natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(b) direct descendants of his, his spouse or his civil partner who are – 
(b) njezini izravni potomci kao i oni njezinog bračnog druga ili registriranog partnera koji su –
"(i) under 21; or" 
"i. mlađi od 21 godine; ili"
"(ii) dependants of his, his spouse or his civil partner;" 
"ii. njezini uzdržavanici ili uzdržavanici njezinog bračnog druga ili registriranog partnera;"
"(c) dependent direct relatives in his ascending line or that of his spouse or his civil partner;" 
"(c) njezini izravni srodnici u uzlaznoj liniji koji su uzdržavanici, kao i oni bračnoga druga ili partnera;"
(d) a person who is to be treated as the family member of that other person under paragraph (3). 
(d) osoba koju treba smatrati članom obitelji te druge osobe na temelju stavka 3.
(3) … a person who is an extended family member and has been issued with an EEA family permit, a registration certificate or a residence card shall be treated as the family member of the relevant EEA national for as long as he continues to satisfy the conditions in regulation 8(2), (3), (4) or (5) in relation to that EEA national and the permit, certificate or card has not ceased to be valid or been revoked. 
(3) […] osoba koja je član obitelji u širem smislu i kojoj je izdana obiteljska dozvola za EGP, potvrda o prijavi ili boravišna iskaznica smatra se članom obitelji predmetnog državljana EGP-a sve dotle dok ispunjava uvjete predviđene člankom 8. stavkom 2., 3., 4. ili 5. u vezi s tim državljaninom EGP-a i dok joj ne prestane važiti ili ne bude ukinuta navedena obiteljska dozvola, potvrda o prijavi ili dozvola boravka.
…’ 
[…] ”
9 Regulation 8 of the Immigration Regulations, headed ‘Extended family member’, reads as follows: 
9 Članak 8. Uredbe o useljavanju, naslovljen „Članovi obitelji u širem smislu”, glasi:
‘(1) In these Regulations “extended family member” means a person who is not a family member of an EEA national under regulation 7(1)(a), (b) or (c) and who satisfies the conditions in paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5). 
„(1) U ovoj Uredbi „član obitelji u širem smislu” znači osoba koja nije član obitelji državljanina EGP-a u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 1. točkom (a), (b) ili (c) i koja ispunjava uvjete iz stavka 2., 3., 4. ili 5.
(2) A person satisfies the condition in this paragraph if the person is a relative of an EEA national, his spouse or his civil partner and – 
(2) Osoba ispunjava uvjet iz ovog stavka ako je član obitelji državljanina EGP-a, njegova bračnog druga ili registriranog partnera i –
"(a) the person is residing in an EEA State in which the EEA national also resides and is dependent upon the EEA national or is a member of his household;" 
"(a) boravi u državi EGP-a u kojoj boravi i državljanin EGP-a i uzdržavanik je ili član kućanstva tog državljanina EGP-a;"
"(b) the person satisfied the condition in paragraph (a) and is accompanying the EEA national to the United Kingdom or wishes to join him there; or" 
"(b) osoba ispunjava uvjet iz točke (a) i prati državljanina EGP-a u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu ili mu se želi tamo pridružiti; ili"
(c) the person satisfied the condition in paragraph (a), has joined the EEA national in the United Kingdom and continues to be dependent upon him or to be a member of his household. 
(c) osoba ispunjava uvjet iz točke (a), pridružila se državljaninu EGP-a u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini te je i dalje njegov uzdržavanik ili član njegova kućanstva.
(3) A person satisfies the condition in this paragraph if the person is a relative of an EEA national or his spouse or his civil partner and, on serious health grounds, strictly requires the personal care of the EEA national, his spouse or his civil partner. 
(3) Osoba ispunjava uvjet iz ovog stavka ako je član obitelji državljanina EGP-a ili njegova bračnog druga ili registriranog partnera te ako ozbiljni zdravstveni razlozi strogo nalažu da je taj državljanin EGP-a, njegov bračni drug ili registrirani partner osobno njeguje.
(6) In these Regulations “relevant EEA national” means, in relation to an extended family member, the EEA national who is or whose spouse or civil partner is the relative of the extended family member for the purpose of paragraph (2), (3) or (4) or the EEA national who is the partner of the extended family member for the purpose of paragraph (5).’ 
(6) U ovoj Uredbi „predmetni državljanin EGP-a” znači, u odnosu na člana obitelji u širem smislu, državljanin EGP-a koji je, ili čiji je bračni drug ili registrirani partner, srodnik člana obitelji u širem smislu za potrebe stavka 2., 3. ili 4. ili državljanin EGP-a koji je partner člana obitelji u širem smislu za potrebe stavka 5.”
10 Regulation 17 of the Immigration Regulations, headed ‘Issue of residence card’, provides: 
10 Člankom 17. Uredbe o useljavanju, naslovljen „Izdavanje boravišne iskaznice”, određuje se:
(4) The Secretary of State may issue a residence card to an extended family member not falling within regulation 7(3) who is not an EEA national on application if – 
(4) Secretary of State može na zahtjev izdati boravišnu iskaznicu članu obitelji u širem smislu koji nije obuhvaćen člankom 7. stavkom 3. i nije državljanin EGP-a ako –
"(a) the relevant EEA national in relation to the extended family member is a qualified person or an EEA national with a permanent right of residence under regulation 15; and" 
"(a) je predmetni državljanin EGP-a, u odnosu na člana obitelji u širem smislu, osoba koja ispunjava propisane uvjete ili je državljanin EGP-a koji ima pravo stalnog boravka u skladu s člankom 15.; i"
(b) in all the circumstances it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to issue the residence card. 
(b) s obzirom na sve okolnosti Secretary of State smatra primjerenim izdati boravišnu iskaznicu.
(5) Where the Secretary of State receives an application under paragraph (4) he shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the applicant and if he refuses the application shall give reasons justifying the refusal unless this is contrary to the interests of national security. 
(5) Ako Secretary of State primi zahtjev na temelju stavka 4., provodi opsežno istraživanje osobnih okolnosti podnositelja zahtjeva te, ako odbije zahtjev, navodi razloge koji opravdavaju odbijanje, osim ako je to suprotno interesima nacionalne sigurnosti.
11 On 31 May 2006 Mahbur Rahman, a Bangladeshi national, married an Irish national working in the United Kingdom. 
11 Mahbur Rahman, bangladeški državljanin, 31. svibnja 2006. sklopio je brak s irskom državljankom zaposlenom u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini.
12 Following that marriage, his brother Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman, his half-brother Fazly Rabby Islam and his nephew Mohibullah Rahman applied for EEA family permits in order to obtain the right to reside in the United Kingdom as his and Mrs Rahman’s dependants. Those applications were refused by the Entry Clearance Officer in Bangladesh on 27 July 2006 as the respondents in the main proceedings had been unable to demonstrate that they were dependent on Mr and Mrs Rahman in Bangladesh. 
12 Nakon sklapanja tog braka, njegov brat Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman, njegov polubrat Fazly Rabby Islam i njegov nećak Mohibullah Rahman podnijeli su zahtjev za izdavanje obiteljske dozvole za EGP kako bi stekli pravo na boravak u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini kao osobe koje uzdržava bračni par Rahman. Entry Clearance Officer u Bangladešu odbio je te zahtjeve 27. srpnja 2006. jer tuženici u glavnom postupku nisu mogli dokazati da su uzdržavanici bračnog para Rahman u Bangladešu.
13 The respondents in the main proceedings then brought an appeal against that refusal before the Immigration Judge of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The Immigration Judge allowed their appeal on 19 June 2007. The Immigration Judge found that they were entitled to benefit from the provisions of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 and that, therefore, their entry into the United Kingdom had to be facilitated. Consequently, the respondents in the main proceedings were issued with EEA family permits and they were able to join Mr and Mrs Rahman in the United Kingdom. 
13 Tuženici u glavnom postupku podnijeli su Immigration Judge of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunalu žalbu protiv odluke o odbijanju. Navedeni je sud prihvatio žalbu 19. lipnja 2007. Presudio je da su se na njih mogle primijeniti odredbe članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38 te da im je stoga morao biti omogućen ulazak u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu. Slijedom toga, tuženicima u glavnom postupku bile su izdane obiteljske dozvole za EGP i mogli su se pridružiti bračnom paru Rahman u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini.
14 On 9 January 2008 the respondents in the main proceedings applied for residence cards to confirm their right to reside in the United Kingdom. Those applications were refused by decision of 24 December 2008 of the Secretary of State, as the latter took the view that they had not proved that they had resided with Mrs Rahman, the relevant Union citizen, in the same EEA Member State before she came to the United Kingdom, or that they continued to be dependent on her or were members of her household in the United Kingdom. 
14 Tuženici u glavnom postupku podnijeli su 9. siječnja 2008. zahtjev za izdavanje boravišne iskaznice koja bi potvrđivala njihovo pravo na boravak u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini. Secretary of State im je odlukom od 24. prosinca 2008. odbio te zahtjeve jer je smatrao da nisu dokazali da su s gospođom Rahman, predmetnom državljankom Unije, boravili u istoj državi članici EGP-a prije nego što je ona došla u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu niti da ih je ona i dalje uzdržavala odnosno da su bili članovi njezina kućanstva u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini.
15 An appeal against that decision was brought before the Immigration Judge of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, who held, on 6 April 2009, that the respondents in the main proceedings were indeed ‘dependants’ and, consequently, that their file had to be considered under regulation 17(4) and (5) of the Immigration Regulations. 
15 Žalba protiv te odluke podnesena je Immigration Judge of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunalu, koji je 6. travnja 2009. presudio da su tuženici u glavnom postupku stvarno bili „uzdržavanici” i da je stoga njihov spis trebalo razmatrati na temelju članka 17. stavaka 4. i 5. Uredbe o useljavanju.
16 The Secretary of State requested a reconsideration of that decision before the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Reconsideration was ordered by decision of 30 April 2009 and the case is before that tribunal as an appeal. 
16 Secretary of State je zatražio da Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) preispita navedenu odluku. Preispitivanje je naloženo odlukom od 30. travnja 2009. i predmet je proslijeđen tom sudu kao žalbenom sudu.
17 It was in those circumstances that the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
17 U tim je uvjetima Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘(1) Does Article 3(2) of [Directive 2004/38] require a Member State to make legislative provision to facilitate entry to and/or residence in a Member State to the class of other family members who are not nationals of the European Union who can meet the requirements of Article 10(2) [of that directive]? 
„(1) Zahtijeva li članak 3. stavak 2. [Direktive 2004/38] od države članice da zakonskom odredbom omogući ulazak u državu članicu i/ili boravak u njoj kategoriji drugih članova obitelji koji nisu državljani Europske unije koji mogu ispunjavati uvjete iz članka 10. stavka 2. [Direktive]?
(2) Can such other family member referred to in Question 1 rely on the direct applicability of Article 3(2) of [Directive 2004/38] in the event that he cannot comply with any requirements imposed by national legislative provisions? 
(2) Može li se taj drugi član obitelji, o kojemu se govori u prvom pitanju, pozvati na izravnu primjenu članka 3. stavka 2. [Direktive 2004/38] u slučaju da ne može ispuniti nijedan zahtjev propisan odredbama nacionalnog zakonodavstva?
(3) Is the class of other family members referred to in Article 3(2) and Article 10(2) of [Directive 2004/38] limited to those who have resided in the same country as the Union national and his or her spouse, before the Union national came to the host State? 
(3) Je li kategorija drugih članova obitelji iz članka 3. stavka 2. i članka 10. stavka 2. [Direktive 2004/38] ograničena samo na one koji su boravili u istoj državi kao i državljanin Unije i njegov bračni drug prije nego što je državljanin Unije došao u državu domaćina?
(4) Must any dependency referred to in Article 3(2) of [Directive 2004/38] on which the other family member relies to secure entry to the host State be dependency that existed shortly before the Union citizen moved to the host State? 
(4) Mora li uzdržavanje iz članka 3. stavka 2. [Direktive 2004/38] na koje se drugi član obitelji poziva kako bi osigurao ulazak u državu domaćina biti uzdržavanje koje je postojalo malo prije nego što se državljanin Unije preselio u državu domaćina?
(5) Can a Member State impose particular requirements as to the nature or duration of dependency referred to in Article 3(2) of [Directive 2004/38] by such other family member so as to prevent such dependency being contrived or unnecessary to enable a non-national to be admitted to or continue to reside in its territory? 
(5) Može li država članica propisati posebne zahtjeve u pogledu vrste i trajanja uzdržavanja drugog člana obitelji iz članka 3. stavka 2. [Direktive 2004/38] kojima bi spriječila da izmišljeno ili nepotrebno uzdržavanje omogući osobama koje nisu državljani ulazak na njezino područje ili daljnji boravak na njezinom području?
(6) Must the dependency on which the other family member relies in order to be admitted to the Member State continue for a period or indefinitely in the host State for a residence card to be issued or renewed pursuant to Article 10 of [Directive 2004/38] and if so how should such dependency be demonstrated?’ 
(6) Mora li uzdržavanje na koje se poziva drugi član obitelji kako bi mu se odobrio boravak u državi članici, trajati neko određeno razdoblje ili neodređeno vrijeme u državi domaćinu da bi mu se mogla izdati ili produljiti boravišna iskaznica u skladu s člankom 10. [Direktive 2004/38] i, ako je tako, kako bi se takvo uzdržavanje trebalo dokazati?’
18 With regard to the first and second questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, it should be pointed out at the outset that Directive 2004/38 does not oblige the Member States to grant every application for entry or residence submitted by persons who show that they are family members who are ‘dependants’ of a Union citizen, within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of that directive. 
18 Kada je riječ o prvom i drugom pitanju, koje valja ispitati zajedno, prije svega valja istaknuti da Direktiva 2004/38 ne obvezuje države članice da udovolje svakom zahtjevu za ulazak ili boravak koji podnesu osobe koje dokažu da su članovi obitelji „uzdržavanici” građanina Unije u smislu članka 3. stavka 2. te direktive.
19 As contended by the governments which have submitted observations to the Court and by the European Commission, it follows both from the wording of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 and from the general system of the directive that the European legislature has drawn a distinction between a Union citizen’s family members as defined in Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38, who enjoy, as provided for in the directive, a right of entry into and residence in that citizen’s host Member State, and the other family members envisaged in Article 3(2) of the directive, whose entry and residence has only to be facilitated by that Member State. 
19 Kao što su navele vlade koje su Sudu podnijele očitovanja i Europska komisija, iz teksta članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38 i iz opće strukture te direktive proizlazi da zakonodavac Unije razlikuje između članova obitelji građanina Unije definiranih u članku 2. stavku 2. Direktive 2004/38 koji pod uvjetima koji su utvrđeni u toj direktivi imaju pravo ulaska i boravka u državi članici domaćinu toga građanina i drugih članova obitelji predviđenih člankom 3. stavkom 2. točkom (a) iste direktive kojima ta država članica mora samo olakšati ulazak i boravak.
20 That interpretation is borne out by recital 6 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38, which states that, ‘in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense …, 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’. 
20 To je tumačenje potkrijepljeno uvodnom izjavom 6. Direktive 2004/38 prema kojoj „[k]ako bi se sačuvalo jedinstvo obitelji u širem smislu […], 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 u državu članicu domaćina i boravak u njoj, 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”.
21 Whilst it is therefore apparent that Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 does not oblige the Member States to accord a right of entry and residence to persons who are family members, in the broad sense, dependent on a Union citizen, the fact remains, as is clear from the use of the words ‘shall facilitate’ in Article 3(2), that that provision imposes an obligation on the Member States to confer a certain advantage, compared with applications for entry and residence of other nationals of third States, on applications submitted by persons who have a relationship of particular dependence with a Union citizen. 
21 Iako je očito da članak 3. stavak 2. Direktive 2004/38 ne obvezuje države članice da osobama koje su članovi obitelji u širem smislu i koje uzdržava građanin Unije prizna pravo na ulazak i boravak, iz uporabe prezenta „olakšava” u članku 3. stavku 2. proizlazi da ta odredba nameće državama članicama obvezu da zahtjevima za ulazak i boravak koje podnesu osobe koje su u određenoj ovisnosti o građaninu Unije daju prednost u odnosu na zahtjeve za ulazak i boravak koje podnesu drugi državljani trećih zemalja.
22 In order to meet that obligation, the Member States must, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, make it possible for persons envisaged in the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) to obtain a decision on their application that is founded on an extensive examination of their personal circumstances and, in the event of refusal, is justified by reasons. 
22 Kako bi ispunile tu obvezu, države članice moraju, u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 2. drugim podstavkom Direktive 2004/38, za osobe iz članka 3. stavka 2. prvog podstavka te direktive predvidjeti mogućnost da na svoj zahtjev dobiju odluku koja se temelji na opsežnom ispitivanju njihovih osobnih okolnosti i koja je, u slučaju odbijanja, obrazložena.
23 As is clear from recital 6 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38, it is incumbent upon the competent authority, when undertaking that examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances, to take account of the various factors that may be relevant in the particular case, such as the extent of economic or physical dependence and the degree of relationship between the family member and the Union citizen whom he wishes to accompany or join. 
23 Kao što proizlazi iz uvodne izjave 6. Direktive 2004/38, pri ispitivanju osobnih okolnosti podnositelja zahtjeva nadležno tijelo mora uzeti u obzir različite faktore koji u konkretnom slučaju mogu biti bitni, kao što su stupanj ekonomske ili fizičke ovisnosti i stupanj srodstva između člana obitelji i građanina Unije kojega želi pratiti ili mu se pridružiti.
24 In the light both of the absence of more specific rules in Directive 2004/38 and of the use of the words ‘in accordance with its national legislation’ in Article 3(2) of the directive, each Member State has a wide discretion as regards the selection of the factors to be taken into account. None the less, the host Member State must ensure that its legislation contains criteria which are consistent with the normal meaning of the term ‘facilitate’ and of the words relating to dependence used in Article 3(2), and which do not deprive that provision of its effectiveness. 
24 S obzirom na nedostatak preciznijih pravila u Direktivi 2004/38 i uporabu riječi „u skladu sa svojim nacionalnim zakonodavstvom” u članku 3. stavku 2. te direktive, valja utvrditi da svaka država članica ima široku marginu prosudbe kod odabira faktora koje će uzimati u obzir. Unatoč tome, država članica domaćin mora osigurati da njezino zakonodavstvo sadržava kriterije koji su u skladu s uobičajenim značenjem izraza „olakšava” i izraza iz navedenog članka 3. stavka 2. koji se odnose na uzdržavanje, a koji tu odredbu ne lišavaju njezina korisnog učinka.
"25 Finally, even though, as the governments which have submitted observations have correctly observed, the wording used in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 is not sufficiently precise to enable an applicant for entry or residence to rely directly on that provision in order to invoke criteria which should in his view be applied when assessing his application, the fact remains that such an applicant is entitled to a judicial review of whether the national legislation and its application have remained within the limits of the discretion set by that directive (see, by analogy, Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others [1996] ECR I-5403, paragraph 56; Case C-127/02 Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging [2004] ECR I-7405, paragraph 66; and Joined Cases C-165/09 to C-167/09 Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 100 to 103)." 
"25 Naposljetku valja istaknuti da iako, kao što su ispravno navele vlade koje su podnijele očitovanja, tekst članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38 nije dovoljno precizan da bi podnositelju zahtjeva za ulazak ili boravak omogućio da se izravno oslanja na to odredbu kako bi se pozvao na kriterije koje bi po njegovu mišljenju trebalo primjenjivati u vezi s njegovim zahtjevom, podnositelj zahtjeva ipak ima pravo pred sudom provjeriti jesu li nacionalno zakonodavstvo i njegova primjena u granicama margine prosudbe utvrđene tom direktivom (vidi po analogiji presude od 24. listopada 1996., Kraaijeveld i dr., C-72/95, Zb., str. I-5403., t. 56.; od 7. rujna 2004., Waddenvereniging i Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, C-127/02, Zb., str. I-7405., t. 66. te od 26. svibnja 2011., Stichting Natuur en Milieu i dr., C-165/09 do C-167/09, Zb., str. I-4599., t. 100. do 103.)."
26 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first and the second question referred is that, on a proper construction of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38: 
26 Slijedom navedenoga, na prvo i drugo postavljeno pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 3. stavak 2. Direktive 2004/38 treba tumačiti na način da:
"– the Member States are not required to grant every application for entry or residence submitted by family members of a Union citizen who do not fall under the definition in Article 2(2) of that directive, even if they show, in accordance with Article 10(2) thereof, that they are dependants of that citizen;" 
"– države članice nisu obvezne udovoljiti svakom zahtjevu za ulazak ili boravak koji podnesu članovi obitelji građanina Unije koji nisu obuhvaćeni definicijom iz članka 2. stavka 2. te direktive, čak i ako dokažu, u skladu s člankom 10. stavkom 2. navedene direktive, da ih taj građanin uzdržava;"