natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the [EC] Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty. The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have the right of residence or permanent residence.’
„Podložno posebnim odredbama koje su izričito predviđene u Ugovoru i sekundarnom zakonodavstvu, svi građani Unije koji na temelju ove Direktive borave na području države članice domaćina imaju pravo na jednako postupanje kao prema državljanima te države članice unutar okvira Ugovora. Ovo pravo se proširuje i na članove obitelji koji nisu državljani države članice, a imaju pravo boravišta [boravka] ili stalnog boravišta [boravka].”
12 Under regulation 6 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, a ‘qualified person’ for the purposes of those regulations is a national of a State of the European Economic Area who is in the United Kingdom as a job-seeker, worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person or student.
12 Prema članku 6. Uredbe iz 2006. o useljavanju u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu (Europski gospodarski prostor) [Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006], u smislu ove Uredbe „osoba koja ispunjava uvjete” je državljanin države Europskog gospodarskog prostora koji se nalazi u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini kao tražitelj posla, radnik, samozaposlena osoba, ekonomski neovisna osoba ili student.
13 In accordance with regulation 19(3)(a) of those regulations, a person may be removed from the United Kingdom if he is not, or has ceased to be, a qualified person for the purposes of the regulations.
13 U skladu s člankom 19. stavkom 3. točkom (a) te uredbe, osoba može biti protjerana iz Ujedinjene Kraljevina ako nije ili je prestala biti osoba koja ispunjava uvjete u smislu te uredbe.
14 It follows from the Housing Act 1996 and the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) Regulations 2006 that a person is not eligible for housing assistance unless he has a right of residence in the United Kingdom conferred by European Union law.
14 Iz Zakona o stanovanju (Housing Act 1996) i Uredbe iz 2006. o dodjeli stanova i beskućništvu (Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) Regulations 2006) proizlazi da osoba može podnijeti zahtjev za financijsku pomoć za stanovanje ako ima pravo boravka u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini na temelju prava Unije.
15 Ms Ibrahim is a Somali national married to a Danish citizen, Mr Yusuf.
15 N. H. Ibrahim je somalska državljanka udana za danskog državljanina, M. B. Yusufa.
16 Mr Yusuf arrived in the United Kingdom in the autumn of 2002 and worked there from October 2002 to May 2003. From June 2003 to March 2004 he claimed incapacity benefit. After being declared fit to work at the end of that period, he left the United Kingdom, before returning there in December 2006.
16 M. B. Yusuf je stigao u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu u jesen 2002. i tamo je radio od listopada 2002. do svibnja 2003. Od lipnja 2003. do ožujka 2004. je tražio potporu zbog nesposobnosti za rad. Nakon što je na kraju tog razdoblja proglašen sposobnim za rad, M. B. Yusuf je napustio Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu, kamo se vratio u prosincu 2005.
17 It is common ground that, between ceasing work and leaving the United Kingdom, Mr Yusuf ceased to be a ‘qualified person’ within the meaning of regulation 6 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. On his return to the United Kingdom, he did not recover the status of a ‘qualified person’ with a right of residence under European Union law.
17 Neosporno je da je između prestanka rada i napuštanja Ujedinjene Kraljevine M. B. Yusuf prestao biti „osoba koja ispunjava uvjete” u smislu članka 6. Uredbe iz 2006. o useljavanju (Europski gospodarski prostor). Na povratku u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu M. B. Yusuf nije ponovno dobio status „osobe koja ispunjava uvjete” s pravom boravka na temelju prava Unije.
18 Ms Ibrahim arrived in the United Kingdom with the permission of the immigration authorities in February 2003 in order to join her husband.
18 N. H. Ibrahim je u veljači 2003. stigla u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu uz dozvolu službi za useljavanje kako bi se pridružila svom suprugu.
19 The couple have four children, of Danish nationality, aged from one to nine. The three oldest arrived in the United Kingdom with their mother and the fourth child was born in the United Kingdom. The two eldest have attended State schools since arriving in the United Kingdom.
19 Par ima četvero djece s danskim državljanstvom, u dobi od jedne do devet godina. Troje najstarije djece stiglo je u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu sa svojom majkom, a četvrto dijete je rođeno u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini. Dvoje najstarije djece se školuje u sustavu javnog školstva od njihovog dolaska na područje ove države članice.
20 After her husband left the United Kingdom in 2004, Ms Ibrahim separated from him. She was never self-sufficient. She does not work and depends entirely on social assistance to cover her living expenses and housing costs. She does not have comprehensive sickness insurance cover and relies on the National Health Service.
20 Nakon što je njezin suprug 2004. napustio Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu, N. H. Ibrahim se rastala od njega. Nikada nije bila ekonomski neovisna. Nije zaposlena i u potpunosti je ovisna o socijalnoj pomoći za pokrivanje troškova života i troškova stanovanja. Nema sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osiguranje i ima samo skrb u okviru National Health Service (Nacionalno zdravstveno osiguranje).
21 In January 2007 Ms Ibrahim applied for housing assistance for herself and her children. By decision of 1 February 2007, the housing assessment officer of the London Borough of Harrow rejected the application. She considered that neither Ms Ibrahim nor her husband was resident in the United Kingdom under European Union law. On 29 March 2007 her decision was confirmed by the housing review officer.
21 U siječnju 2007. N. H. Ibrahim podnijela je zahtjev za financijsku pomoć za stanovanje za sebe i svoju djecu. Odlukom od 1. veljače 2007. nadležni službenik London Borough of Harrow je odbio je taj zahtjev. Ocijenio je da ni N. H. Ibrahim ni njezin suprug ne borave u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini na temelju prava Unije. Tu je odluku o odbijanju 29. ožujka 2007. potvrdio službenik nadležan za ponovno razmatranje odluka o odbijanju pomoći za stanovanje.
22 Ms Ibrahim appealed against those decisions to the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, which by judgment of 18 October 2007 allowed the appeal on the ground that, as the mother of the children and their primary carer, Ms Ibrahim has a right of residence in the United Kingdom under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, since they attend school and her husband is a citizen of the Union who worked in that Member State.
22 N. H. Ibrahim je protiv tih odluka uložila žalbu pri Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court (prvostupanjski sud okruga Clerkenwell i Shoreditch), koji je odlukom od 18. listopada 2007. prihvatio žalbu, jer N. H. Ibrahim kao majka djece čija je skrbnica ima pravo boravka u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, jer se djeca školuju i jer je njezin suprug građanin Unije koji je bio zaposlen u toj državi članici.
23 The London Borough of Harrow appealed against that judgment to the referring court.
23 London Borough of Harrow uložio je žalbu na tu odluku sudu koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku.
24 In those circumstances, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Civil Division, decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
24 U tim je uvjetima Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘In circumstances where
„U okolnostima u kojima:
– a non-EU national spouse and her EU national children accompanied an EU national who came to the United Kingdom,
su se građaninu Unije koji je došao u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu pridružili supruga koja je državljanka treće zemlje i njezina djeca koja su državljani Unije,
– the EU national was in the United Kingdom as a worker,
je građanin Unije bio radnik u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini,
– the EU national then ceased to be a worker and subsequently left the United Kingdom,
je građanin Unije prestao raditi kao nesamostalno zaposlena osoba i zatim napustio Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu,
– the EU national, the non-EU national spouse and children are not self-sufficient and are dependent upon social assistance in the United Kingdom,
građanin Unije, njegova supruga koja je državljanka treće zemlje i djeca nisu ekonomski neovisni i ovise o socijalnoj pomoći u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini,
– the children commenced primary education in the United Kingdom shortly after their arrival there while the EU national was a worker:
su djeca ubrzo nakon njihovog dolaska započela osnovnoškolsko obrazovanje u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini dok je građanin Unije bio radnik:
1. do the spouse and children only enjoy a right of residence in the United Kingdom if they satisfy the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38 …
1. uživaju li supruga i djeca pravo boravka u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini samo ako ispunjavaju uvjete utvrđene u Direktivi 2004/38 […]?
2. (a) do they enjoy a right to reside derived from Article 12 of Regulation … No 1612/68 … as interpreted by the Court of Justice, without being required to satisfy the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38 … and
2. (a) uživaju li pravo boravka iz članka 12. Uredbe […] br. 1612/68 […], kako ga tumači Sud, a da nije potrebno da ispunjavaju uvjete utvrđene u Direktivi 2004/38 […] i
(b) if so, must they have access to sufficient resources so as not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their proposed period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State?
(b) trebaju li u tom slučaju imati dostatna sredstva da ne postanu teret sustavu socijalne pomoći države članice domaćina tijekom svojeg boravka kao i sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osiguranje u toj državi članici?
3. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the position different in circumstances such as the present case where the children commenced primary education and the EU-national worker ceased working prior to the date by which Directive 2004/38 … was to be implemented by the Member States?’
3. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje potvrdan, mijenja li se stajalište u slučaju, kao što je onaj u glavnom postupku, kada su djeca započela osnovnoškolsko obrazovanje, a radnik koji je građanin Unije je prestao raditi prije datuma na koji je Direktiva 2004/38 […] trebala biti provedena u državama članicama?”
25 By its first two questions, which should be taken together, the referring court essentially asks whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the children and the parent who is their primary carer can rely on a right of residence in the host Member State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 without being required to satisfy the conditions defined in Directive 2004/38, or whether they can enjoy a right of residence only if they satisfy those conditions. If the right of residence derives from Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 alone, the referring court further asks whether the children and the parent who is their primary carer must have sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State.
25 Prvim dvama pitanjima, koje valja razmotriti zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita mogu li se, u okolnostima kao što su one u glavnom postupku, djeca i roditelj koji ima stvarno skrbništvo pozvati na pravo boravka u državi članici domaćinu samo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, a da ne moraju ispuniti uvjete iz Direktive 2004/38, ili im se pravo boravka može priznati samo ako ispune te uvjete. Ako pravo boravka proizlazi samo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, sud koji je uputio zahtjev također pita moraju li djeca i roditelj koji ima stvarno skrbništvo imati dostatna sredstva i sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osiguranje u državi članici domaćinu.
26 Under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, the children of a national of a Member State who is or has been employed in the territory of another Member State are to be admitted to the latter State’s general educational, apprenticeship and vocational training courses under the same conditions as the nationals of that State, if those children are residing in its territory.
26 U skladu s člankom 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 djeca državljanina države članice koji jest ili je bio zaposlen na području druge države članice imaju pravo na pristup sustavu općeg obrazovanja, vježbeništva i strukovnog osposobljavanja pod istim uvjetima kao i državljani te države, ako ta djeca borave na njezinom području.
27 Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 established the right of the spouse and descendants of a worker who was a national of one Member State and was employed in the territory of another Member State to install themselves with him in the latter State.
27 Članak 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68 uspostavlja pravo supružnika i potomaka radnika koji je državljanin jedne države članice zaposlen na području druge države članice da mu se pridruže u toj drugoj državi članici.
28 It follows from Article 7(1)(b) and (d) and (2) of Directive 2004/38 that, whatever their nationality, the members of the family of a citizen of the Union who is residing in another Member State without being a worker or self-employed person there have the right to accompany or join that citizen, provided that he has sufficient resources for himself and the family members and has comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State.
28 Iz članka 7. stavka 1. točaka (b) i (d) i stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38 proizlazi da, bez obzira na njihovo državljanstvo, članovi obitelji građanina Unije koji boravi na državnom području druge države članice i u njoj nije nesamostalno zaposlen ni samozaposlen, imaju pravo biti u pratnji toga građanina ili se pridružiti tom građaninu, ako on ima dostatna sredstva za sebe i članove svoje obitelji i sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osiguranje u državi članici domaćinu.
29 The Court has previously held that the children of a citizen of the Union who have installed themselves in a Member State during the exercise by their parent of rights of residence as a migrant worker in that Member State are entitled to reside there in order to attend general educational courses there, pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. The fact that the parents of the children concerned have meanwhile divorced, the fact that only one parent is a citizen of the Union, and the fact that that parent has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host Member State are irrelevant in this regard (see, to that effect, Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, paragraph 63).
29 Sud je već presudio da djeca građanina Unije, koja su se nastanila u državi članici dok je jedan od njihovih roditelja u toj državi članici ostvarivao pravo boravka kao radnik migrant, imaju pravo tamo boraviti kako bi pohađala nastavu općeg obrazovanja u skladu s člankom 12. Uredbe br. 1216/68. Činjenice da su se roditelji dotične djece u međuvremenu rastali, da je samo jedan od roditelja građanin Unije i da taj roditelj više nije radnik migrant u državi članici domaćinu nemaju nikakav učinak u tom pogledu (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 17. rujna 2002., Baumbast i R., C-413/99, Zb., I-7091., t. 63.).
30 The Court has also held that, where the children enjoy, under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, the right to continue their education in the host Member State although the parents who are their carers are at risk of losing their rights of residence, a refusal to allow those parents to remain in the host Member State during the period of their children’s education might deprive those children of a right which has been granted to them by the legislature of the European Union (see, to that effect, Baumbast and R, paragraph 71).
30 Sud je također presudio da, kada djeca na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 uživaju pravo nastavka školovanja u državi članici domaćinu, a roditeljima koji su stvarni skrbnici prijeti gubitak prava boravka, odbijanje da se tim roditeljima omogući da ostanu u državi članici domaćinu za vrijeme školovanja njihove djece moglo bi po prirodi biti takvo da potonjima uskrati pravo koje im je priznao zakonodavac Unije (vidjeti u tom smislu navedenu presudu Baumbast i R., t. 71.).
31 After further observing, in paragraph 72 of Baumbast and R, that Regulation No 1612/68 must be interpreted in the light of the requirement of respect for family life laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, the Court concluded, in paragraph 73 of that judgment, that the right conferred by Article 12 of that regulation on the child of a migrant worker to pursue, under the best possible conditions, his education in the host Member State necessarily implies that that child has the right to be accompanied by the person who is his primary carer and, accordingly, that that person is able to reside with him in that Member State during his studies.
31 Nakon što je Sud među ostalim u točki 72. navedene presude Baumbast i R podsjetio da Uredbu br. 1612/68 treba tumačiti u svjetlu zahtjeva za poštovanje obiteljskog života iz članka 8. Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, potpisane 44 studenoga 1950. u Rim, u točki 73. te presude odlučio je da pravo da se u državi domaćinu školuje pod najboljim uvjetima, koje je djetetu migranta priznato člankom 12. te uredbe, nužno znači da to dijete ima pravo u pratnji imati osobu koja mu je stvarni skrbnik i da stoga ta osoba može s njim boraviti u toj državi članici za vrijeme njegovog školovanja.
32 The referring court seeks to know whether the judgment in Baumbast and R is based on the application of Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 together or on Article 12 alone. More precisely, the court asks whether the right of residence of the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State, and that of the parent who is the primary carer of those children, derive implicitly from Article 12.
32 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita temelji li se navedena presuda Baumbast i R. na zajedničkoj primjeni članaka 10. i 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 ili samo na zadnje navedenom članku. Točnije, taj sud pita proizlaze li pravo boravka djece državljanina države članice koji radi ili je radio u državi članici domaćinu i pravo roditelja koji ima stvarno skrbništvo nad djecom implicitno iz navedenog članka 12.
33 First, the right of the children of migrant workers to equal treatment in access to education, under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, applies only to children who ‘are residing’ in the Member State in which one of their parents is or has been employed.
33 Prvo, pravo djece radnika migranata na jednako postupanje prilikom pristupa obrazovanju, na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, imaju samo djeca koja „borave” na državnom području države članice u kojoj je zaposlen ili je bio zaposlen jedan od njihovih roditelja.
34 Access to education thus depends on the child first being installed in the host Member State.
34 Pristup obrazovanju tako ovisi o prijašnjem stanovanju djeteta u državi članici domaćinu.
35 Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, as interpreted by the Court in Baumbast and R, means that the child can, in connection with his right of access to education, have an independent right of residence. In particular, the exercise of the right of access to education was not conditional on the child retaining, throughout the period of his education, a specific right of residence under Article 10(1)(a) of that regulation, when that provision was still in force.
35 Članak 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, kako ga je protumačio Sud u navedenoj presudi Baumbast i R., u vezi s njegovim pravom na pristup obrazovanju priznaje djetetu pravo na samostalni boravak. Posebno, ostvarivanje prava na pristup obrazovanju nije bilo uvjetovano time da dijete tijekom cijelog svog školovanja zadrži posebno pravo boravka na temelju članka 10. stavka 1. točke (a) te uredbe, dok je ta odredba još bila na snazi.
36 In paragraphs 21 to 24 of its judgment in Case C-7/94 Gaal [1995] ECR I-1031, the Court explicitly rejected the German Government’s argument that there was a close relationship between Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1612/68 on the one hand and Article 12 of that regulation on the other, so that Article 12 granted the right to equal treatment in access to education in the host Member State only to children who satisfied the conditions set out in Articles 10 and 11. In paragraph 23 of Gaal, the Court expressly stated that Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 contains no reference to Articles 10 and 11 of the regulation.
36 U točkama 21. do 24. presude od 4. svibnja 1995., Gaal (C-7/94, Zb., I-1031.) Sud je izričito odbio argumentaciju njemačke vlade da s jedne strane postoji uska povezanost između članaka 10. i 11. Uredbe br. 1612/68, s jedne strane, i članka 12. iste uredbe s druge strane, tako da je ovom potonjom odredbom pravo jednakog postupanja za pristup obrazovanju u državi članici domaćinu dodijeljeno samo djeci koja ispunjavaju uvjete iz članaka 10. i 11. U točki 23. navedene presude Gaal Sud je izričito istaknuo da članak 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 ne sadržava nikakvo upućivanje na navedene članke 10. i 11.
37 It would be contrary to the context of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 and the aims pursued by that article to make the exercise of the right of access to education depend on the existence of a separate right of residence of the child, assessed by reference to other provisions of that regulation (see, to that effect, Gaal, paragraph 25).
37 Naime, bilo bi suprotno kontekstu i ciljevima članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 kada bi se ostvarivanje prava na pristup obrazovanju uvjetovalo posebnim pravom djeteta na boravak prema drugim odredbama iste uredbe (vidjeti u tom smislu navedenu presudu Gaal, t. 25.).
38 It follows that, once the right of access to education derived by the child from Article 12 of that regulation has been acquired because of his being installed in the host Member State, the right of residence is retained by the child and can no longer be called into question because the conditions which were set out in Article 10 of that regulation are not satisfied.
38 Iz toga slijedi da kada je dijete steklo pravo na pristup obrazovanju na temelju članka 12. te uredbe zbog svog nastanjenja u državi članici domaćinu, dijete zadržava pravo boravka i to se pravo više ne može dovesti u pitanje zbog neispunjavanja uvjeta iz članka 10. iste uredbe.
39 Second, as is apparent from the very wording of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, the right to equal treatment in respect of access to education is not limited to children of migrant workers. It applies also to children of former migrant workers.
39 Drugo, kako proizlazi iz naslova članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, pravo na jednako postupanje u pogledu pristupa na obrazovanje nije ograničeno na djecu radnika migranata. Primjenjuje se i na djecu bivših radnika migranata.
40 The right derived by children from Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 is also not dependent on the right of residence of their parents in the host Member State. It is settled case-law that Article 12 requires only that the child has lived with his parents or either one of them in a Member State while at least one of them resided there as a worker (Case 197/86 Brown [1988] ECR 3205, paragraph 30, and Gaal, paragraph 27).
40 Pravo koje djeca imaju prema članku 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 isto tako nije ovisno o pravu boravka njihovih roditelja u državi članici domaćinu. Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi taj članak 12. zahtijeva samo da je dijete živjelo sa svojim roditeljima ili s jednim od njih u državi članici dok je barem jedan od njihovih roditelja tamo boravio kao radnik (presude od 21. lipnja 1988., Brown, 197/86, Zb., I-3205., t. 30. i navedena presuda Gaal, t. 27.).