natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
42 Moreover, any interpretation seeking the recognition of limits, whether temporal or monetary, on the obligation of the air carrier to provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled would have the effect of jeopardising the aims pursued by Regulation No 261/2004 recalled in paragraph 31 of this judgment, in that, beyond the limitation adopted, passengers would be deprived of all care and thus left to themselves. As the Advocate General noted in point 52 of his Opinion, the provision of care to such passengers is particularly important in the case of extraordinary circumstances which persist over a long time and it is precisely in situations where the waiting period occasioned by the cancellation of a flight is particularly lengthy that it is necessary to ensure that an air passenger whose flight has been cancelled can have access to essential goods and services throughout that period. 
42 Osim toga, svako tumačenje kojim se žele priznati ograničenja, vremenska ili novčana, u vezi s obvezom zračnog prijevoznika da pruži skrb putnicima čiji je let otkazan, ugrozilo bi ciljeve Uredbe br. 261/2004 na koje je ukazano u točki 31. ove presude, budući da bi izvan usvojenih ograničenja, putnicima bila uskraćena sva skrb te bi tako bili prepušteni sami sebi. Kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik napomenuo u točki 52. svojeg mišljenja, pružanje skrbi takvim putnicima izuzetno je važno u slučaju izvanrednih okolnosti koje traju tijekom duljeg razdoblja i upravo je u situaciji kada je vrijeme čekanja uzrokovano otkazivanjem leta posebno dugo, potrebno osigurati da putnik u zračnom prometu čiji je let otkazan može tijekom cijelog tog razdoblja čekanja imati pristup osnovnim robama i uslugama.
44 However, it is necessary to ensure that the interpretation in the preceding paragraph does not conflict with the principles of proportionality, of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ referred to in the Montreal Convention and of non-discrimination, or with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. Under a general principle of interpretation, a European Union measure must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity and in conformity with primary law as a whole (Case C-149/10 Chatzi [2010] ECR I-8489, paragraph 43). 
44 Međutim, potrebno je osigurati da tumačenje u prethodnoj točki ne bude u suprotnosti s načelima proporcionalnosti, „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa“ iz Montrealske konvencije i nediskriminacije, ili s člancima 16. i 17. Povelje. Prema općem načelu tumačenja, akt Unije mora se tumačiti u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri tako da se ne dovede u pitanje njegova valjanost kao i u skladu s primarnim pravom kao cjelinom (presuda od 16. rujna 2010., Chatzi, C-149/10, Zb., str. I-8489., t. 43.).
52 As regards, second, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ referred to in the last paragraph of the preamble to the Montreal Convention, suffice it to note that the standardised and immediate compensatory measures laid down by Regulation No 261/2004, which include the obligation to provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled, are not among those whose institution is governed by the Montreal Convention (see, to that effect, Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). 
52 Drugo, što se tiče načela „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa“ iz posljednje točke preambule Montrealske konvencije, dovoljno je napomenuti da se standardizirane i trenutačne mjere popravljanja štete utvrđene u Uredbi br. 261/2004, koje uključuju obvezu pružanja skrbi putnicima čiji su letovi bili otkazani, ne ubrajaju u one mjere čija se uspostava regulira Montrealskom konvencijom (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Wallentin-Hermann, t. 32. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
53 Therefore, there is no need to assess the validity of the aforesaid provisions in the light of the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ referred to in that Convention. 
53 Stoga nema potrebe za ocjenom valjanosti gore navedenih odredaba u odnosu na načelo „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa” iz te konvencije.
54 As regards, third, the general principle of non-discrimination or equal treatment, Ryanair claims that the obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care in a situation such as that as issue in the main proceedings imposes obligations on air carriers which, in circumstances similar to those at issue in the main proceedings, do not fall upon other modes of transport governed by Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14), Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 1) and Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 1), even though passengers stranded by widespread and prolonged disruption of transport find themselves in an identical situation whatever their mode of transport. 
54 Treće, što se tiče općeg načela nediskriminacije ili jednakog postupanja, Ryanair tvrdi da obveza pružanja skrbi utvrđena u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 u situaciji poput one o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku nameće zračnim prijevoznicima obveze kojima, u okolnostima sličnim onima o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, ne podliježu druge vrste prijevoza uređene Uredbom (EZ) br. 1371/2007 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. listopada 2007. o pravima i obvezama putnika u željezničkom prometu (SL L 315, str. 14.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 7., svezak 10., str. 143.), Uredbom (EU) br. 1177/2010 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 24. studenoga 2010. o pravima putnika kada putuju morem ili unutarnjim plovnim putovima i o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2006/2004 (SL L 334, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 15., svezak 13., str. 142.) i Uredbom (EU) br. 181/2011 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. veljače 2011. o pravima putnika u autobusnom prijevozu i izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2006/2004 (SL L 55, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 7., svezak 12., str. 237.), iako su putnici koji se nađu u opsežnom i dugotrajnom prekidu prijevoza u identičnoj situaciji bez obzira na njihov način prijevoza.
55 In that respect, it should be noted that the Court has already held in IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 93 to 99, that Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 do not infringe the principle of equal treatment. 
55 U tom smislu, valja napomenuti da je Sud već ocijenio u gore navedenoj presudi IATA i ELFAA, t. od 93. do 99., da članci od 5. do 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne krše načelo jednakog postupanja.
60 In that regard, it must be noted, first, that freedom to conduct a business and the right to property are not absolute rights but must be considered in relation to their social function (see, to that effect, Case C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited). 
60 U vezi s tim valja napomenuti, prvo, da sloboda poduzetništva i pravo vlasništva nisu apsolutni prerogativi, nego se moraju razmatrati s obzirom na njihovu funkciju u društvu (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 6. rujna 2012., Deutsches Weintor, C-544/10, t. 54. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
63 In this case, the referring court mentions Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. However, it is also necessary to take account of Article 38 thereof which, like Article 169 TFEU, seeks to ensure a high level of protection for consumers, including air passengers, in European Union policies. As has been noted in paragraph 31 of this judgment, protection of those passengers is among the principal aims of Regulation No 261/2004. 
63 U ovom predmetu, sud koji je uputio zahtjev spominje članke 16. i 17. Povelje. Međutim, treba također uzeti u obzir njezin članak 38. kojim se, kao i člankom 169. UFEU-a, želi u politikama Europske unije osigurati visoka razina zaštite za potrošače, uključujući putnike u zračnom prometu. Kako je navedeno u točki 31. ove presude, zaštita tih putnika je među glavnim ciljevima Uredbe br. 261/2004.
66 Consequently, the answer to the fourth and fifth questions is that Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ of a duration such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to air passengers laid down in those provisions must be complied with, and the validity of those provisions is not affected. 
66 Prema tome, na četvrto i peto pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 treba tumačiti tako da se u slučaju otkazivanja leta radi „izvanrednih okolnosti“ u trajanju poput onog u glavnom postupku, obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima utvrđena u tim odredbama mora ispuniti, bez utjecaja na valjanost tih odredaba.
67 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring 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. 
67 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.
1. Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that circumstances such as the closure of part of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that regulation which do not release air carriers from their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of the regulation to provide care. 
1. Članak 5. Uredbe (EZ) br. 261/2004 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 11. veljače 2004. o utvrđivanju općih pravila odštete i pomoći putnicima u slučaju uskraćenog ukrcaja i otkazivanja ili dužeg kašnjenja leta u polasku te o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe (EEZ) br. 295/91, treba tumačiti tako da znači da okolnosti, kao što je zatvaranje dijela europskog zračnog prostora radi erupcije vulkana Eyjafjallajökull, predstavljaju „izvanredne okolnosti” u smislu te Uredbe koje ne oslobađaju zračne prijevoznike od njihove obveze pružanja skrbi utvrđene u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. navedene uredbe.
2. Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ of a duration such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to air passengers laid down in those provisions must be complied with, and the validity of those provisions is not affected. 
2. Članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 treba tumačiti tako da znače da se u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog „izvanrednih okolnosti” u trajanju poput onog u glavnom postupku obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima utvrđena u tim odredbama mora ispuniti, bez utjecaja na valjanost tih odredaba.
5 September 2012 (*) 
5. rujna 2012. (*)
(Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Article 3(2) – Obligation to facilitate, in accordance with national legislation, entry and residence for ‘any other family members’ who are dependants of a Union citizen) 
„Direktiva 2004/38/EZ – Pravo građana Unije i članova njihovih obitelji na slobodno kretanje i boravak na državnom području država članica – Članak 3. stavak 2. – Obveza olakšavanja, u skladu s nacionalnim zakonodavstvom, ulaska i boravka ,bilo kojim drugim članovima obiteljiʼ koji su uzdržavanici građanina Unije”
In Case C-83/11, 
U predmetu C-83/11,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 3 February 2011, received at the Court on 22 February 2011, in the proceedings 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 267. UFEU-a, koji je uputio Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina), odlukom od 3. veljače 2011., koju je Sud zaprimio 22. veljače 2011., u postupku
Secretary of State for the Home Department 
Secretary of State for the Home Department protiv
v Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman, 
Muhammada Sazzadura Rahmana,
Fazly Rabby Islam, 
Fazlyja Rabbyja Islama,
Mohibullah Rahman, 
Mohibullaha Rahmana,
composed of V. Skouris, President, A. Tizzano, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Prechal, Presidents of Chambers, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), M. Berger and E. Jarašiūnas, Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, A. Tizzano, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Prechal, predsjednici vijeća, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič (izvjestitelj), M. Berger i E. Jarašiūnas, suci,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 14 February 2012, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 14. veljače 2012.,
– the Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE Centre), by A. Weiss, N. Mole and S. Chaudary, legal advisers, 
– za Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE Centre), A. Weiss, N. Mole i S. Chaudary, savjetnici,
– the United Kingdom Government, by L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent, and R. Palmer, Barrister, 
– za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, L. Seeboruth, u svojstvu agenta, i R. Palmer, barrister,
– the Danish Government, by C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents, 
– za dansku vladu, C. Vang i V. Pasternak Jørgensen, u svojstvu agenata,
– the German Government, by A. Wiedmann, acting as Agent, 
– za njemačku vladu, A. Wiedmann, u svojstvu agenta,
– the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and L. D’Ascia, avvocato dello Stato, 
– za talijansku vladu, G. Palmieri, u svojstvu agenta, i L. D’Ascia, avvocato dello Stato,
– the Netherlands Government, by C. Wissels and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents, 
– za nizozemsku vladu, C. Wissels i M. Bulterman, u svojstvu agenata,
– the European Commission, by C. Tufvesson and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents, 
– za Europsku komisiju, C. Tufvesson i M. Wilderspin, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 27 March 2012, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 27. ožujka 2012.,
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 3(2) and 10(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigenda at OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35, and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34). 
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje članka 3. stavka 2. i članka 10. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 29. travnja 2004. o pravu građana Unije i članova njihovih obitelji slobodno se kretati i boraviti na državnom području država članica, o izmjeni Uredbe (EEZ) br. 1612/68 i stavljanju izvan snage direktiva 64/221/EEZ, 68/360/EEZ, 72/194/EEZ, 73/148/EEZ, 75/34/EEZ, 75/35/EEZ, 90/364/EEZ, 90/365/EEZ i 93/96/EEZ (SL 2004, L 158, str. 77. i ispravci SL 2004, L 229, str. 35. i SL 2005, L 197, str. 34.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 5., svezak 2., str. 42. i ispravak SL 2016, L 87, str. 36.).
2 The reference has been made in proceedings between the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the Secretary of State’) and Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman, Fazly Rabby Islam and Mohibullah Rahman, who are Bangladeshi nationals, concerning the application by those latter parties for a permit to reside in the United Kingdom as family members of a national of a State in the European Economic Area (‘the EEA’). 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između Secretary of State for the Home Department (dalje u tekstu: Secretary of State) i Muhammada Sazzadura Rahmana, Fazlyja Rabbyja Islama i Mohibullaha Rahmana, bangladeških državljana, u vezi s njihovim zahtjevom da im se izda dozvola boravka u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini kao članovima obitelji državljanina države Europskoga gospodarskog prostora (dalje u tekstu: EGP).
Directive 2004/38 
Direktiva 2004/38
3 Recital 6 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38 states: 
3 Uvodna izjava 6. Direktive 2004/38 glasi:
‘In order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense and without prejudice to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, the situation of those persons who are not included in the definition of family members under this Directive, and who therefore do not enjoy an automatic right of entry and residence in the host Member State, should be examined by the host Member State on the basis of its own national legislation, in order to decide whether entry and residence could be granted to such persons, taking into consideration their relationship with the Union citizen or any other circumstances, such as their financial or physical dependence on the Union citizen.’ 
„Kako bi se sačuvalo jedinstvo obitelji u širem smislu i ne dovodeći u pitanje zabranu diskriminacije na temelju državljanstva, država članica domaćin trebala bi na temelju svog nacionalnog zakonodavstva ispitati položaj osoba koje nisu obuhvaćene definicijom članova obitelji prema ovoj Direktivi i koje zbog toga ne uživaju automatsko pravo na ulazak i boravak u državi članici domaćinu, kako bi odlučila može li odobriti ulazak i boravak tim osobama, uzimajući pritom u obzir njihovu vezu s građaninom Unije i sve ostale okolnosti, kao što su njihova financijska ili fizička ovisnost o građaninu Unije.”
4 Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38 provides that, for the purposes of the directive, ‘family member’ means: 
4 U skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 2. Direktive 2004/38, za potrebe te direktive „član obitelji” znači:
"‘(a) the spouse;" 
"„(a) bračni drug;"
"(b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership …;" 
"(b) partner s kojim građanin Unije sklopio registrirano partnerstvo […];"
(d) the dependent direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b)’. 
(d) izravni srodnici u uzlaznoj liniji koji su uzdržavanici, kao i oni bračnoga druga ili partnera u smislu točke (b) ovog članka”.
5 Article 3 of Directive 2004/38, headed ‘Beneficiaries’, provides: 
5 Člankom 3. Direktive 2004/38, naslovljenim „Nositelji prava”, predviđa se:
‘1. This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them. 
„1. Ova se Direktiva primjenjuje na sve građane Unije koji se useljavaju ili borave u državi članici različitoj od one čiji su državljani i na članove njihovih obitelji, u smislu članka 2. točke 2. ove Direktive, koji ih prate ili im se pridružuju.
2. Without prejudice to any right to free movement and residence the persons concerned may have in their own right, the host Member State shall, in accordance with its national legislation, facilitate entry and residence for the following persons: 
2. Ne dovodeći u pitanje bilo koje osobno pravo na slobodno kretanje i boravak koje dotične osobe imaju, država članica domaćin u skladu sa svojih nacionalnim zakonodavstvom olakšava ulazak i boravak sljedećim osobama:
"(a) any other family members, irrespective of their nationality, not falling under the definition in point 2 of Article 2 who, in the country from which they have come, are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence, or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen;" 
"(a) svim ostalim članovima obitelji koji nisu obuhvaćeni definicijom iz članka 2. točke 2. ove Direktive, bez obzira na njihovo državljanstvo, koji su u zemlji iz koje dolaze uzdržavanici ili članovi kućanstva građanina Unije koji je nositelj primarnog prava na boravak, ili kada je zbog ozbiljnih zdravstvenih razloga nužno da građanin Unije osobno njeguje dotičnog člana obitelji;"
(b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested. 
(b) partneru s kojim je građanin Unije u trajnoj vezi, uz odgovarajuću potvrdu.
The host Member State shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and shall justify any denial of entry or residence to these people.’ 
Država članica domaćin poduzima opsežno ispitivanje osobnih okolnosti i obrazlaže svako odbijanje ulaska ili boravka tim osobama.”
6 Article 10 of Directive 2004/38, headed ‘Issue of residence cards’, states: 
6 Člankom 10. Direktive 2004/38, naslovljenim „Izdavanje boravišne iskaznice”, određuje se:
‘1. The right of residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State shall be evidenced by the issuing of a document called “Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen” no later than six months from the date on which they submit the application. A certificate of application for the residence card shall be issued immediately. 
„1. Pravo na boravak članova obitelji građanina Unije koji nisu državljani države članice evidentira se izdavanjem isprave pod nazivom ‚Boravišna iskaznica za člana obitelji građanina Unije’ najkasnije šest mjeseci od datuma podnošenja zahtjeva. Potvrda o podnošenju zahtjeva za izdavanje boravišne iskaznice.
"(e) in cases falling under Article 3(2)(a), a document issued by the relevant authority in the country of origin or country from which they are arriving certifying that they are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen, or proof of the existence of serious health grounds which strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen;" 
"(e) u slučajevima iz članka 3. stavka 2. točke (a), isprave koju je izdalo nadležno tijelo u zemlji podrijetla ili zemlji iz koje dolaze, kojom se potvrđuje da su uzdržavanici ili članovi kućanstva građanina Unije ili dokaza o postojanju ozbiljnih zdravstvenih razloga zbog kojih je nužno da građanin Unije osobno njeguje dotičnog člana obitelji;"
7 Directive 2004/38 was transposed in the United Kingdom by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, as amended by the Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (‘the Immigration Regulations’). 
7 Direktiva 2004/38 prenesena je u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu Uredbom o useljavanju iz 2006. (Europski gospodarski prostor) [Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006], kako je izmijenjena Uredbom o useljavanju iz 2009. (Europski gospodarski prostor) [Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2009] (dalje u tekstu: Uredba o useljavanju).
8 Regulation 7 of the Immigration Regulations, headed ‘Family member’, provides: 
8 Člankom 7. Uredbe o useljavanju, naslovljenim „Članovi obitelji”, određuje se:
‘(1) Subject to paragraph (2), for the purposes of these Regulations the following persons shall be treated as the family members of another person – 
„(1) Uz uvjete iz stavka 2., za potrebe ove Uredbe sljedeće se osobe smatraju članovima obitelji druge osobe –
"(a) his spouse or his civil partner;" 
"(a) njezin bračni drug ili registrirani partner;"