natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
10 According to the order for reference, the United Kingdom authorities informed Mr Eind on 4 June 2001 that he had a right to reside in the United Kingdom by virtue of Regulation No 1612/68. By letter of the same date, his daughter was informed that she also had a right to reside in the United Kingdom in her capacity as a member of the family of a Community worker. Mr Eind accordingly received a residence permit valid from 6 June 2001 to 6 June 2006. 
10 Prema odluci kojom se upućuje prethodno pitanje, nadležna tijela Ujedinjene Kraljevine su 4. lipnja 2001. obavijestila R. R. L. Einda da na temelju Uredbe br. 1612/68 ima pravo boraviti u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini. Njegova kćer je dopisom od istoga dana obaviještena da kao član obitelji radnika iz Zajednice također ima pravo boraviti u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini. Sukladno tome je R. R. L Eindu izdana dozvola s važenjem od 6. lipnja 2001. do 6. lipnja 2006.
11 On 17 October 2001, Mr Eind and his daughter entered the Netherlands. Miss Eind registered with the Amsterdam police and applied for a residence permit pursuant to Article 14 of the Law. 
11 R. R. L. Eind i njegova kćer su 17. listopada 2001. ušli u Nizozemsku. R. N. G Eind se prijavila kod nadležnog policijskog tijela u Amsterdamu i podnijela zahtjev za izdavanje dozvole boravka na temelju članka 14. Zakona o strancima.
12 Before the administrative committee assigned to deal with that request, Mr Eind stated that, since his return to the Netherlands, he had been in receipt of social assistance and that, because of ill health, he had not been employed, nor had he sought employment. He also stated, however, that he had had an interview at the Banenmarkt (Employment Office) with a view to his re-entering the employment market and that he was awaiting a second interview. It also appears from the case-file that Mr Eind is covered by sickness insurance in the Netherlands. 
12 R. R. L. Eind je pred upravnom komisijom zaduženom za taj zahtjev izjavio da otkad se vratio u Nizozemsku prima socijalnu pomoć, te zbog bolesti nije radio niti je tražio zaposlenje. Također je izjavio da je bio na razgovoru u Banenmarktu (zavod za zapošljavanje) radi ponovnog uključivanja na tržište rada i da očekuje sljedeći razgovor. Iz spisa proizlazi da R. R. L. Eind u Nizozemskoj uživa prava iz zdravstvenog osiguranja.
13 By decision of 2 January 2002, the Staatssecretaris van Justitie refused Miss Eind’s application on the ground that she did not hold a temporary residence permit. The decision further stated that she could not be granted a residence permit on the basis of her status as a member of the family of a Community national. Although her father had resided in a Member State other than the Netherlands, he had not, since his return to the Netherlands, been engaged in effective and genuine activities and was not economically non-active for the purposes of the EC Treaty. In those circumstances, Mr Eind could no longer be regarded as a Community national for the purposes of the Law. 
13 Odlukom od 2. siječnja 2002., državni tajnik je odbio zahtjev R. N. G. Eind na temelju činjenice da ona nema privremenu dozvolu boravka. U odluci se također navodi da ne može dobiti dozvolu boravka na temelju njezinog statusa člana obitelji državljanina Zajednice. Iako je njezin otac boravio u drugoj državi članici koja nije Kraljevina Nizozemska, po povratku u Nizozemsku on nije obavljao učinkovite ni stvarne djelatnosti i nije ekonomski neaktivan državljanin u smislu Ugovora o EZ-u. U tim okolnostima se R. R. L. Einda ne može više smatrati državljaninom Zajednice u smislu Zakona o strancima.
14 The objection lodged by Miss Eind against that decision was rejected by decision of the Staatssecretaris van Justitie of 5 July 2002. However, by judgment of 20 October 2004, the Rechtbank te ‘s-Gravenhage (District Court of The Hague), referring to the judgments in Case C-370/90 Singh [1992] ECR I-4265 and Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745, set aside the decision of the Staatssecretaris van Justitie of 5 July 2002 and referred the case back to the Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie for the objection to be reconsidered. 
14 Prigovor koji je 5. srpnja 2002. protiv te odluke uložila R. N. G. Eind državni tajnik je odbio. Ipak je presudom od 20. listopada 2004. Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage (okružni sud u Den Haagu) pozivajući se na presude od 7. srpnja 1992., Singh (C-370/90, Zb., str. I-4265.) i od 26. veljače 1991., Antonissen (C-292/89, Zb., str. I-745.) ukinuo odluku državnog tajnika od 5. srpnja 2002. i vratio predmet pred Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie na ponovno odlučivanje u pogledu prigovora.
15 The Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie appealed against that judgment to the Raad van State (Council of State), which, on the view that Community law does not give an unequivocal answer to the issues raised by the case before it, decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
15 Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie je protiv te presude uložio žalbu pri Raad van Stateu, koji je, budući da pravo Zajednice ne daje jasan odgovor u pogledu spora o kojem odlučuje, odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘(1) (a) If a third-country national is regarded by a host Member State as a member of the family of a worker, within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation … No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 … and if the validity of the residence permit granted by that Member State has not yet expired, does this mean that the Member State of which the worker is a national may not, for that very reason, deny the third-country national the right of entry and residence on the return of the worker? 
„ 1) a) Ako država članica domaćin smatra državljanina treće zemlje članom obitelji radnika u smislu članka 10. Uredbe […] br. 1612/68 […] i ako valjanost dozvole boravka koju je odobrila ta država članica još nije istekla, znači li to da država članica čiji je radnik državljanin zbog toga ne može tom državljaninu treće zemlje uskratiti pravo ulaska i boravka, ako se taj radnik vrati?
(b) If the previous question has to be answered in the negative, is that Member State itself permitted, where that third-country national arrives in its territory, to determine on the basis of national law whether that person satisfies the conditions for entry and residence, or must that Member State first determine whether the third-country national still derives rights from Community law as a member of the worker’s family? 
b) Ako je odgovor na prethodno pitanje negativan, znači li to da ta država članica ima pravo u slučaju dolaska državljanina treće zemlje na njezino državno područje sama odlučiti o tome jesu li ispunjeni uvjeti za ulazak i boravak koji se temelje na nacionalnom pravu, ili ta država članica treba najprije utvrditi ima li taj državljanin treće zemlje kao član obitelji radnika i prava koja proizlaze iz prava Zajednice?
(2) Does it make any difference to the answers to the two preceding questions if, prior to his stay in the host Member State, the third-country national had no right of residence, under national law, in the Member State of which the worker is a national? 
2) Bi li odgovor na dva prethodna pitanja bio drukčiji da državljanin treće zemlje prije boravka u državi članici domaćinu nije imao pravo boravka na temelju nacionalnog prava u državi članici čiji je radnik državljanin?
(3) (a) If the Member State of which the worker (“the reference person”) is a national is permitted, on the worker’s return, to determine whether the conditions laid down in Community law for the issue of a residence permit as a family member are still fulfilled, does a third-country national who is a member of the family of the reference person who has returned from the host Member State to the Member State of which he is a national in order to seek employment there have a right of residence in the latter Member State and, if so, for how long? 
3) a) Ima li državljanin treće zemlje, član obitelji radnika (oca), koji se vratio iz države članice domaćina u državu čiji je državljanin da bi tu pronašao zaposlenje, pravo boravka u toj državi, ako država članica čiji je radnik državljanin ima pravo utvrditi jesu li još uvijek ispunjeni uvjeti prava Zajednice za izdavanje dozvole boravka članu obitelji, i ako je odgovor potvrdan, na koji vremenski rok?
(b) Does that right also exist if the reference person does not carry on any effective and genuine activities in the … Member State [of which he is a national] and cannot, or can no longer, be regarded as seeking employment, in the context of … Directive 90/364 …, in view of the fact that the reference person is in receipt of welfare benefit by virtue of his Netherlands nationality? 
b) Postoji li to pravo također ako otac u toj državi članici ne obavlja učinkovite i stvarne djelatnosti te ga se ne može ili ga se više ne može smatrati tražiteljem zaposlenja u smislu Direktive 90/364/ […], uzimajući u obzir okolnost da otac prima socijalnu pomoć na temelju svog nizozemskog državljanstva?
(4) What significance for the answers to the previous questions is to be attached to the fact that the third-country national is a member of the family of a citizen of the Union who has exercised his right under Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and who has returned to the Member State of which he is a national?’ 
"4) Kakav značaj valja za odgovore na prethodna pitanja dati činjenici da je državljanin treće zemlje član obitelji građanina Unije, koji je iskoristio pravo koje mu se priznaje na temelju članka 18. Ugovora o osnivanju Europske zajednice i koji se vratio u državu članicu čiji je državljanin?"""
16 In its written observations and at the hearing, the United Kingdom Government pointed out that the residence permit obtained by Miss Eind in the United Kingdom was issued pursuant to national law and not on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68. The United Kingdom Government made it clear that that residence permit did not reflect a Community law obligation but rather a policy choice made in the light of the national legislation. 
16 Vlada Ujedinjene Kraljevine je u svojim pisanim očitovanjima i na raspravi istaknula da je dozvola boravka, koju je R. N. G. Eind dobila u toj državi članici, izdana u skladu s nacionalnim pravom, a ne na temelju članka 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68. Ta je vlada pojasnila da takva dozvola boravka ne odražava obvezu koja proizlazi iz prava Zajednice, nego politički odabir s obzirom na nacionalno pravo.
17 The order for reference, by contrast, indicates that, by letter of 4 June 2001, the United Kingdom authorities informed Miss Eind that, in her capacity as a member of a Community worker’s family, she had a right to reside in the United Kingdom pursuant to Regulation No 1612/68. 
17 Suprotno tome, iz odluke kojom se upućuje prethodno pitanje proizlazi da su nadležna tijela Ujedinjene Kraljevine dopisom od 4. lipnja 2001. obavijestila R. N. G. Eind da kao članica obitelji radnika Zajednice ima pravo boraviti u toj državi članici na temelju Uredbe br. 1612/68.
18 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in the procedure of cooperation established by Article 234 EC, it is not for the Court of Justice but for the national court to ascertain the facts which have given rise to the dispute and to establish the consequences which they have for the judgment which it is required to deliver (see, inter alia, Case C-435/97 WWF and Others [1999] ECR I-5613, paragraph 32, and Case C-510/99 Tridon [2001] ECR I-7777, paragraph 28). 
18 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da, u okviru postupka suradnje utvrđenog člankom 234. UEZ-a, nije na Sudu, nego na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi činjenice koje su dovele do postupka te da iz toga izvede posljedice koje one imaju na odluku koju treba donijeti (vidjeti, osobito, presude od 16. rujna 1999., WWF i drugi, C-435/97, Zb., str. I-5613., t. 32., i od 23. listopada 2001., Tridon, C-510/99, Zb., str. I-7777., t. 28.).
19 Accordingly, the answers to the questions referred by the national court must be predicated on the same assumption as that on which that court based itself, namely that Miss Eind resided in the United Kingdom on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68. 
19 Sukladno tome, na pitanja koja je postavio sud koji je uputio zahtjev treba odgovoriti polazeći od iste pretpostavke od koje polazi taj sud, a to je da je R. N. G. Eind boravila u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini na temelju članka 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68.
Question 1(a) 
Prvo pitanje pod a)
20 By this question, the national court asks, essentially, whether, in the event of a Community worker returning to the Member State of which he is a national, Community law requires the authorities of that State to grant a right of entry and residence to a third-country national who is a member of that worker’s family, because of the mere fact that, in the Member State where the worker was gainfully employed, that third-country national held a valid residence permit issued on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68. 
20 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev tim pitanjem u biti pita da li u slučaju povratka radnika Zajednice u državu članicu čiji je državljanin, pravo Zajednice zahtijeva od tijela te države da odobre pravo ulaska i boravka državljaninu treće zemlje koji je član obitelji tog radnika, zbog toga što u državi članici u kojoj je radnik bio zaposlen taj državljanin treće zemlje ima valjanu dozvolu boravka izdanu na temelju članka 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68.
21 It must be borne in mind that, according to the wording of Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 1612/68, where a worker is a national of one Member State and is employed in the territory of another Member State, his spouse and the descendants who are under the age of 21 years or are dependants have the right, irrespective of their nationality, to install themselves with that worker. 
21 S obzirom na to valja podsjetiti da u skladu s člankom 10. stavkom 1. točkom (a) Uredbe br. 1612/68, supružnik i djeca koja nisu navršila 21 godinu ili su uzdržavanici radnika državljanina države članice zaposlenog na državnom području druge države članice, imaju pravo pridružiti se tom radniku neovisno o njihovom državljanstvu.
22 It follows, inter alia, from the fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1612/68 that that regulation is intended to eliminate barriers to the mobility of workers, ‘in particular as regards the worker’s right to be joined by his family and the conditions for the integration of that family into the host country’. 
22 Između ostalog, iz pete uvodne izjave Uredbe br. 1612/68 proizlazi da je njezin cilj uklanjanje prepreka za mobilnost radnika, „posebno u pogledu prava radnika da mu se pridruži obitelj te uvjeta za integraciju te obitelji u državu domaćina“ [neslužbeni prijevod].
23 The right to family reunification under Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 does not entail for members of the families of migrant workers any autonomous right to free movement, since that provision benefits the migrant worker whose family includes a national of a third country (see, in respect of Article 11 of Regulation No 1612/68, Case C-10/05 Mattern and Cikotic [2006] ECR I-3145, paragraph 25). 
23 Pravo na spajanje obitelji prema članku 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68 članovima obitelji radnika migranata ne daje vlastito pravo na slobodno kretanje, jer je ta odredba namijenjena prvenstveno radniku migrantu u čijoj je obitelji državljanin treće zemlje (vidjeti, u okviru članka 11. Uredbe br. 1612/68, presudu od 30. ožujka 2006., Mattern i Cikotic, C-10/05, Zb., str. I-3145., t. 25.).
24 It follows that the right of a third-country national who is a member of the family of a Community worker to install himself with that worker may be relied on only in the Member State where that worker resides. 
24 Iz toga slijedi da se pravo državljanina treće zemlje, koji je član obitelji radnika Zajednice, da se pridruži tom radniku može koristiti samo u državi članici u kojoj taj radnik boravi.
25 Under Regulation No 1612/68, the effects of the residence permit issued by the authorities of a Member State to a third-country national who is a member of a Community worker’s family are confined to the territory of that Member State. 
25 U okviru Uredbe br. 1612/68, učinci dozvole boravka koju su tijela države članice izdala državljaninu treće zemlje, članu obitelji radnika Zajednice, ograničeni su na državno područje te države članice.
26 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 1(a) must be that, in the event of a Community worker returning to the Member State of which he is a national, Community law does not require the authorities of that State to grant a right of entry and residence to a third-country national who is a member of that worker’s family because of the mere fact that, in the host Member State where that worker was gainfully employed, that third-country national held a valid residence permit issued on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68. 
26 Slijedom navedenog, na pitanje 1. a) valja odgovoriti da u slučaju povratka radnika Zajednice u državu članicu čiji je državljanin, pravo Zajednice ne zahtijeva od tijela te države da odobre pravo ulaska i boravka državljaninu treće zemlje koji je član obitelji tog radnika, zbog toga što u državi članici u kojoj je radnik bio zaposlen taj državljanin treće zemlje ima valjanu dozvolu boravka izdanu na temelju članka 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68.
Questions 2 and 3(b) 
Drugo pitanje i treće pitanje pod b)
27 By these questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the national court asks, essentially, whether, when a worker returns to the Member State of which he is a national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State, a third-country national who is a member of his family has a right under Community law to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national, even where that worker does not carry on effective and genuine economic activities. The national court also asks whether the fact that, before residing in the host Member State where the worker was employed, the third-country national did not have a right, under national law, to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national may have a bearing on that national’s right of residence. 
27 Ovim pitanjima, koja treba razmotriti zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita ima li u slučaju povratka radnika u državu članicu čiji je državljanin, nakon što je bio zaposlen u drugoj državi članici, državljanin treće zemlje koji je član obitelji tog radnika, prema pravu Zajednice pravo boraviti u državi članici čiji je radnik državljanin, čak i kada taj radnik tamo ne obavlja učinkovite i stvarne gospodarske djelatnosti. Sud koji je uputio zahtjev također pita da li činjenica da državljanin treće zemlje prije boravka u državi članici domaćinu u kojoj je radnik bio zaposlen, nije prema nacionalnom pravu imao pravo boravka u državi članici čiji je radnik državljanin, može utjecati na pravo boravka tog državljanina.
28 As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind that the right of nationals of one Member State to reside in the territory of another Member State without being engaged in any activity, whether on an employed or a self-employed basis, is not unconditional. Under Article 18(1) EC, the right of every citizen of the Union to reside in the territory of the Member States is recognised subject to the limitations and conditions imposed by the Treaty and by the measures adopted for its implementation (see, to that effect, Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573, paragraphs 31 and 32, and Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen [2004] ECR I-9925, paragraph 26). 
28 Najprije je potrebno podsjetiti da pravo državljanina države članice da borave na državnom području druge države članice a da ne rade ili su samozaposleni, nije bezuvjetno. Na temelju članka 18. stavka 1. UEZ-a, pravo boravka na državnom području država članica građanima Unije priznaje se samo uz ograničenja i uvjete predviđene Ugovorom i odredbama donesenim za njegovu primjenu (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 7. rujna 2004., Trojani, C-456/02, Zb., str. I-7573., t. 31. i 32., i od 19. listopada 2004., Zhu i Chen, C-200/02, Zb., str. I-9925., t. 26.).
29 Among those limitations and conditions is the provision made in the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 90/364, under which the Member States may require citizens of the Union who are not economically active and wish to enjoy the right to reside in their territory, to ensure that they themselves and the members of their families are covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence. 
29 Među tim ograničenjima i uvjetima iz članka 1. stavka 1. prvog podstavka Direktive 90/364 proizlazi da države članice mogu od gospodarski neaktivnih građana Unije, koji žele ostvariti pravo boravka na njihovom državnom području, zahtijevati da su oni sami i članovi njihovih obitelji sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osigurani u državi članici domaćinu te da imaju dostatna sredstva koja jamče da tijekom svog boravka neće postati teret sustavu socijalne pomoći države članice domaćina.
30 The right of residence enjoyed by the members of the family of an economically non-active citizen of the Union under Article 1(2) of Directive 90/364 is linked to the right enjoyed by that citizen under Community law. 
30 Pravo boravka, koje na temelju članka 1. stavka 2. Direktive 90/364 imaju članovi obitelji gospodarski neaktivnog građanina Unije, povezano je s pravom koje taj građanin Unije ima u skladu s pravom Zajednice.
31 In the main proceedings, since Mr Eind is a Netherlands national, his right to reside in the territory of the Netherlands cannot be refused or made conditional. 
31 Budući da je R. R. L. Eind nizozemski državljanin, u predmetu u glavnom postupku nije moguće odbiti ili uvjetovati njegovo pravo boravka na državnom području Kraljevine Nizozemske.
32 As was rightly pointed out by the Advocate General in points 101 to 106 of his Opinion, the right of the migrant worker to return and reside in the Member State of which he is a national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State, is conferred by Community law, to the extent necessary to ensure the useful effect of the right to free movement for workers under Article 39 EC and the provisions adopted to give effect to that right, such as those laid down in Regulation No 1612/68. That interpretation is substantiated by the introduction of the status of citizen of the Union, which is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States. 
32 Kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik naveo u točkama od 101. do 106. svog mišljenja, pravo radnika migranta da se vrati i boravi u državi članici čiji je državljanin, nakon što je bio zaposlen u drugoj državi članici, proizlazi iz prava Zajednice, u mjeri potrebnoj za postizanje korisnog učinka prava na slobodno kretanje radnika u skladu s člankom 39. UEZ-a i odredbama koje su usvojene za ostvarivanje tog prava, kao što su one iz Uredbe br. 1612/68. Takvo tumačenje potvrđeno je uvođenjem statusa građanina Unije, čiji je cilj postati temeljni status državljana država članica.