of which he is a national, to receive treatment less favourable than he would enjoy if he had not availed himself of the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement.
En sådan forskelsbehandling er i strid med de principper, der ligger til grund for unionsborgerskabet, nemlig princippet om, at unionsborgerne skal tilsikres den samme retlige behandling under udøvelsen af deres ret til fri bevægelighed.
In such a context it is legitimate for the national legislature to wish to ensure that there is a real link between the applicant for that allowance and the geographic employment market concerned.
Den her omhandlede betingelse vil kun kunne være begrundet, såfremt den er uafhængig af de berørte personers nationalitet og står i rimeligt forhold til det formål, der lovligt tilstræbes med den nationale lovgivning (Bickel og Franzdommen, præmis 27).
Those opportunities could not be fully effective if a national of a Member State could be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles raised on his return to his country of origin by legislation penalising the fact that he has used them (see, to that effect. Case C-370/90 Singh [1992], paragraph 23).
Hertil har hverken den belgiske regering eller ONEM fremsat bemærkninger.
The objectives set for the activities of the Community include, in Article 3(p) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
hvor den pågældende har opnået bevis for at have afsluttet en videregående skoleuddannelse, har imidlertid en alt for generel og ensidig karakter.
which is not necessarily representative of the real and effective degree of connection between the applicant for the tideover allowance and the geographic employment market, to the exclusion
»Fællesskabsretten er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat giver en af sine egne statsborgere, der er studerende og søger arbejde for første gang, afslag på ungdomsarbejdsløshedsydelser med den ene begrundelse, at den pågældende har afsluttet sin videregående skoleuddannelse i en anden medlemsstat.*
'Community law precludes a Member Stale from refusing to grant the tideover allowance to one of its nationals, a student seeking her first employment, on the sole ground that that student completed her secondary education in another Member State. '
Generaladvokat L.A. Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 21. februar 2002.
Advocate General L.A. Geelhoed delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 21 February 2002.
Præjudiciel »Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser artikel 49 EF — direktiv 73/148/EØF — statsborger i en medlemsstat, der er etableret i den pågældende medlemsstat, og som leverer tjenesteydelser til personer etableret i andre medlemsstater — opholdsret i den pågældende medlemsstat foten ægtefælle, der er statsborger i et tredjeland* (Domstolens plenum)
Preliminary ruling (Freedom to provide sendees — Article 49 EC — Directive 73/148/EEC — National of a Member State established in that State and providing sendees to persons established in other Member States - Right of residence in that State of a spouse who is a national of a third country) (Full Court)
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en retssag, der føres mellem Mary Carpenter, der er filippinsk statsborger, og Secretary of State for the Home Department (herefter »Secretary of State«) vedrørende Mary Carpenters ret til at opholde sig i Det Forenede Kongerige.
The question was raised in proceedings between Mrs Carpenter, a national of the Philippines, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (hereinafter 'the Secretary of State') concerning her right to reside in the United Kingdom.
Mary Carpenter indbragte beslutningen om udvisning for Immigration Adjudicator (Det Forenede Kongerige), idet hun gjorde gældende, at Secretary of State ikke var berettiget til at udvise hende, fordi hun havde ret til at opholde sig i Det Forenede Kongerige i kraft af fællesskabsretten.
Adjudicator (United Kingdom), arguing that the Secretary of State was not entitled to deport her because she was entitled to a right to remain in the United Kingdom under Community law.
Hun anførte endvidere, at hendes mand, der som led i sin erhvervsvirksomhed må rejse rundt i andre medlemsstater for at levere og modtage tjenesteydelser, har haft lettere ved dette, efter at Mary Carpenter nu passer hans børn fra et tidligere ægteskab. Udvisningen af fru Carpenter ville således indebære en begrænsning i hendes mands ret til at levere og modtage tjenesteydelser.
She maintained that since her husband's business required him to travel around in other Member States, providing and receiving services, he could do so more easily as she was looking after his children from his first marriage, so that her deportation would restrict her husband's right to provide and receive services.
Mary Carpenter, der er filippinsk statsborger, fik den 18. september 1994 tilladelse til at indrejse i Det Forenede Kongerige som turist (»visitor«) i seks måneder.
Mrs Carpenter, a national of the Philippines, was given leave to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor on 18 September 1994 for six months.
Hun forblev i Det Forenede Kongerige efter periodens udløb og ansøgte ikke om forlængelse af opholdstilladelsen.
She overstayed that leave and failed to apply for any extension of her stay.
Den 22. maj 1996 indgik hun ægteskab med Peter Carpenter, der er britisk statsborger.
On 22 May 1996 she married Peter Carpenter, a United Kingdom national.
Immigration Adjudicator antog endvidere, at hun kunne være indirekte ansvarlig for fremgangen i sin mands virksomhed, og at han var tjenesteyder i fællesskabsretlig forstand.
He also accepted that she could be indirectly responsible for the increased success of her husband's business and that her husband was a provider of services for the purposes of Community law.
Ifølge Immigration Adjudicator har Peter Carpenter ret til frit at rejse til andre medlemsstater for dér at levere tjenesteydelser samt ret til herunder at være ledsaget af sin ægtefælle.
According to the Immigration Adjudicator, Mr Carpenter has the right to travel to other Member States to provide services and to be accompanied for that purpose by his spouse.
Han kan imidlertid ikke anses for at udøve nogen ret til fri bevægelighed i fællesskabsretlig forstand, når han er bosiddende i Det Forenede Kongerige.
However, while he is resident in the United Kingdom, he cannot be considered to be exercising any freedom of movement within the meaning of Community law.
Ved afgørelse af 10. juni 1998 afviste Immigration Adjudicator Mary Carpenters klage.
The Immigration Adjudicator therefore dismissed Mrs Carpenter's appeal by decision of 10 June 1998.
Det fremgår af forelæggelseskendelsen, at Peter Carpenter driver en virksomhed, der sælger reklameplads i medicinske og andre videnskabelige tidsskrifter, og som tilbyder udgiverne af sådanne tidsskrifter forskellige administrative ydelser og ydelser vedrørende forlagsvirksomhed.
It appears from the order for reference that Mr Carpenter runs a business selling advertising space in medical and scientific journals and offering various administrative and publishing services to the editors of those journals.
Virksomheden er etableret i Det Forenede Kongerige, hvor også udgiverne af de tidsskrifter, han sælger reklameplads i, har hjemsted.
The business is established in the UK, where the publishers of the journals for which he sells advertising space are based.
En stor del af virksomhedens forretninger drives med annoncører i andre EF-medlemsstater.
A significant proportion of the business is conducted with advertisers established in other Member States of the European Community.
Peter Carpenter foretager endvidere forretningsrejser til andre medlemsstater.
Mr Carpenter travels to other Member States for the purpose of his business.
Den 15. juli 1996 indgav Mary Carpenter ansøgning til Secretary of State om opholdstilladelse i Det Forenede Kongerige i sin egenskab af ægtefælle til en statsborger i denne medlemsstat.
On 15 July 1996 Mrs Carpenter applied to the Secretary of State for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a national of that Member State.
Ansøgningen blev afslået af Secretary of State ved afgørelse af 21. juli 1997.
Her application was refused by a decision of the Secretary of State of 21 July 1997.
I beslutningen opfordres hun til frivilligt at forlade
Under that decision it is open to Mrs Carpenter to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily.
Mary Carpenter appellerede denne afgørelse til Immigration Appeal Tribunal, der fandt, at det fællesskabsretlige spørgsmål, som var rejst under sagen for denne instans, vedrørte spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt det er i strid med fællesskabsretten og særligt artikel 49 EF og/eller direktivet, at Secretary of State afslår at meddele Mary Carpenter opholdstilladelse og beslutter at udvise hende, når Peter Carpenter udøver sin ret til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser i andre medlemsstater, og når Mary Carpenter ved børnepasning og arbejde i hjemmet indirekte
Since it considered that the case turned on the interpretation of Community law, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
bistår sin mand og hjælper ham med at udøve sine rettigheder i henhold til artikel 49 EF, idet hun yder ham en økonomisk støtte, således at han kan bruge mere tid på sin forretning.
'In circumstances where: within its territory'; and Article 4(2) of the Directive, whereby, '[t]he right of residence for persons providing and receiving services shall be of equal duration with the period during which the services are provided'.
Da Immigration Appeal Tribunal fandt, at en fortolkning af fællesskabsretten var nødvendig for at afgøre sagen, besluttede retten at udsætte den og forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
(a) a national of a Member State, who is established in that Member Stale and who provides services to persons in other Member States; and
Rådets direktiv 73/148/EØF af 21. maj 1973 om ophævelse af rejseog opholdsbegrænsninger inden for Fællesskabet for statsborgere i medlemsstaterne med hensyn til etablering og udveksling af tjenesteydelser,
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,
Direktivets artikel 1, stk. 1, litra c), udstrækker ganske vist retten til at indrejse og opholde sig i en anden medlemsstat til ægtefællerne til de EF-statsborgere, der er omhandlet i artiklens litra a) og b), uden hensyn til disses nationalitet.
It is true that Article l(l)(c) of the Directive extends to the spouses of the Member States' nationals referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that article the right to enter and reside in another Member State, irrespective of their nationality.
Da direktivet imidlertid har til formål at lette medlemsstaternes statsborgeres udøvelse af etableringsfriheden og retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, er disse statsborgeres ægtefæller blevet tildelt disse rettigheder med henblik på, at de skal kunne ledsage deres ægtefæller, når disse i forbindelse med en rejse til eller et ophold i en anden medlemsstat end deres oprindelsesmedlemsstat udøver de rettigheder, som de er blevet tillagt i henhold til traktaten, under de betingelser, der er fastsat i direktivet.
But, in so far as the Directive aims to facilitate the exercise by Member States' nationals of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, the rights were accorded to their spouses so that they can accompany them when they exercise, in the circumstances provided for by the Directive, the rights which they derive from the Treaty by moving to or residing in a Member State other than their Member State of origin.
påberåbe sig ret til at tage ophold sammen med sin ægtefælle i dennes oprindelsesmedlemsstat?
to provide the non-national spouse with the right to reside with his or her spouse in his or her spouse's Member State of origin?
Vil det forelagte spørgsmål skulle besvares på en anden måde, hvis ægtefællen, som ikke er statsborger i en medlemsstat, indirekte ved børnepasning bistår den pågældende statsborger i en medlemsstat i at levere tjenesteydelser i andre medlemsstater?«
Is the answer to the question referred different if the non-national spouse indirectly assists the national of a Member State in carrying on the provision of services in other Member States by carrying out childcare?'
Det følger således dels af det formål, der forfølges med direktivet, og dels af dets indhold, at det fastsætter betingelserne for, at en statsborger i en medlemsstat, samt de øvrige personer, der er omfattet af artikel 1, stk. 1, litra c) og d), kan forlade den pågældende statsborgers oprindelsesmedlemsstat og indrejse og opholde sig på en anden medlemsstats område, i et af de øjemed, der er anført i artikel 1, stk. 1, litra a) og b), i den periode, der er angivet i direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1 og 2.
It follows both from the objective of the Directive and the wording of Article l(l)(a) and (b) thereof, that it applies to cases where nationals of Member States leave their Member State of origin and move to another Member State in order to establish themselves there, or to provide services in that State, or to receive services there.
Da direktivet således ikke regulerer retten til ophold for familiemedlemmerne til en tjenesteyder i dennes oprindelsesmedlemsstat, afhænger svaret på det præjudicielle spørgsmål herefter af, om der i en situation som den i hovedsagen foreliggende kan udledes en opholdsret for ægtefællen af fællesskabsrettens
That interpretation is borne out, in particular, by Article 2(1) of the Directive, whereby 'Member States shall grant the persons referred to in Article 1 the right to leave their territory'; Article 3(1), whereby 'Member States shall grant to the persons referred to in Article 1 the right to enter their territory merely on production of a valid identity card or passport'; Article 4(1), whereby '[e]ach Member State shall grant the right of permanent residence to nationals of other Member States who establish themselves
af andre principper eller fællesskabsbestemmelser.
European Act and by Article 6(2) EU, are protected in Community law.
Som fastslået ovenfor udøver Peter Carpenter sin ret til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser i medfør af artikel 49 EF.
Even though no right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country is as such guaranteed by the Convention, the removal of a person from a country where close members of his family are living may amount to an infringement of the right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8(1) of the Convention.
De tjenesteydelser, der leveres af Peter Carpenter, udgør en stor del af hans erhvervsmæssige aktiviteter, der dels udføres i hans oprindelsesmedlemsstat over for personer, der er etableret i andre medlemsstater, og dels i de medlemsstater, hvor disse sidstnævnte er etableret.
Such an interference will infringe the Convention if it does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2 of that article, that is unless it is 'in accordance with the law', motivated by one or more of the legitimate aims under that paragraph and 'necessary in a democratic society', that is to say justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, in particular, Boultif\ Switzerland, no. 54273/00, §§ 39, 41 and 46, ECHR 2001-IX).
Beslutningen om at udvise Mary Carpenter udgør en indgriben i Peter Carpenters udøvelse af hans ret til respekt for familielivet i henhold til artikel 8 i konventionen om beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, der blev undertegnet i Rom den 4. november 1950 (herefter »konventionen«).
It is clear that the separation of Mr and Mrs Carpenter would be detrimental to their family life and, therefore, to the conditions under which Mr Carpenter exercises a fundamental freedom.