natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
b. If Directive 73/148 is to be interpreted as meaning that lawful residence within the Community is a requirement in order for a relative of a citizen of the Union, who is a national of a non-Member State, to be able to claim the right to permanent residence under the directive, does that then imply that the relative is to hold a current residence permit valid for or intended to lead to permanent residence in one of the Member States?
b. Ako Direktivu 73/148 treba tumačiti u smislu da uvjet za to da državljanin treće zemlje, srodnik građanina Unije, može ostvariti pravo stalnog boravka u smislu direktive i da se zakonito nalazi u Zajednici, podrazumijeva li to da ta osoba treba imati važeću boravišnu dozvolu koja mu omogućuje ili će mu omogućiti da boravi u jednoj od država članica?
If there is no permanent residence permit is a residence permit granted on other grounds for a shorter or longer stay sufficient, or is it, as in the case pending before the Utlänningsnämnden, sufficient if the relative applying for a residence permit holds a valid visa?
U slučaju nepostojanja dozvole stalnog boravka, je li dostatno pravo boravka odobreno na temelju drugih razloga za kraći ili dulji boravak ili je dovoljno, kao u predmetu koji se vodi pred Utlänningsnämndenom, da osoba koja podnosi zahtjev za boravišnu dozvolu ima valjanu vizu?
c. If a relative of a citizen of the Union, who is a national of a non-Member State, cannot benefit from the right to permanent residence under Directive 73/148 because he is not lawfully resident in the Community, does a refusal to grant a relative a residence permit for permanent residence thus restrict the right of the citizen of the Union to freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC?
c. Ako član obitelji građanina Unije, koji je državljanin treće zemlje, ne može koristiti pravo stalnog boravka u skladu s Direktivom 73/148 jer ne boravi zakonito u Zajednici, ne ograničava li mu se odbijanjem izdavanja boravišne dozvole pravo na slobodu poslovnog nastana građana Unije u skladu s člankom 43. UEZ-a?
d. If a relative of a citizen of the Union, who is a national of a non-Member State, cannot benefit from the right to permanent residence under Directive 73/148 because he is not lawfully resident in the Community, is the right of the citizen of the Union to freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC restricted if the relatives of the citizen of the Union are deported because an application for a national residence permit cannot be accepted after entry into Sweden?
d. Ako član obitelji građanina Unije, koji je državljanin treće zemlje, ne može koristiti pravo stalnog boravka u skladu s Direktivom 73/148 jer ne boravi zakonito u Zajednici, ne ograničava li mu se pravo na slobodu poslovnog nastana građana Unije u skladu s člankom 43. UEZ-a ako bude protjeran jer se zahtjev za nacionalnu boravišnu dozvolu ne može prihvatiti nakon ulaska u Švedsku?
2a. Is Article 1(1)(d) of Directive 73/148 to be interpreted as meaning that "dependence" means that a relative of a citizen of the Union is economically dependent on the citizen of the Union to attain the lowest acceptable standard of living in his country of origin or country where he is normally resident?
2.a Treba li članak 1. stavak 1. točku (d) Direktive 73/148 tumačiti tako da „uzdržavanje" znači da je član obitelji građanina Unije ekonomski ovisan o njemu pri ostvarivanju najnižeg prihvatljivog životnog standarda u svojoj državi podrijetla ili zemlji u kojoj ima uobičajeno boravište?
b. Is Article 6(b) of Directive 73/148 to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may require a relative of a citizen of the Union who claims to be dependent on the citizen of the Union or his/her spouse to produce documents, in addition to the undertaking given by the citizen of the Union, which prove that there is a factual situation of dependence?'
b Treba li se članak 6. točku (b) Direktive 73/148 tumačiti tako da države članice mogu zahtijevati od člana obitelji građanina Unije koji tvrdi da ga građanin Unije ili njegov/njezin bračni drug uzdržavaju da, osim obveze uzdržavanja koju je preuzeo građanin Unije, predoči dokumente kojima dokazuje stvarno postojanje ovisnosti?"
Question 1(a) to (d)
Prvo pitanje, pod a) do d)
25 By this question, the referring court asks essentially whether Community law, in the light of the judgment in Akrich, requires Member States to make the grant of a residence permit to a national of a non-Member State, who is a member of the family of a Community national who has exercised his right of free movement, subject to the condition that that family member has previously been lawfully resident in another Member State.
25 Svojim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita propisuje li pravo Zajednice, s obzirom na presudu Akrich, da države članice moraju uvjetovati odobravanje prava boravka državljaninu treće zemlje, koji je član obitelji državljanina Zajednice koji je iskoristio pravo slobodnog kretanja, time da je navedeni član obitelji prethodno zakonito boravio u drugoj državi članici.
26 In the judgment in Akrich, the Court held that, in order to be able to benefit, in a situation such as that at issue in the proceedings which gave rise to that case, from the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68, a national of a non-Member State married to a citizen of the Union must be lawfully resident in a Member State when he moves to another Member State in which the citizen of the Union is establishing or has established him or herself.
26 U gore navedenoj presudi Akrich Sud je presudio da, kako bi mogao ostvariti prava predviđena člankom 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68, u situaciji poput one iz postupka koja je dovela do te presude, državljanin treće zemlje vjenčan s građaninom Unije mora zakonito boraviti u državi članici pri preseljenju u drugu državu članicu u kojoj građanin Unije uspostavlja ili ima poslovni nastan.
27 With reference to that judgment, the referring court wishes to know more precisely whether the condition of previous lawful residence mentioned above also applies to Ms Jia's situation.
27 Pozivajući se na tu presudu, sud koji je uputio zahtjev želi znati više pojedinosti o tome primjenjuje li se gore navedeni uvjet prethodnog zakonitog boravka na situaciju Y. Jia.
28 In order to answer that question, it is helpful to recall the facts of the case which gave rise to the judgment in Akrich.
28 Kako bi se odgovorilo na to pitanje, korisno je podsjetiti se na činjenice predmeta koje su dovele do navedene presude Akrich.
29 The referring court in that case was seised of an action against the refusal of the United Kingdom authorities to grant a residence permit to Mr Akrich, a national of a non-Member State married to a United Kingdom national.
29 Sudu koji je uputio zahtjev u tom predmetu bila je podnesena tužba protiv odbijanja nadležnih tijela Ujedinjene Kraljevine da odobre pravo boravka H. Akrichu, državljaninu treće zemlje vjenčanom s državljankom Ujedinjene Kraljevine.
Mr Akrich did not have the right of residence in the United Kingdom and he had agreed to be deported to Ireland where he joined his wife who had installed herself there shortly before.
H. Akrich nije imao pravo boravka u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini i složio se da bude protjeran u Irsku, gdje se pridružio svojoj supruzi koja se nedugo prije toga preselila tamo.
The couple intended to return to the United Kingdom by taking advantage of Community law so that Mr Akrich could enter that country as the spouse of a citizen of the Union who had exercised her right to free movement.
Par se namjeravao vratiti u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu pozivanjem na pravo Zajednice tako da bi H. Akrich ušao u zemlju kao bračni drug građanke Unije koja je iskoristila svoje pravo slobodnog kretanja.
30 It was in the light of that situation that the referring court involved had asked the Court what measures the Member States were entitled to take in order to combat steps taken by members of the family of a Community national who did not meet the conditions laid down by national law for entry and residence in a Member State.
30 S obzirom na tu situaciju, dotični sud koji je uputio zahtjev postavio je pitanje Sudu koje mjere države članice imaju pravo poduzeti za suzbijanje koraka koje su poduzeli članovi obitelji državljanina Zajednice koji nisu ispunili uvjete utvrđene nacionalnim pravom za ulazak i boravak u državi članici.
31 In the case in the main proceedings, it is not alleged that the family member in question was residing unlawfully in a Member State or that she was seeking to evade national immigration legislation illicitly.
31 U glavnom se postupku dotičnom članu obitelji ne predbacuje da je nezakonito boravio u državi članici ili da je nezakonito pokušavao izbjeći nacionalne propise o useljavanju.
On the contrary, Ms Jia was lawfully in Sweden when she submitted her application and Swedish law itself does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the grant of a long-term residence permit to the person concerned, provided that sufficient proof of financial dependence is adduced.
Naprotiv, Y. Jia je bila zakonito u Švedskoj kada je podnijela zahtjev, a švedsko se pravo ne protivi, u situaciji kao što je ona iz glavnog postupka, odobravanju dugotrajnog prava boravka dotičnoj osobi, pod uvjetom da je podnesen dostatni dokaz o financijskoj ovisnosti.
32 It follows that the condition of previous lawful residence in another Member State, as formulated in the judgment in Akrich, cannot be transposed to the present case and thus cannot apply to such a situation.
32 Iz toga slijedi da se uvjet prethodnog zakonitog boravka u drugoj državi članici, kako je formuliran u presudi Akrich, ne može prenijeti na predmetni slučaj i primijeniti na ovakvu situaciju.
33 The answer to Question 1(a) to (d) must therefore be that, having regard to the judgment in Akrich, Community law does not require Member States to make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a non-Member State, who are members of the family of a Community national who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the condition that those family members have previously been residing lawfully in another Member State.
33 Na prvo pitanje, pod a) do d), valja odgovoriti da, uzimajući u obzir navedenu presudu Akrich, pravo Zajednice ne propisuje da države članice moraju uvjetovati odobravanje prava boravka državljaninu treće zemlje, koji je član obitelji državljanina Zajednice koji je iskoristio pravo slobodnog kretanja, time da je taj član obitelji prethodno zakonito boravio u drugoj državi članici.
Question 2(a) and (b)
Drugo pitanje, pod a) i b)
34 Article 1(1)(d) of Directive 73/148 applies only to `dependent' relatives in the ascending line of the spouse of a national of a Member State established in another Member State in order to pursue activities as a self-employed person.
34 Članak 1. stavak 1. točka (d) Direktive 73/148 primjenjuje se samo na „uzdržavane" srodnike u uzlaznoj liniji bračnog druga državljanina države članice s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici radi obavljanja djelatnosti kao samozaposlena osoba.
35 According to the case-law of the Court, the status of `dependent' family member is the result of a factual situation characterised by the fact that material support for that family member is provided by the Community national who has exercised his right of free movement or by his spouse (see, in relation to Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26), Lebon, paragraph 22, and Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen [2004] ECR I-9925, paragraph 43, respectively).
35 Iz sudske prakse Suda proizlazi da je status „uzdržavanog" člana obitelji posljedica činjenične situacije koju obilježava činjenica da materijalnu potporu članu obitelji osigurava državljanin Zajednice koji je iskoristio slobodu kretanja ili njegov bračni drug (vidjeti, u vezi s člankom 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68 i člankom 1. Direktive Vijeća 90/364/EEZ od 28. lipnja 1990. o pravu boravka (SL L 180, str. 26.), prethodno navedenu presudu Lebon, t. 22., i presudu od 19. listopada 2004., Zhu i Chen, C-200/02, Zb., str. I-9925., t. 43.).
36 The Court has also held that the status of dependent family member does not presuppose the existence of a right to maintenance, otherwise that status would depend on national legislation, which varies from one State to another (Lebon, paragraph 21).
36 Sud je isto tako presudio da status uzdržavanog člana obitelji ne pretpostavlja pravo na uzdržavanje, u protivnom bi status ovisio o nacionalnom zakonodavstvu koje se razlikuje od jedne države do druge (prethodno navedena presuda Lebon, t. 21.).
According to the Court, there is no need to determine the reasons for recourse to that support or to raise the question whether the person concerned is able to support himself by taking up paid employment.
U skladu s mišljenjem Suda nije potrebo utvrditi razloge te potpore niti se pitati može li se dotična osoba sama uzdržavati tako da obavlja lukrativnu djelatnost.
That interpretation is dictated in particular by the principle according to which the provisions establishing the free movement of workers, which constitute one of the foundations of the Community, must be construed broadly (Lebon, paragraphs 22 and 23).
Takvo tumačenje posebno zahtijeva načelo prema kojem se odredbe posvećene slobodi kretanja radnika, koje čine temelje Zajednice, moraju široko tumačiti (prethodno navedena presuda Lebon, t. 22. i 23.).
37 In order to determine whether the relatives in the ascending line of the spouse of a Community national are dependent on the latter, the host Member State must assess whether, having regard to their financial and social conditions, they are not in a position to support themselves.
37 Kako bi utvrdila uzdržava li državljanin Zajednice srodnike u uzlaznoj liniji svojeg bračnog druga, država članica domaćin mora procijeniti, uzimajući u obzir njihove financijske i socijalne uvjete, jesu li oni u stanju sami se uzdržavati.
The need for material support must exist in the State of origin of those relatives or the State whence they came at the time when they apply to join the Community national.
Potreba za materijalnom potporom mora postojati u državi podrijetla tih srodnika ili državi iz koje srodnici dolaze u trenutku u kojem su tražili da se pridruže državljaninu Zajednice.
38 That is the conclusion that must be drawn having regard to Article 4(3) of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968(II), p. 485), according to which proof of the status of dependent relative in the ascending line of a worker or his spouse within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 is to be provided by a document issued by the competent authority of the `State of origin or the State whence they came', testifying that the relative concerned is dependent on the worker or his spouse.
38 Takav zaključak treba donijeti uzimajući u obzir članak 4. stavak 3. Direktive Vijeća 68/360/EEZ od 15. listopada 1968. o ukidanju ograničenja kretanja i boravka unutar Zajednice za radnike država članica i njihove obitelji (SL L 257, str. 13.), u skladu s kojim se status uzdržavanog srodnika u uzlaznoj liniji radnika ili njegovog bračnog druga u smislu članka 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68 dokazuje predočenjem dokumenta koji je izdalo nadležno tijelo „države podrijetla ili države iz koje dolazi" i kojim se potvrđuje da dotičnog srodnika uzdržava radnik ili njegov bračni drug.
Despite the lack of precision as to the means of acceptable proof by which the individual concerned can establish that he falls within one of the classes of persons referred to in Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 73/148, there is nothing to justify the status of dependent relative in the ascending line being assessed differently according to whether the relative is a member of the family of a worker or of a self-employed worker.
Usprkos nedostatnoj preciznosti u pogledu prihvatljivog dokaza na temelju kojeg dotični pojedinac može dokazati da pripada skupini osoba iz članaka 1. i 4. Direktive 73/148, ničime se ne može opravdati različita procjena statusa uzdržavanog srodnika u uzlaznoj liniji s obzirom na to je li srodnik član obitelji radnika ili samozaposlenog radnika.
39 In accordance with Article 6(b) of Directive 73/148, the host Member State may require proof that the applicant comes within one of the classes of person referred to in particular in Article 1 of that directive.
39 U skladu s člankom 6. točkom (b) Direktive 73/148, država članica domaćin može zahtijevati dokaz da podnositelj zahtjeva dolazi iz skupine osoba posebno navedenih u članku 1. te direktive.
40 When exercising their powers in this area Member States must ensure both the basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty and the effectiveness of directives containing measures to abolish obstacles to the free movement of persons between those States, so that the exercise by citizens of the European Union and members of their family of the right to reside in the territory of any Member State may be facilitated (see, by analogy, Case C-424/98 Commission v Italy [2000] ECR I-4001, paragraph 35).
40 Države članice trebaju izvršavaju svoje ovlasti u tom području, uz poštovanje temeljnih sloboda zajamčenih Ugovorom o EZ-u i korisnog učinka odredaba direktiva koje sadržavaju mjere za uklanjanje prepreka za slobodno kretanje osoba između tih država, kako bi se građanima Europske unije i članovima njihovih obitelji olakšalo korištenje prava boravka na državnom području svake države članice (vidjeti, analogijom, presudu od 25. svibnja 2000., Komisija /Italija, C-424/98, Zb., str. I-4001., t. 35.).
41 With regard to Article 6 of Directive 73/148, the Court has held that, given the lack of precision as to the means of acceptable proof by which the person concerned can establish that he or she comes within one of the classes of persons referred to in Articles 1 and 4 of that directive, it must be concluded that evidence may be adduced by any appropriate means (see, inter alia, Case C-363/89 Roux [1991] ECR I-1273, paragraph 16, and Case C-215/03 Oulane [2005] ECR I-1215, paragraph 53).
41 Što se tiče članka 6. Direktive 73/148, Sud je presudio da, s obzirom na nedostatnu preciznost u pogledu prihvatljivog dokaza na temelju kojeg predmetna osoba može dokazati da pripada skupini osoba iz članaka 1. i 4. te direktive, treba zaključiti da se takav dokaz može podnijeti svakim prikladnim sredstvom (osobito vidjeti presude od 5. veljače 1991., Roux, C-363/89, Zb., str. 1273., t. 16., i od 17. veljače 2005., Oulane, C-215/03, Zb., str. I-1215., t. 53.).
42 Consequently, a document of the competent authority of the State of origin or the State from which the applicant came attesting to the existence of a situation of dependence, albeit appearing particularly appropriate for that purpose, cannot constitute a condition for the issue of a residence permit, while a mere undertaking from a Community national or his spouse to support the family member concerned need not be regarded as establishing the existence of that family member's situation of real dependence.
42 Slijedom navedenog, dokument nadležnog tijela države podrijetla ili države iz koje je podnositelj zahtjeva došao, kojim se potvrđuje postojanje odnosa ovisnosti, iako se čini posebno primjerenim za tu namjenu, ne može predstavljati uvjet za izdavanje boravišne dozvole, pri čemu se sama spremnost državljanina Zajednice ili njegovog bračnog druga na uzdržavanje dotičnog člana obitelji ne može smatrati utvrđivanjem da je taj član obitelji doista uzdržavana osoba.
43 In those circumstances, the answer to Question 2(a) and (b) must be that Article 1(1)(d) of Directive 73/148 is to be interpreted to the effect that `dependent on them' means that members of the family of a Community national established in another Member State within the meaning of Article 43 EC need the material support of that Community national or his or her spouse in order to meet their essential needs in the State of origin of those family members or the State from which they have come at the time when they apply to join the Community national.
43 U tim okolnostima na drugo pitanje, pod a) i b), treba odgovoriti da članak 1. stavak 1. točku (d) treba tumačiti u smislu da „uzdržavanik građanina Unije" znači da članovi obitelji državljanina Zajednice s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici u smislu članka 43. UEZ-a trebaju materijalnu potporu tog državljanina Zajednice ili njegovog ili njezinog bračnog druga za zadovoljavanje svojih osnovnih potreba u državi podrijetla tih članova obitelji ili državi iz koje dolaze u trenutku u kojem traže da se pridruže tom državljaninu.
Article 6(b) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that proof of the need for material support may be adduced by any appropriate means, while a mere undertaking from the Community national or his or her spouse to support the family members concerned need not be regarded as establishing the existence of the family members' situation of real dependence.
Članak 6. točka (b) navedene Direktive treba tumačiti u smislu da se dokaz o potrebi za materijalnom potporom može podnijeti svakim prikladnim sredstvom, dok se sama spremnost državljanina Zajednice ili njegovog ili njezinog bračnog druga na uzdržavanje dotičnog člana obitelji ne treba smatrati utvrđivanjem postojanja odnosa stvarne ovisnosti članova obitelji.
44 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
44 Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka.
1. Having regard to the judgment in Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607, Community law does not require Member States to make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a non-Member State, who are members of the family of a Community national who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the condition that those family members have previously been residing lawfully in another Member State;
1. S obzirom na presudu od 23. rujna 2003., Akrich (C-109/01), pravo Zajednice propisuje da države članice ne moraju uvjetovati odobravanje prava boravka državljaninu treće zemlje, koji je član obitelji državljanina Zajednice koji je iskoristio pravo slobodnog kretanja, time da je navedeni član obitelji prethodno zakonito boravio u drugoj državi članici.
2. Article 1(1)(d) of 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 is to be interpreted to the effect that `dependent on them' means that members of the family of a Community national established in another Member State within the meaning of Article 43 EC need the material support of that Community national or his or her spouse in order to meet their essential needs in the State of origin of those family members or the State from which they have come at the time when they apply to join that Community national.
2. Članak 1. stavak 1. točka (d) Direktive Vijeća 73/148 od 21. svibnja 1973. o ukidanju ograničenja kretanja i boravka u Zajednici za državljane država članica u vezi s poslovnim nastanom i pružanjem usluga tumači se u smislu da „uzdržavanik građanina Unije" znači da članovi obitelji državljanina Zajednice s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici u smislu članka 43. UEZ-a trebaju materijalnu potporu tog državljanina Zajednice ili njegovog ili njezinog bračnog druga za zadovoljavanje osnovnih potreba u državi podrijetla tih članova obitelji ili državi iz koje dolaze u trenutku u kojem traže da se pridruže državljaninu Zajednice.