natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It also decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Isto je tako odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`1. Can a citizen of the Union in the factual circumstances described in this judgment
„1. Može li građanin Unije koji se nalazi u okolnostima opisanima u ovoj presudi
who has temporary leave to reside,
koji ima privremenu boravišnu dozvolu,
does not have sufficient resources, -
koji ne raspolaže dostatnim sredstvima,
carries out work for the hostel to the extent of approximately 30 hours a week in the context of a personal reintegration programme,
koji obavlja radove za prihvatilište približno 30 sati tjedno u okviru individualnog programa integracije,
and receives in return benefits in kind which cover his basic needs at the hostel itself
koji u zamjenu za to prima davanja u naravi kojima pokriva svoje osnovne potrebe u prihvatilištu
claim a right of residence
zatražiti pravo boravka
as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC or Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68, - or as a worker pursuing an activity as a self-employed person within the meaning of Article 43 EC,
kao radnik u smislu članka 39. UEZ-a ili članka 7. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 1612/68, ili - kao radnik koji obavlja djelatnost samozaposlene osobe u smislu članka 43. UEZ-a, ili
- or as a person providing a service, in view of the tasks he performs at the hostel, or as a person for whom services are intended, in view of the benefits in kind granted to him by that hostel, within the meaning of Article 49 EC, -
kao pružatelj usluga, s obzirom na poslove koje obavlja u prihvatilištu, ili kao primatelj usluga, s obzirom na davanja u naravi koja mu daje to prihvatilište, u smislu članka 49. UEZ-a, ili -
or merely because he is taking part in a programme for his socio-occupational reintegration?
samo zato što sudjeluje u programu društvene i profesionalne integracije?
2. If not, can he rely directly on Article 18 EC, which guarantees the right to move and reside freely in the territory of another Member State of the Union, merely in his capacity as a European citizen?
2. Ako ne može, može li se pozvati izravno na članak 18. UEZ-a, kojim se jamči pravo slobodnog kretanja i boravka na državnom području druge države članice Unije, samo zato što je europski građanin?
What then becomes of the conditions laid down by Directive 90/364 ... and/or the "limitations and conditions" laid down in the EC Treaty, in particular the condition as to minimum resources which, if it were applied on entry to the host country, would deprive him of the very substance of the right of residence?
Što bi onda bilo s uvjetima utvrđenima Direktivom 90/364 [...] i/ili ,ograničenjima i uvjetima' utvrđenima Ugovorom o EZ-u, i posebno uvjetom minimalnih sredstava, na temelju kojeg, ako bi se primjenjivao pri ulasku u državu domaćina, bi mu bila uskraćena sama bit prava boravka?
If, on the other hand, the right of residence arises automatically on the basis of citizenship of the Union, could the host State subsequently refuse an application for the minimex or for social assistance (non-contributory benefits), curtailing his right of residence on the ground that he does not have sufficient resources, when those benefits are granted to nationals of the host country subject to conditions which Belgians too must satisfy (proof of their availability for work, proof that they are in need)?
Ako, naprotiv, pravo boravka automatski proizlazi iz građanstva Unije, može li država domaćin naknadno odbiti zahtjev za minimex ili socijalnu pomoć (nedoprinosna davanja) te time ograničiti njegovo pravo boravka zbog toga što on nema dostatna sredstva kada se navedena davanja dodjeljuju državljanima države domaćina pod uvjetima koje i Belgijanci moraju zadovoljiti (dokaz o spremnosti za rad - dokaz da im je potrebna pomoć)?
Must the host country comply with any other rules in order to avoid rendering meaningless the right of residence, such as a duty to assess the situation in the light of the fact that the application for the minimex or for social assistance is temporary, or to take into account the principle of proportionality (would the burden on the State in question be unreasonable)?'
Treba li država domaćin poštovati druga pravila kako ne bi oduzela smisao pravu boravka, kao što je obveza da procijeni situaciju s obzirom na činjenicu da je zahtjev za minimex ili za socijalnu pomoć privremen, ili kako bi uzela u obzir načelo proporcionalnosti (bi li teret za ovu državu bio prekomjeran)?"
13 By its first question, the national court essentially asks whether a person in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings can claim a right of residence as a worker, a self-employed person or a provider or recipient of services, within the meaning of Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.
13 Svojim prvim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita može li osoba u situaciji kao što je ona tužitelja u glavnom postupku zatražiti pravo boravka kao radnik, kao samozaposlena osoba ili pružatelj odnosno primatelj usluga u smislu članaka 39., 43. i 49. UEZ-a.
14 In the context of freedom of movement for workers, it should be recalled that Article 39(3)(c) EC grants nationals of the Member States the right of residence in the territory of a Member State for the purpose of employment.
14 U okviru slobode kretanja radnika valja podsjetiti da se člankom 39. stavkom 3. točkom (c) UEZ-a državljanima država članica dodjeljuje pravo boravka na državnom području države članice radi zapošljavanja.
15 As the Court has held, the concept of `worker' within the meaning of Article 39 EC has a specific Community meaning and must not be interpreted narrowly. Any person who pursues activities which are real and genuine, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, must be regarded as a `worker'.
15 Kao to je Sud presudio, pojam „radnik" u smislu članka 39. UEZ-a je pojam Zajednice i ne treba ga tumačiti restriktivno. „Radnikom" treba smatrati svaku osobu koja obavlja stvarne i efektivne djelatnosti, osim djelatnosti toliko ograničenog opsega da ih se može smatrati samo marginalnima i akcesornima.
The essential feature of an employment relationship is, according to that case-law, that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration (see, in particular, Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR 2121, paragraphs 16 and 17, and Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 26).
Prema navedenoj sudskoj praksi, karakteristika je radnog odnosa da osoba tijekom određenoga razdoblja za drugu osobu i pod njezinim vodstvom obavlja poslove za koje dobiva naknadu (posebno vidjeti presude od 3. srpnja 1986., Lawrie-Blum, 66/85, Zb., str. 2121., t. 16. i 17., i od 23. ožujka 2004., Collins, C-138/02, Zb., str. I-2703., t. 26.).
16 Moreover, neither the sui generis nature of the employment relationship under national law, nor the level of productivity of the person concerned, the origin of the funds from which the remuneration is paid or the limited amount of the remuneration can have any consequence in regard to whether or not the person is a worker for the purposes of Community law (see Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035, paragraph 16; Case 344/87 Bettray [1989] ECR 1621, paragraphs 15 and 16; and Case C-188/00 Kurz [2002] ECR I-10691, paragraph 32).
16 sim toga, pravna priroda sui generis radnog odnosa s obzirom na nacionalno pravo kao i veća ili manja produktivnost zainteresirane osobe, podrijetlo sredstava za plaćanje ili ograničena razina naknade ne mogu utjecati na to je li osoba radnik u smislu prava Zajednice (vidjeti presude od 23. ožujka 1982., Levin, 53/81, Zb., str. 1035., t. 16., od 31. svibnja 1989., Bettray, 344/87, Zb., str.. 1621., t. 15. i 16., i od 19. studenoga 2002., Kurz, C-188/00, Zb., str. I-10691., t. 32.).
17 With respect more particularly to establishing whether the condition of the pursuit of real and genuine activity for remuneration is satisfied, the national court must base its examination on objective criteria and make an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the case relating to the nature both of the activities concerned and of the employment relationship at issue (see Case C-413/01 Ninni-Orasche [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 27).
17 Posebno u pogledu provjeravanja uvjeta u vezi s obavljanjem stvarne i učinkovite djelatnosti uz naknadu, sud koji je uputio zahtjev treba temeljiti svoje ispitivanje na objektivnim kriterijima i dati opću ocjenu svih okolnosti predmeta koji utječu na prirodu predmetnih djelatnosti i radnog odnosa o kojem je riječ (vidjeti presudu od 6. studenoga 2003., Ninni-Orasche, C-413/01, Zb., str. I-13187., t. 27.).
18 In this respect, the Court has held that activities cannot be regarded as a real and genuine economic activity if they constitute merely a means of rehabilitation or reintegration for the persons concerned (Bettray, paragraph 17).
18 U tom je pogledu Sud presudio da se djelatnosti ne mogu smatrati stvarnim i učinkovitim gospodarskim djelatnostima ako za dotične osobe predstavljaju samo sredstvo rehabilitacije ili integracije (gore navedena presuda Bettray, t. 17.).
19 However, that conclusion can be explained only by the particular characteristics of the case in question, which concerned the situation of a person who, by reason of his addiction to drugs, had been recruited on the basis of a national law intended to provide work for persons who, for an indefinite period, are unable, by reason of circumstances related to their situation, to work under normal conditions (see, to that effect, Case C-1/97 Birden [1998] ECR I-7747, paragraphs 30 and 31).
19 Međutim, taj se zaključak može objasniti samo posebnim značajkama slučaja o kojem je riječ, koji se odnosi na situaciju osobe koja je zbog svoje ovisnosti o drogama bila zaposlena na temelju nacionalnog propisa čija je namjena osigurati posao osobama koje zbog osobnih okolnosti neodređeno vrijeme ne mogu raditi u uobičajenim uvjetima (u tom smislu vidjeti presudu od 26. studenoga 1998., Birden, C-1/97, Zb., str. I-7747., t. 30. i 31.).
20 In the present case, as is apparent from the decision making the reference, Mr Trojani performs, for the Salvation Army and under its direction, various jobs for approximately 30 hours a week, as part of a personal reintegration programme, in return for which he receives benefits in kind and some pocket money.
20 Kao što proizlazi iz odluke kojom se upućuje prethodno pitanje, M. Trojani u ovom predmetu obavlja različite poslove za Vojsku spasa pod njezinim vodstvom približno 30 sati tjedno u okviru osobnog programa integracije te u zamjenu za to dobiva davanja u naravi i nešto džeparca.
21 Under the relevant provisions of the decree of the Commission communautaire française of 27 May 1999 on the grant of authorisation and subsidies to hostels (Moniteur belge, 18 June 1999, p. 23101), the Salvation Army has the task of receiving, accommodating and providing psycho-social assistance appropriate to the recipients in order to promote their autonomy, physical well-being and reintegration in society.
21 U skladu s relevantnim odredbama Dekreta Commission communautaire française od 27. svibnja 1999. o dodjeli odobrenja i subvencija prihvatilištima (Moniteur belge od 18. lipnja 1999., str. 23101.), Vojska spasa ima zadaću primiti i smjestiti primatelje te im osigurati odgovarajuću psihosocijalnu pomoć radi promicanja njihove samostalnosti, fizičke dobrobiti i integracije u društvo.
For that purpose it must agree with each person concerned a personal reintegration programme setting out the objectives to be attained and the means to be employed to attain them.
S tim ciljem ona mora sa svakim primateljem sklopiti osobni program integracije kojim se utvrđuju ciljevi koje bi ta osoba trebala postići te sredstva kojima će se koristiti za njihovo ostvarenje.
22 Having established that the benefits in kind and money provided by the Salvation Army to Mr Trojani constitute the consideration for the services performed by him for and under the direction of the hostel, the national court has thereby established the existence of the constituent elements of any paid employment relationship, namely subordination and the payment of remuneration.
22 Ustanovivši da davanja u naravi i gotovini koja Vojska spasa daje M. Trojaniju predstavljaju naknadu za usluge koje on pod njezinim vodstvom pruža prihvatilištu, sud koji je uputio zahtjev time je utvrdio postojanje elemenata koji čine sastavni dio svakog plaćenog radnog odnosa, odnosno odnosa podređenosti i plaćanja naknade.
23 For the claimant in the main proceedings to have the status of worker, however, the national court, in the assessment of the facts which is within its exclusive jurisdiction, would have to establish that the paid activity in question is real and genuine.
23 Međutim, da bi tužitelj u glavnom postupku imao status radnika, sud koji je uputio zahtjev trebao bi pri ocjenjivanju činjenica koje je u njegovoj isključivoj nadležnosti utvrditi da je dotična plaćena djelatnost stvarna i učinkovita.
24 The national court must in particular ascertain whether the services actually performed by Mr Trojani are capable of being regarded as forming part of the normal labour market.
24 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev mora posebno provjeriti mogu li se usluge koje stvarno pruža M. Trojani smatrati takvima koje se uobičajeno obavljaju na tržištu rada.
For that purpose, account may be taken of the status and practices of the hostel, the content of the social reintegration programme, and the nature and details of performance of the services.
Zato se mogu uzeti u obzir statut i prakse prihvatilišta, sadržaj programa socijalne integracije te priroda i načini pružanja usluga.
25 On the question of the applicability of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, it must be stated that, in the case at issue in the main proceedings, neither of those provisions of the EC Treaty may be relied on as a legal basis for a right of residence.
25 Što se tiče primjenjivosti članaka 43. i 49. UEZ-a, valja utvrditi da se u predmetu u glavnom postupku nije moguće pozvati ni na jednu od tih odredaba Ugovora o EZ-u kao na pravnu osnovu za pravo boravka.
26 As may be seen from paragraph 20 above, Mr Trojani performs services on a continuing basis for and under the direction of the Salvation Army, in return for which he receives a remuneration.
26 Zapravo, i kako se može vidjeti iz točke 20. ove presude, M. Trojani kontinuirano pruža usluge Vojsci spasa pod njezinim vodstvom i u zamjenu za to prima naknadu.
27 Now, first, the freedom of establishment provided for in Articles 43 EC to 48 EC, includes only the right to take up and pursue all types of self-employed activity, to set up and manage undertakings, and to set up agencies, branches or subsidiaries (see, in particular, Case C-255/97 Pfeiffer [1999] ECR I-2835, paragraph 18, and Case C-79/01 Payroll and Others [2002] ECR I-8923, paragraph 24).
27 S jedne strane, pravo poslovnog nastana predviđeno člancima 43. i 48. UEZ-a uključuje samo pristup svim vrstama samostalnih djelatnosti i njihovo obavljanje, te osnivanje trgovačkih društava i upravljanje njima, osnivanje agencija, podružnica ili društava kćeri (posebno vidjeti presude od 11. svibnja 1999., Pfeiffer, C-255/97, Zb., str. I-2835., t. 18., i od 17. listopada 2002., Payroll i dr., C-79/01, Zb., str. I-8923., t. 24.).
Paid activities are therefore excluded.
Plaćene su djelatnosti dakle isključene.
28 Second, according to the settled case-law of the Court, an activity carried out on a permanent basis, or at least without a foreseeable limit to its duration, does not fall within the Community provisions concerning the provision of services (see Case 196/87 Steymann [1988] ECR 6159, paragraph 16, and Case C-215/01 Schnitzer [2003] I-0000, paragraphs 27 to 29).
28 S druge strane, u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom Suda, djelatnost koja se obavlja trajno ili za koju nije predviđeno ograničenje trajanja nije obuhvaćena odredbama prava Zajednice koje se odnose na pružanje usluga (vidjeti presude od 5. listopada 1988., Steymann, 196/87, Zb., str. 6159., t. 16., i od 11. prosinca 2003., Schnitzer, C-215/01, Zb., str. I-14847., t. 27. do 29.).
29 In those circumstances, the answer to the first question must be that a person in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings, first, does not come under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and, second, can claim a right of residence as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC only if the paid activity he carries out is real and genuine.
29 U tim okolnostima na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da osoba u situaciji kao što je ona tužitelja u glavnom postupku nije, s jedne strane, obuhvaćena člancima 43. i 49. UEZ-a i, s druge strane, može zatražiti pravo boravka kao radnik u smislu članka 39. UEZ-a samo ako je plaćena djelatnost koju obavlja stvarna i učinkovita.
It is for the national court to carry out the examinations of fact necessary to determine whether that is so in the case pending before it.
Sud koji je uputio zahtjev dužan je razmotriti činjenice kako bi procijenio je li to tako u predmetu koji se pred njim vodi.
30 By its second question, the national court essentially asks whether, if the first question is answered in the negative, a person in the situation of the claimant in the main proceedings may, simply by virtue of being a citizen of the European Union, enjoy a right of residence in the host Member State by the direct application of Article 18 EC.
30 Svojim drugim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita može li, ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje negativan, osoba u situaciji tužitelja u glavnom postupku jednostavno kao građanin Europske unije ostvariti pravo boravka u državi članici domaćinu izravnom primjenom članka 18. UEZ-a.
31 It must be recalled that the right to reside in the territory of the Member States is conferred directly on every citizen of the Union by Article 18(1) EC (see Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, paragraph 84).
31 Valja podsjetiti da je pravo boravka na državnom području država članica izravno priznato svakom građaninu Unije člankom 18. stavkom 1. UEZ-a (vidjeti presudu od 17. rujna 2002., Baumbast i R, C-413/99, Zb., str. I-7091., t. 84.).
Mr Trojani therefore has the right to rely on that provision of the Treaty simply as a citizen of the Union.
Stoga M. Trojani ima pravo pozvati se na ovu odredbu Ugovora samim time što je građanin Unije.
32 That right is not unconditional, however.
32 Međutim, to pravo nije bezuvjetno.
It is conferred subject to the limitations and conditions laid down by the Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.
Ono se dodjeljuje uz ograničenja i uvjete predviđene Ugovorom i odredbama donesenim za njegovu primjenu.
33 Among those limitations and conditions, it follows from Article 1 of Directive 90/364 that Member States can require of the nationals of a Member State who wish to enjoy the right to reside within their territory that they themselves and the members of their families be covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of that State during their period of residence.
33 Među tim ograničenjima i uvjetima, iz članka 1. Direktive 90/364 proizlazi da države članice od državljanina države članice koji želi ostvariti pravo boravka na njihovom državnom području mogu zahtijevati da oni sami i članovi njihovih obitelji budu sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osigurani u državi članici domaćinu i da imaju dostatna sredstva da ne postanu teret sustavu socijalne pomoći dotične države članice tijekom svog boravka.
34 As the Court has previously held, those limitations and conditions must be applied in compliance with the limits imposed by Community law and in accordance with the general principles of that law, in particular the principle of proportionality (Baumbast and R, paragraph 91).
34 Kako je Sud već presudio, navedena se ograničenja i uvjeti moraju primjenjivati u skladu s ograničenjima određenima pravom Zajednice i u skladu s općim načelima tog prava, posebno načelom proporcionalnosti (gore navedena presuda Baumbast i R, t. 91.).
35 It follows from the judgment making the reference that a lack of resources was precisely the reason why Mr Trojani sought to receive a benefit such as the minimex.
35 Iz odluke kojom se upućuje zahtjev za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da je upravo nedostatak sredstava bio razlog zašto je M. Trojani zatražio primanje davanja kao što je minimex.
36 In those circumstances, a citizen of the Union in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings does not derive from Article 18 EC the right to reside in the territory of a Member State of which he is not a national, for want of sufficient resources within the meaning of Directive 90/364.
36 U tim okolnostima građanin Unije u situaciji kao što je ona tužitelja u glavnom postupku ne ostvaruje na temelju članka 18. UEZ-a pravo boravka na državnom području države članice čiji on nije državljanin zbog nedostatka sredstava u smislu Direktive 90/364.
Contrary to the circumstances of the case of Baumbast and R (paragraph 92), there is no indication that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the failure to recognise that right would go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by that directive.
Suprotno okolnostima na temelju kojih je donesena gore navedena presuda Baumbast i R (točka 92.), nema nikakve naznake da bi u situaciji poput one u glavnom postupku nepriznavanje tog prava prelazilo ono što je nužno za ostvarenje cilja te direktive.
37 However, it must be observed that, according to information put before the Court, Mr Trojani is lawfully resident in Belgium, as is attested by the residence permit which has in the meantime been issued to him by the municipal authorities of Brussels.
37 Međutim, valja napomenuti da u skladu s informacijama predstavljenima Sudu M. Trojani zakonito boravi u Belgiji, što je potvrđeno boravišnom dozvolom koju su mu u međuvremenu izdala upravna tijela u Bruxellesu.
38 It should be recalled here that it is for the Court to provide the national court with all those elements for the interpretation of Community law which may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has specifically referred to them in its questions (see inter alia, to that effect, Case C-241/89 SARPP [1990] ECR I-4695, paragraph 8; Case C-315/92 Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (`Clinique') [1994] ECR I-317, paragraph 9; and Case C-87/97 Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola [1999] ECR I-1301, paragraph 16).
38 Ovdje valja podsjetiti da je dužnost Suda da nacionalnom sudu pruži sve elemente za tumačenje prava Zajednice koji bi mogli biti korisni za donošenje odluke u postupku koji se pred njim vodi, neovisno o tome navodi li ih nacionalni sud u svojim pitanjima (u tom smislu posebno vidjeti presude od 12. prosinca 1990., SARPP, C-241/89, Zb., str. I-4695., t. 8., od 2. veljače 1994., Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb, „Clinique", C-315/92, Zb., str. I-317., t. 7., i od 4. ožujka 1999., Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, C-87/97, Zb., str. I-1301., t. 16.).
39 In the context of the present case, it should be examined more particularly whether, despite the conclusion in paragraph 36 above, a citizen of the Union in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings may rely on Article 12 EC, under which, within the scope of application of the Treaty and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, all discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited.
39 U okviru ovog predmeta posebno valja ispitati može li se, usprkos zaključku iz točke 36. ove presude, građanin Unije u situaciji kao što je ona tužitelja u glavnom postupku pozvati na članak 12. UEZ-a, u skladu s kojim se u području primjene Ugovora i ne dovodeći pritom u pitanje njegove posebne odredbe, zabranjuje svaka diskriminacija na temelju državljanstva.