natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
41 To accept that children of former migrant workers can continue their education in the host Member State although their parents no longer reside there is equivalent to allowing them a right of residence which is independent of that conferred on their parents, such a right being based on Article 12.
41 Priznati da djeca bivših radnika migranata mogu nastaviti svoje školovanje u državi članici domaćinu iako njihovi roditelji više tamo ne borave jednako je kao kada bi im se priznalo pravo boravka neovisno od prava boravka njihovih roditelja, a to se pravo temelji na navedenom članku 12.
42 Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 must therefore be applied independently of the provisions of European Union law which govern the conditions of exercise of the right to reside in another Member State. That independence of Article 12 from Article 10 of that regulation formed the basis of the judgments of the Court referred to in paragraphs 29 to 31 above, and cannot but subsist in relation to the provisions of Directive 2004/38.
42 Članak 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 stoga se treba primjenjivati neovisno o odredbama prava Unije koje određuju uvjete ostvarivanja prava boravka u drugoj državi članici. Ta neovisnost članka 12. u odnosu na članak 10. iste uredbe predstavljala je temelj sudske prakse Suda navedene u točkama 29. do 31. ove presude i mora vrijediti i u odnosu na odredbe Direktive 2004/38.
43 A contrary conclusion would be liable to compromise the aim of integrating the migrant worker’s family into the host Member State, as stated in the fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1612/68. According to settled case-law, for such integration to come about, the children of a worker who is a national of a Member State must have the possibility of undertaking and, where appropriate, successfully completing their education in the host Member State (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 389/87 and 390/87 Echternach and Moritz [1989] ECR 723, paragraph 21, and Baumbast and R, paragraph 69).
43 Suprotno rješenje moglo bi ograničiti cilj integracije obitelji radnika migranta u državi članici domaćinu, kako je naveden u petoj uvodnoj izjavi Uredbe br. 1612/68. Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi takva integracija može uspjeti samo ako dijete radnika koji je državljanin države članice ima mogućnost školovati se u državi članici domaćinu i u danom slučaju uspješno završiti to školovanje (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 15. ožujka 1989, Echternatz i Moritz, 389/87 i 390/87, Zb., str. 723., t. 21. i navedenu presudu Baumast i r., t. 69.).
44 The London Borough of Harrow, the United Kingdom and Danish Governments and Ireland submit that Directive 2004/38, since its entry into force, constitutes the sole basis for the conditions governing the exercise of the right of residence in the Member States of citizens of the Union and members of their families, and consequently that no right of residence may now be derived from Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68.
44 London Borough of Harrow, vlada Ujedinjene Kraljevine, danska vlada i Irska tvrde da od stupanja na snagu Direktive 2004/38 ta direktivi čini jedini temelj za uvjete kojima se uređuje ostvarivanje prava boravka u državama članicama za građane Unije i članove njihove obitelji i da stoga iz članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 od sada ne smije proizići nikakvo pravo boravka.
45 On this point, there is nothing to suggest that, when adopting Directive 2004/38, the European Union legislature intended to alter the scope of Article 12 of that regulation, as interpreted by the Court, so as to limit its normative content from then on to a mere right of access to education.
45 U tom pogledu ne postoji nikakvo uporište da je zakonodavac Unije donošenjem Direktive 2004/38 htio izmijeniti područje primjene navedenog članka 12. kako ga je protumačio Sud kako bi njegov normativni sadržaj ubuduće ograničio na obično pravo na pristup obrazovanju.
46 Similarly, it should be noted that, in contrast to what was done in the case of Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1612/68, Directive 2004/38 did not repeal Article 12 of that regulation. Such a choice necessarily reveals the intention of the European Union legislature not to introduce restrictions of the scope of that article, as interpreted by the Court.
46 U istom smislu valja istaknuti da, suprotno onome što je učinjeno za članke 10. i 11. Uredbe br. 1612/68, Direktiva 2004/38 nije stavila izvan snage članak 12. te Uredbe. Takav izbor samo otkriva namjeru zakonodavca Unije da u područje primjene tog članka, kako ga je protumačio Sud, ne uvodi ograničenja.
47 The interpretation in the preceding paragraph is confirmed by the fact that the travaux préparatoires to Directive 2004/38 show that it was designed to be consistent with the judgment in Baumbast and R (COM(2003) 199 final, p. 7).
47 Tumačenje iz prethodne točke potvrđeno je činjenicom da iz pripremnih radova na Direktivi 2004/38 proizlazi da je ona zamišljena tako da bude sukladna s navedenom presudom Baumbast i R. (COM (2003) 199 final, str. 7.).
48 If Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 had been limited to conferring the right to equal treatment with regard to access to education without providing for any right of residence for the children of migrant workers, it would have become superfluous with the entry into force of Directive 2004/38. Article 24(1) of that directive provides that all Union citizens residing in the territory of the host Member State are to enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that State within the scope of the Treaty, it not being in doubt that access to education falls within the scope of European Union law (see, inter alia, Case 293/83 Gravier [1985] ECR 593, paragraph 19).
48 Da je članak 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 bio ograničen na dodjeljivanje prava na jednako postupanje u pogledu pristupa obrazovanju bez predviđanja ikakvog prava boravka u korist djece radnika migranata, to bi pravo od stupanja na snagu Direktive 2004/38 postalo suvišno. Naime, članak 24. stavak 1. te Direktive predviđa da svaki građanin Unije koji boravi na području države članice domaćina ima pravo na jednako postupanje kao prema državljanima te države članice unutar područja primjene Ugovora, pa prema tome nema sumnje da pristup obrazovanju potpada pod područje primjene prava Unije (vidjeti osobito presudu od 13. veljače 1985., Gravier, 293/83, Zb., str. 593., t. 19.).
49 Moreover, according to recital 3 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38, the aim of that directive is inter alia to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens (see, to that effect, Case C-127/08 Metock and Others [2008] ECR I-6241, paragraph 59). The application of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 7(1)(b) and (d) and (2) of Directive 2004/38 to the children of migrant workers would have the effect that the right of residence of those children in the host Member State in order to commence or continue their education would be subject to stricter conditions than those which applied to them before the entry into force of Directive 2004/38.
49 Uostalom, treća uvodna izjava Direktive 2004/38 ima za cilj pojednostaviti i poduprijeti pravo na slobodu kretanja i boravka svih građana Unije (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 25. srpnja 2008., Metock i dr., C-127/08, Zb., I-6241., t. 59.). Primjena članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 i članka 7. stavka 1. točke (b) i (d) te članka 7. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38 na djecu radnika migranata imala bi za posljedicu da bi pravo boravka te djece u državi članici domaćinu podlijegalo strožim uvjetima od onih koji su se na njih primjenjivali prije stupanja na snagu Direktive 2004/38.
50 It follows that the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State and the parent who is their primary carer can claim a right of residence in the latter State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, without being required to satisfy the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38.
50 Iz toga slijedi da djeca državljanina države članice koji radi ili je radio u državi članici domaćinu kao i roditelj koji ima stvarno skrbništvo nad njima mogu ostvariti pravo boravka u toj državi članici samo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, a da ne moraju ispuniti uvjete utvrđene u Direktivi 2004/38.
51 It remains to be determined whether the exercise of that right of residence is conditional on the persons concerned having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State.
51 Ostaje utvrditi je li izvršavanje tog prava boravka podređeno uvjetu da zainteresirane osobe raspolažu dostatnim sredstvima i da su sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osigurane u državi članici domaćinu.
52 It must be stated at the outset that there is no such condition in Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 and that, as the Court has already held, that article cannot be interpreted restrictively and must not, under any circumstances, be rendered ineffective (Baumbast and R, paragraph 74).
52 Na početku valja pojasniti da u članku 12. Uredbe 1216/68 nema takvog uvjeta i da se, kako je Sud već presudio, taj članak ne smije tumačiti restriktivno i ni u kojem slučaju ne smije biti lišen svojega korisnog učinka (navedena presuda Baumbast i R., t. 74.).
53 Nor does a requirement as to the self-sufficiency of the members of the family of a worker who is a national of a Member State and their protection in the host Member State in the case of illness follow from the case-law of the Court.
53 Iz sudske prakse Sude ne proizlazi ni zahtjev za ekonomsku neovisnost članova obitelji radnika koji je državljanin države članice kao ni njihova zdravstvena zaštita u slučaju bolesti.
54 The Court, in a case where it had to rule on whether children who were resident in the Member State in which their father, a national of another Member State, had been employed before returning to his State of origin were entitled under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 to State assistance intended to cover the costs of their education, the maintenance of them and their dependants and sickness insurance, held, without ruling on the economic situation of the students in question, that the status of children of a worker who is a national of a Member State within the meaning of Regulation No 1612/68 implies, in particular, that it is recognised in European Union law that such children must be eligible for study assistance from the State in order to make it possible for them to achieve integration in the society of the host Member State, that requirement applying afortiori where the persons covered by the provisions of that regulation are students who arrived in that State even before the age at which they had to attend school (Echternach and Moritz, paragraph 35).
54 Na pitanje da jesu li djeca koja su boravila u državi članici u kojoj je njihov otac, državljanin druge države članice, obavljao nesamostalni rad prije povratka u svoju državu porijekla, imala pravo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 na državnu pomoć s ciljem pokrivanja troškova školovanja, njihovog uzdržavanja i uzdržavanja njihovih uzdržavanika, te troškova zdravstvenog osiguranja, Sud je presudio, bez izjašnjavanja o ekonomskoj situaciji dotičnih studenata, da status djece radnika koji je državljanin države članice, u smislu Uredbe br. 1612/68, ima za posljedicu osobito to da ta djeca na temelju prava Unije uživaju državnu pomoć za školovanje kako bi se mogli integrirati u društveni život države članice domaćina te da se taj zahtjev nameće tim više u slučaju kada se odredbe te uredbe odnose na studente koji su u tu državu stigli prije školske dobi (navedena presuda Echternach i Moritz, t. 35.).
55 In the Baumbast and R case Mr Baumbast, the father of the children whose right of residence in the host Member State under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 was at issue, had resources which allowed him and his family not to be dependent on social assistance. None the less, the answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the right of residence of the children and their mother who cared for them were based not on their self-sufficiency but on the fact that the aim of Regulation No 1612/68, namely freedom of movement for workers, requires the best possible conditions for the integration of the worker’s family in the host Member State and that a refusal to allow the parents caring for the children to remain in the host Member State during the period of their children’s education might deprive the children of a right granted to them by the European Union legislature (Baumbast and R, paragraphs 50 and 71).
55 U navedenoj presudi Baumbast i R., gospodin Baumbast, otac djece čije je pravo boravka u državi članici domaćinu na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 bilo u pitanju, imao je doduše dostatna sredstva koja su mu omogućavala da on i njegova obitelj ne budu ovisni o socijalnoj pomoći. Međutim, odgovori na prethodna pitanja o pravu boravka djece i njihove majke koja je za njih brinula, nisu se temeljili na njihovoj ekonomskoj neovisnosti, već na činjenici da cilj Uredbe br. 1612/68, naime slobodno kretanje radnika, zahtijeva optimalne uvjete za integraciju obitelji radnika u državi članici domaćinu i da bi odbijanje roditeljima koji se brinu za djecu mogućnosti boravka u državi članici domaćinu tijekom njihovog školovanja moglo uskratiti djeci pravo koje im priznaje zakonodavac Unije (navedena presuda Baumbast i R., t. 50. i 71.).
56 Directive 2004/38 likewise does not make the right of residence in the host Member State of children who are in education and the parent who is their primary carer depend, in certain circumstances, on their having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover.
56 Direktiva 2004/38 u određenim situacijama također ne uvjetuje pravo boravka u državi članici domaćinu djece koja se školuju i roditelja koji je njihov stvarni skrbnik time da roditelji raspolažu dostatnim sredstvima i imaju sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osiguranje.
57 The interpretation that the right of residence in the host Member State of children who are in education there and the parent who is their primary carer is not subject to the condition that they have sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover is supported by Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/38, which provides that the departure or death of the citizen of the Union does not entail the loss of the right of residence of the children or the parent who has actual custody of them, irrespective of their nationality, if the children reside in the host Member State and are enrolled at an educational establishment for the purpose of studying there, until the completion of their studies.
57 Tumačenje prema kojem pravo boravka u državi članici domaćinu djece koja se školuju i roditelja koji je njihov stvarni skrbnik nije uvjetovano raspolaganjem dostatnim sredstvima i sveobuhvatnim zdravstvenim osiguranjem potvrđeno je člankom 12. stavkom 3. Direktive 2004/38, koji određuje da odlazak građanina Unije iz države članice domaćina ili njegova smrt nema za posljedicu gubitak prava boravka njegove djece ili roditelja koji je njihov stvarni skrbnik, bez obzira na njihovo državljanstvo, ako djeca borave u državi članici domaćinu i upisani su u obrazovnu ustanovu s svrhu stjecanja obrazovanja i to sve do završetka njihovog školovanja.
58 While that provision is not applicable in the main proceedings, it illustrates the particular importance which Directive 2004/38 attaches to the situation of children who are in education in the host Member State and the parents who care for them.
58 Čak i ako ova odredba nije primjenjiva na glavni postupak, ona ilustrira posebnu važnost koju Direktiva 2004/38 pridaje situaciji djece koja se školuju u državi članici domaćinu i roditelja koji za njih brinu.
59 In the light of the above considerations, the answer to the first two questions is that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State and the parent who is their primary carer can claim a right of residence in the latter State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, without such a right being conditional on their having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in that State.
59 S obzirom na prethodna razmatranja, na prva dva pitanja valja odgovoriti da u okolnostima kao što su one u glavnom postupku djeca državljanina države članice koji radi ili je radio u državi članici domaćinu i roditelj koji ima stvarno skrbništvo nad njima mogu ostvariti pravo boravka u toj državi samo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, a da takvo pravo ne bude uvjetovano time da raspolažu dostatnim sredstvima i sveobuhvatnim zdravstvenim osiguranjem u toj državi.
60 In view of the answer to Questions 1 and 2, there is no need to answer Question 3.
60 S obzirom na odgovore na prva dva pitanja, nije potrebno odgovoriti na treće pitanje.
61 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
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. Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu, koji nisu troškovi spomenutih stranaka, ne nadoknađuju se.
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State and the parent who is their primary carer can claim a right of residence in the latter State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992, without such a right being conditional on their having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in that State.
U okolnostima kao što su one u glavnom postupku, djeca državljanina države članice koji radi ili je radio u državi članici domaćinu i roditelj koji ima stvarno skrbništvo nad njima, mogu ostvariti pravo boravka u toj državi samo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 o slobodi kretanja radnika unutar Zajednice, kako je izmijenjena Uredbom (EEZ) br. 2434/92 Vijeća, a da takvo pravo ne bude uvjetovano time da raspolažu dostatnim sredstvima i imaju sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osiguranje u toj državi.
12 January 2010 (*)
12. siječnja 2010. (*)
(Directive 2000/78/EC – Articles 2(5) and 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Provision of national law setting a maximum age of 68 for practice as a panel dentist – Aim pursued – Measure necessary for the protection of health – Consistency – Appropriateness of the measure)
„Direktiva 2000/78/EZ – Članak 2. stavak 5. i članak 6. stavak 1. – Zabrana diskriminacije na temelju dobi – Odredba nacionalnog prava kojom se određuje maksimalna dob od 68 godina za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa – Cilj koji se želi postići – Mjere potrebne za zaštitu zdravlja – Dosljednost - Primjerenost mjere”
In Case C-341/08,
U predmetu C-341/08,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Sozialgericht Dortmund (Germany), made by decision of 25 June 2008, received at the Court on 24 July 2008, in the proceedings
Povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Sozialgericht Dortmund (Njemačka) odlukom od 25. lipnja 2008., koju je Sud zaprimio 24. srpnja 2008., u postupku
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Knappschaft-Bahn-See – Dezernat 0.63,
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Knappschaft-Bahn-See – Dezernat 0.63,
AEV – Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband eV,
AEV – Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband eV,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 7 July 2009,
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 7. srpnja 2009.,
– Ms Petersen, by H.-J. Brink, Rechtsanwalt,
– za D. Petersen, H.-J. Brink, Rechtsanwalt,
– the German Government, by M. Lumma and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents,
– za njemačku vladu, M. Lumma i N. Graf Vitzthum, u svojstvu agenata,
– Ireland, by D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by P. McGarry BL,
– za Irsku, D. O’Hagan, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju P. McGarrya, BL,
– the Italian Government, by I. Bruni, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Russo, avvocato dello Stato,
– za talijansku vladu, I. Bruni, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju M. Russo, avvocato dello Stato,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by V. Kreuschitz, J. Enegren and B. Conte, acting as Agents,
– za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, V. Kreuschitz, J. Enegren i B. Conte, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 September 2009,
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 3. rujna 2009.,
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16, ‘the Directive’).
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje članka 6. Direktive Vijeća 2000/78/EZ od 27. studenoga 2000. o uspostavi općeg okvira za jednako postupanje pri zapošljavanju i obavljanju zanimanja (SL L 303, str. 16., u daljnjem tekstu: direktiva) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 5., svezak 1., str. 69.).
2 The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Ms Petersen and the Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (Appeals board for dentists for the district of Westphalia and Lippe) concerning the board’s refusal to authorise Ms Petersen to practise as a panel dentist after the age of 68 years.
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između D. Petersen i Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (žalbeno vijeće za stomatologe iz okruga Westphalia-Lippe) u vezi s odbijanjem tog povjerenstva da D. Petersen odobri obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa nakon dobi od 68 godina.
3 The Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 13 EC. Recitals 9, 11 and 25 in the preamble to the Directive read as follows:
3 Direktiva je donesena na temelju članka 13. UEZ-a. U uvodnim izjavama 9., 11., i 25. direktive navedeno je:
‘(9) Employment and occupation are key elements in guaranteeing equal opportunities for all and contribute strongly to the full participation of citizens in economic, cultural and social life and to realising their potential.
„(9) Zapošljavanje i obavljanje zanimanja glavni su elementi za osiguranje jednakih mogućnosti za sve i snažno pridonose punom sudjelovanju građana u gospodarskome, kulturnom i društvenom životu te ostvarenju njihovih osobnih potencijala.
(11) Discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation may undermine the achievement of the objectives of the EC Treaty, in particular the attainment of a high level of employment and social protection, raising the standard of living and the quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity, and the free movement of persons.
(11) Diskriminacija na temelju vjere ili uvjerenja, invaliditeta, dobi ili spolnog opredjeljenja može ugroziti ostvarivanje ciljeva postavljenih Ugovorom o EZ-u, a posebice postizanje visoke razine zaposlenosti i socijalne zaštite, podizanje životnog standarda i kvalitete života, gospodarsku i društvenu koheziju i solidarnost te slobodno kretanje osoba.
4 As stated in Article 1 of the Directive, its purpose is ‘to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment’.
4 Kao što je navedeno u članku 1. Direktive, njezina je svrha „utvrditi opći okvir za borbu protiv diskriminacije na temelju vjere ili uvjerenja, invaliditeta, dobi ili spolnog opredjeljenja u vezi sa zapošljavanjem i obavljanjem zanimanja, kako bi se u državama članicama ostvarila primjena načela jednakog postupanja”.