natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
4. The implementation of the second sentence of paragraph 2 and of the second sentence of paragraph 3, as well as the arrangements for exchanges of information, cooperation and mutual assistance between the institutions and services of the Member State of residence and the Member State in which he pursued his last occupation, shall be laid down in the Implementing Regulation.
4. Provedba druge rečenice stavka 2. i druge rečenice stavka 3., kao i dogovora za razmjenu podataka, suradnju i uzajamnu pomoć među ustanovama i službama države članice boravišta i države članice u kojoj je osoba obavljala svoje posljednje zanimanje, utvrđeni su u provedbenoj uredbi.
(a) The unemployed person referred to in the first and second sentences of paragraph 2 shall receive benefits in accordance with the legislation of the Member State of residence as if he/she had been subject to that legislation during his/her last activity as an employed or self-employed person.
5. a) Nezaposlena osoba iz prve i druge rečenice stavka 2. prima davanja u skladu sa zakonodavstvom države članice boravišta kao da se to zakonodavstvo na nju primjenjivalo tijekom njezine posljednje djelatnosti u svojstvu zaposlene ili samozaposlene osobe.
Those benefits shall be provided by the institution of the place of residence.
Ta davanja pruža ustanova mjesta boravišta.
(b) However, a worker other than a frontier worker who has been provided benefits at the expense of the competent institution of the Member State to whose legislation he/she was last subject shall firstly receive, on his/her return to the Member State of residence, benefits in accordance with Article 64, receipt of the benefits in accordance with (a) being suspended for the period during which he/she receives benefits under the legislation to which he/she was last subject.
b) Međutim, radnik koji nije pogranični radnik koji prima davanja na teret nadležne ustanove države članice čije se zakonodavstvo posljednje primjenjivalo, najprije će po povratku u državu članicu boravišta primati davanja u skladu s člankom 64., dok će se primanje davanja u skladu s točkom (a) obustaviti tijekom razdoblja korištenja davanja ostvarenih na temelju zakonodavstva koje se na njega posljednje primjenjivalo.
6. The benefits provided by the institution of the place of residence under paragraph 5 shall continue to be at its own expense. ...
6. Davanja koja je pružala ustanova mjesta boravišta na temelju stavka 5. i dalje će biti na njezin vlastiti teret. [...]
8 Article 87 of Regulation No 883/2004 entitled `Transitional provisions' states:
8 Članak 87. Uredbe br. 883/2004, naslovljen „Prijelazne odredbe", navodi:
No rights shall be acquired pursuant to this Regulation for the period before its date of application.
Na temelju ove Uredbe nije moguće ostvariti neko pravo za razdoblje prije dana primjene. [...]
... 8. If, as a result of this Regulation, a person is subject to the legislation of a Member State other than that determined in accordance with Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, that legislation shall continue to apply while the relevant situation remains unchanged and in any case for no longer than 10 years from the date of application of this Regulation unless the person concerned requests that he/she be subject to the legislation applicable under this Regulation.
8. Ako se kao posljedica ove Uredbe na osobu primjenjuje zakonodavstvo države članice koja nije država određena u skladu s glavom II. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1408/71, to se zakonodavstvo i nadalje primjenjuje tako dugo dok ta situacija ostaje nepromijenjena, osim ako navedena osoba ne zatraži primjenu zakonodavstva čija je primjena moguća na temelju ove Uredbe.
The request shall be submitted within 3 months after the date of application of this Regulation to the competent institution of the Member State whose legislation is applicable under this Regulation if the person concerned is to be subject to the legislation of that Member State as of the date of application of this Regulation.
Zahtjev se predaje u roku od tri mjeseca od dana primjene ove Uredbe nadležnoj ustanovi države članice čije se zakonodavstvo primjenjuje na temelju ove Uredbe, ako se na navedenu osobu treba primjenjivati zakonodavstvo te države članice od dana početka primjene ove Uredbe.
If the request is made after the time limit indicated, the change of applicable legislation shall take place on the first day of the following month.
Ako se zahtjev podnese nakon naznačenog vremenskog roka, promjena se odvija prvog dana sljedećeg mjeseca.
9 Recital 13 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1 [HYPERLINK: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:2009:284:TOC]; `the Implementing Regulation') provides:
9 Uvodna izjava 13. Uredbe (EZ) br. 987/2009 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. rujna 2009. o utvrđivanju postupka provedbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 883/2004 (SL L 284, str. 1.; dalje u tekstu: Provedbena uredba) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 5., svezak 2., str. 171.) predviđa:
`This Regulation provides for measures and procedures to promote the mobility of employees and unemployed persons.
„Ova Uredba predviđa mjere i postupke za promicanje pokretljivosti zaposlenih i nezaposlenih osoba.
Frontier workers who have become wholly unemployed may make themselves available to the employment services in both their country of residence and the Member State where they were last employed.
Pogranični radnici koji postanu potpuno nezaposleni mogu se prijaviti službama za zapošljavanje i u zemlji svog boravišta i u posljednjoj državi članici u kojoj su bili zaposleni.
However, they should be entitled to benefits only from their Member State of residence.'
Međutim, pravo na davanja trebali bi imati samo iz države članice u kojoj imaju boravište."
Netherlands law
Nizozemsko pravo
10 According to the documents before the Court, Article 19(1)(f) of the WW makes a worker's right to receive unemployment benefit conditional on his residence in the Netherlands.
10 Prema dokumentima kojima Sud raspolaže, članak 19. stavak 1. podstavak (f) WW-a pravo radnika na davanje za nezaposlenost uvjetuje boravkom na državnom području.
The background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Činjenice iz kojih proizlazi spor u glavnom postupku i prethodna pitanja
11 Mr Jeltes and Ms Peeters are frontier workers of Netherlands nationality who worked in the Netherlands while resident in Belgium and Mr Arnold is a frontier worker of Netherlands nationality who worked in the Netherlands while resident in Germany.
11 F. P. Jeltes, M. A. Peeters i J. G. J. Arnold su pogranični radnici, nizozemski državljani koji su radili u Nizozemskoj, pri čemu su prva dva radnika boravila u Belgiji, a treći u Njemačkoj.
12 Mr Jeltes became unemployed in August 2010, that is, after 1 May 2010, the date from which Regulation No 883/2004 began to apply.
12 F. P. Jeltes je izgubio posao u kolovozu 2010. godine, tj. nakon početka primjene Uredbe br. 883/2004 1. svibnja 2010.
He submitted a claim for unemployment benefit, under the WW, to the Netherlands authorities but they rejected his claim.
Nizozemskim nadležnim tijelima je na temelju WW-a podnio zahtjev za davanje za nezaposlenost, no ona su odbila njegov zahtjev.
13 Ms Peeters became unemployed in May 2009 and received unemployment benefit from the Netherlands authorities.
13 M. A. Peeters je izgubila posao u svibnju 2009. godine te je od nizozemskih nadležnih tijela primala davanje za nezaposlenost.
On 26 April 2010 Ms Peeters found new employment, before becoming unemployed again as from 18 May 2010.
Ona je 26. travnja 2010. pronašla novo zaposlenje, no ponovno je izgubila posao 18. svibnja 2010.
During the period when she took up work again she stopped receiving unemployment benefit but the Netherlands authorities informed her that, if before 25 October 2010 she were once again to become unemployed, she could make a claim for the continuation of that benefit.
Tijekom razdoblja u kojem je ponovno radila prestala je primati davanje za nezaposlenost, no nizozemska su je nadležna tijela obavijestila da, ako prije 25. listopada 2010. ponovno izgubi posao, može podnijeti zahtjev da se davanje nastavi.
When she became unemployed again, Ms Peeters approached those authorities but they refused to resume payment of that benefit.
Kad je ponovno izgubila posao, M. A. Peeters se obratila nizozemskim nadležnim tijelima, no ona su odbila obnoviti isplatu davanja.
14 Mr Arnold became unemployed and obtained unemployment benefit from the Netherlands authorities under the WW as from 2 February 2009.
14 J. G. J. Arnold je izgubio posao te je od nizozemskih nadležnih tijela ishodio davanje za nezaposlenost sukladno WW-u, od 2. veljače 2009.
In March 2009, he began a self-employed activity in Germany.
U ožujku 2009. godine započeo je samostalnu djelatnost u Njemačkoj.
Those authorities terminated payment to him of his unemployment benefit while informing him that, should he cease to be self-employed before 30 August 2011, he could make a claim for the continuation of that benefit.
Ta su mu nadležna tijela prestala plaćati davanje za nezaposlenost, no obavijestila su ga da, ako prije 30. kolovoza 2011. prekine samostalnu djelatnost, može podnijeti zahtjev za nastavak isplate tog davanja.
Mr Arnold ceased that activity and applied, on 1 June 2010, for its continuation.
J. G. J. Arnold je prekinuo samostalnu djelatnost te je 1. lipnja 2010. podnio zahtjev za nastavak isplate davanja.
However, the Netherlands authorities refused to pay him the benefit.
Međutim, nizozemska nadležna tijela su odbila isplatu davanja.
15 According to the order for reference and the documents before the Court, Netherlands law prohibits the payment of unemployment benefit to unemployed workers who do not reside in national territory.
15 Sukladno odluci kojom se upućuje prethodno pitanje i dokumentima kojima Sud raspolaže, nizozemsko pravo iz isplate davanja za nezaposlenost isključuje nezaposlene radnike koji ne borave na državnom području.
The referring court adds that, with regard to the three applicants in the main proceedings, the Netherlands authorities based their refusal on Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004, under which the Member State of residence, that is to say the Kingdom of Belgium for the first two applicants and the Federal Republic of Germany for the third applicant, is the Member State responsible for paying unemployment benefit.
Sud koji je uputio zahtjev dodaje da su u odnosu na tri podnositelja zahtjeva u glavnom postupku nizozemska nadležna tijela temeljila svoje odbijanje na članku 65. Uredbe br. 883/2004, prema kojemu je država članica boravišta, a to znači Kraljevina Belgija, za prvo dvoje podnositelja zahtjeva i Savezna Republika Njemačka za trećega, država članica nadležna za isplatu davanja za nezaposlenost.
16 The applicants in the main proceedings brought, before the Rechtbank Amsterdam, an action against the refusal decisions adopted by the Netherlands authorities.
16 Tužitelji u glavnom postupku pokrenuli su pred Rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu) postupak protiv odluke nizozemskih nadležnih tijela o odbijanju.
That court notes that it is not in dispute that Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004 does not offer the applicants the possibility of claiming unemployment benefit from those authorities.
Taj sud navodi da nije sporno da članak 65. Uredbe br. 883/2004 ne nudi tužiteljima mogućnost da od tih tijela potražuju davanja za nezaposlenost.
It adds however that it is also not contested that those persons are atypical frontier workers, within the meaning of Case 1/85 Miethe [1986] ECR 1837 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=61985??0001&locale=EN], in so far as they have retained particularly close personal and business links in the Member State in which they were last employed.
Dodaje, međutim, da isto tako nije sporno da su te osobe netipični pogranični radnici u smislu presude od 12. lipnja 1986., Miethe (1/85, Zb., str. 1837.), utoliko što su zadržale naročito bliske osobne i poslovne veze u državi članici posljednjeg zaposlenja.
According to the referring court, it follows that it is probably in that State, that is in the present case the Kingdom of the Netherlands, that they have the best chances of reintegration into working life.
Prema navodima suda koji je uputio zahtjev, slijedi da vjerojatno u toj državi, a to je u ovom predmetu Kraljevina Nizozemska, imaju najbolje izglede za ponovno uključivanje u svijet rada.
It therefore asks whether, as in the Miethe case, the applicants may claim unemployment benefit in that Member State.
Sud stoga pita mogu li, kao u gore navedenoj presudi Miethe, tužitelji potraživati davanje za nezaposlenost u toj državi članici.
17 Given that it still has doubts, following the entry into force of Regulation No 883/2004, as to the continuing relevance of Miethe, the Rechtbank Amsterdam decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
17 S obzirom da nakon stupanja na snagu Uredbe br. 883/2004 Rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu) ipak sumnja je li gore navedena presuda Miethe još uvijek relevantna, odlučio je prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`1. Is the supplementary scope of the judgment in Case 1/85 Miethe [citation above], which was delivered while Regulation No 1408/71 was in force, still valid under Regulation No 883/2004, that is to say, a right for an atypical frontier worker to choose the Member State in which he makes himself available to the employment recruitment services, and from which he receives unemployment benefit, on the ground that his prospects of reintegration into working life are greatest in the Member State of his choice?
„1. Je li dodatno područje primjene presude Miethe [gore navedene], koja je donesena dok je Uredba br. 1408/71 bila na snazi, još uvijek valjano prema Uredbi br. 883/2004, odnosno ima li netipični pogranični radnik pravo odabrati državu članicu u kojoj će se staviti na raspolaganje službama za zapošljavanje i od koje će primati davanje za nezaposlenost zato što su mu najveći izgledi za ponovno uključivanje u svijet rada u državi članici koju je odabrao?
Or does Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004, considered as a whole, provide sufficient guarantees that a wholly unemployed worker will receive a benefit under conditions which are most favourable for him in his search for work, and has the Miethe judgment lost its added value?
Ili pak članak 65. Uredbe br. 883/2004, promatran u cijelosti, pruža dostatno jamstvo da će potpuno nezaposleni radnik primati davanje pod uvjetima koji su za njega najpovoljniji dok traži posao, te je li presuda Miethe [, gore navedena,] izgubila svoju dodanu vrijednost?
2. Does European Union law, in this case Article 45 TFEU or Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, preclude the refusal by a Member State to award unemployment benefit under its national legislation in the case of a migrant worker (frontier worker) who has become wholly unemployed, who was last employed in that Member State and who, given the existence of social and family ties, may be assumed to have the best prospects of reintegration into working life in that Member State, solely on the ground that he resides in another Member State?
2. Sprječava li pravo Europske unije, u ovom slučaju članak 45. UFEU-a odnosno članak 7. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 1612/68, državu članicu da odbije dodijeliti davanje za nezaposlenost prema svojem nacionalnom pravu u slučaju radnika migranta (pograničnog radnika) koji je postao potpuno nezaposlen, posljednju je djelatnost obavljao u toj državi članici i za pretpostaviti je da, s obzirom na postojanje društvenih i obiteljskih veza, u toj državi članici ima najbolje izglede za ponovno uključivanje u svijet rada, i to samo zato što boravi u drugoj državi članici?
3. Having regard to Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004, Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] and the principle of legal certainty, what would be the answer to the foregoing question if, before the date of the entry into force of Regulation No 883/2004, such a worker had been awarded an unemployment benefit under the legislation of the previous State of employment, where the maximum duration of the benefit and of the resumption had not yet lapsed at the time of that entry into force (and where that benefit was terminated on the ground that the unemployed person had again found work)?
3. Uzimajući u obzir članak 87. stavak 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004, članak 17. Povelje o temeljnim pravima [Europske unije] i načelo pravne sigurnosti, koji je odgovor na prethodno pitanje ako je prije datuma stupanja na snagu Uredbe br. 883/2004 takvom radniku dodijeljeno davanje za nezaposlenost prema zakonodavstvu države prijašnjeg mjesta rada, pri čemu najdulje trajanje davanja i njegove obnove u trenutku stupanja na snagu uredbe još nije isteklo (a davanje je prekinuto zato što je nezaposlena osoba bila ponovno pronašla posao)?
4. Would the answer to Question 2 be different if undertakings had been given to the unemployed frontier workers concerned that they would be able to apply for resumption of their entitlement to benefits if, after finding new work, they were once again to become unemployed, and the information supplied in that regard does not appear to have been correct or unambiguous as a result of lack of clarity in implementing practice?'
4. Je li odgovor na pitanje pod brojem 2. drukčiji ako je nezaposlenim pograničnim radnicima dano obećanje da će se moći prijaviti za obnovu svojeg prava na davanja ako nakon pronalaska novog posla ponovno postanu nezaposleni, a čini se da informacije pružene u vezi s time nisu bile točne ili nedvosmislene kao rezultat nejasnoća u provedbenoj praksi?"
18 By its first question, the referring court wishes to ascertain, in essence, whether the judgment in Miethe remains relevant, following the entry into force of Regulation No 883/2004, for the purposes of the interpretation of Article 65(2) of that regulation, with the result that a worker who has maintained personal and business links with the State where he was last employed of such a kind that his prospects of reintegration into working life are greatest there, may choose to make himself available to the employment services of that Member State, not only in order to receive assistance from that Member State in seeking new employment, but also to obtain unemployment benefit.
18 U svojem prvom pitanju sud koji je uputio zahtjev želi u biti provjeriti je li gore navedena presuda Miethe i dalje relevantna nakon stupanja na snagu Uredbe br. 883/2004, u smislu tumačenja članka 65. stavka 2. te uredbe, dovodeći do toga da radnik, koji je u državi posljednjeg zaposlenja zadržao takve osobne i poslovne veze da su mu upravo tamo najveći izgledi ponovnog uključivanja u svijet rada, može odlučiti staviti se na raspolaganje službama za zapošljavanje te države članice, ne samo kako bi od te države članice primao pomoć u traženju novog zaposlenja, već i zato da ishodi davanje za nezaposlenost.
19 In order to answer that question, reference must be made to the provisions of Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 and to the interpretation which the Court gave to those provisions in Miethe, before examining the substance of Article 65(2) of Regulation No 883/2004.
19 Kako bi se odgovorilo na to pitanje, valja se pozvati na odredbe članka 71. Uredbe br. 1408/71 i na tumačenje tih odredbi koje je Sud dao u gore navedenoj presudi Miethe, prije nego se ispita suština članka 65. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 883/2004.
20 Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 contains specific provisions applicable to unemployed persons who, while last employed, resided in a Member State other than the competent State.
20 Članak 71. Uredbe br. 1408/71 sadržava posebne odredbe primjenjive na nezaposlene osobe koje su tijekom posljednjeg zaposlenja boravile u državi članici koja nije nadležna država.
Those provisions can be distinguished from the general rule provided for in Article 13(2) of that regulation, according to which a worker employed in the territory of one Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that State.
Te se odredbe razlikuju od općeg pravila predviđenog u članku 13. stavku 2. te uredbe, prema kojemu radnik zaposlen na državnom području jedne države članice podliježe zakonodavstvu te države.
21 According to Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71, a frontier worker who is wholly unemployed is subject to the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he resides.
21 Sukladno članku 71. stavku 1. točki (a) alineji (ii) navedene uredbe, pogranični radnik koji je potpuno nezaposlen podliježe zakonodavstvu države članice na čijem državnom području boravi.
The Court has held that that provision is based on the assumption that such a worker would find in that State the conditions most favourable to the search for new employment (Miethe, paragraph 17).
Sud je smatrao da se ta odredba temelji na pretpostavci da bi takav radnik u toj državi pronašao najpovoljnije uvjete za traženje novog zaposlenja (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Miethe, t. 17.).
22 Under Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, an employed person other than a frontier worker, that is a person who, contrary to frontier workers, does not return daily or at least once a week to his State of residence, can choose, if he is wholly unemployed, either to remain available to the employment services in the territory of the competent Member State or to make himself available to the employment services in the territory of the Member State where he resides.
22 Prema članku 71. stavku 1. točki (b) Uredbe br. 1408/71, zaposlena osoba koja nije pogranični radnik, tj. osoba koja se za razliku od pograničnih radnika ne vraća u državu boravišta svaki dan ili najmanje jednom tjedno, može ako je potpuno nezaposlena birati da ostane na raspolaganju službama za zapošljavanje na području nadležne države članice ili da se stavi na raspolaganje službama za zapošljavanje na području države članice u kojoj boravi.
In the first case, he is to receive benefit from the Member State where he was last employed, in the second case from the Member State where he resides.
U prvom slučaju, mora primati davanje od države članice posljednjeg zaposlenja, a u drugom slučaju od države članice u kojoj boravi.
The benefits concerned are not only of a monetary nature but also include assistance in finding new employment (see, to that effect, Miethe, paragraph 16).
Predmetna davanja nisu samo novčana, već uključuju i pomoć pri pronalaženju novog zaposlenja (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Miethe, t. 16.).
23 The Court held, in paragraph 18 of Miethe, that the objective pursued by Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71, concerning frontier workers who are wholly unemployed, that is to ensure that migrant workers receive unemployment benefit under the most favourable conditions, cannot however be attained where a wholly unemployed frontier worker has in exceptional circumstances maintained in the Member State in which he was last employed personal and business links of such a nature as to give him a better chance of finding new employment there.
23 Sud je u točki 18. gore navedene presude Miethe presudio da se cilj članka 71. stavka 1. točke (a) alineje (ii) Uredbe br. 1408/71 koji se odnosi na potpuno nezaposlene pogranične radnike, tj. osigurati da radnici migranti primaju davanje za nezaposlenost pod najpovoljnijim uvjetima, ipak ne može ostvariti ako je potpuno nezaposleni pogranični radnik u iznimnim okolnostima u državi članici posljednjeg zaposlenja zadržao takve osobne i poslovne veze koje mu daju bolje izglede da tamo nađe novo zaposlenje.
Such a worker must therefore be regarded as a `worker other than a frontier worker' within the meaning of Article 71 of that regulation and is consequently covered by Article 71(1)(b).
Takvog se radnika, prema tome, mora smatrati „radnikom koji nije pogranični radnik" u smislu članka 71. te uredbe te je sukladno tome obuhvaćen člankom 71. stavkom 1. točkom (b).