natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
46 The answer to the second question is therefore that the rules on the freedom of movement for workers, contained in particular in Article 45 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding the Member State where the person was last employed from refusing, in accordance with its national law, to grant unemployment benefit to a wholly unemployed frontier worker whose prospects of reintegration into working life are best in that Member State, on the ground that he does not reside in its territory, since, in accordance with the provisions of Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004, the applicable legislation is that of the Member State of residence. 
46 Prema tome, na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da pravila o slobodi kretanja radnika sadržana posebno u članku 45. UFEU-a treba tumačiti tako da im nije protivno da u skladu sa svojim nacionalnim pravom država članica posljednjeg zaposlenja davanje za nezaposlenost potpuno nezaposlenom pograničnom radniku čiji su izgledi za povratak na tržište rada najbolji u toj državi članici odbije dodijeliti zbog toga što on ne boravi na njezinom državnom području, s obzirom na to da je zakonodavstvo koje je primjenjivo, u skladu s odredbama članka 65. Uredbe br. 883/2004, zakonodavstvo države članice boravišta.
47 The third and fourth questions relate to the situation of persons such as Ms Peeters and Mr Arnold who, in view of the proximity of the two periods of unemployment they experienced, requested, on the basis of national law, resumption of payment of the benefit which they initially received, but whose requests for such resumption were rejected on the ground of the entry into force, in the meantime, of Regulation No 883/2004. 
47 Treće i četvrto pitanje odnose se na situaciju osoba kao što su M. A. Peeters i J. G. J. Arnold koji su, s obzirom na kratki razmak između dva razdoblja nezaposlenosti kroz koja su prošli, na temelju nacionalnog prava podnijeli zahtjev za obnovu isplate davanja koje su prvotno primali, no ti su zahtjevi odbijeni zato što je u međuvremenu na snagu stupila Uredba br. 883/2004.
48 The referring court asks whether, in such a situation, in order to avoid a restriction on the freedom of movement for workers, the transitional provisions of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004, Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning the right of property and the principles of legal certainty or of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that the workers concerned may continue to receive unemployment benefit from the State where they were last employed. 
48 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita moraju li se u takvoj situaciji, kako bi se izbjeglo ograničavanje slobode kretanja radnika, prijelazne odredbe članka 87. stavka 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004, članak 17. Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima u vezi s pravom vlasništva i načela pravne sigurnosti odnosno zaštite opravdanih očekivanja tumačiti tako da predmetni radnici mogu nastaviti primati davanje za nezaposlenost od države u kojoj su posljednje bili zaposleni.
49 In that regard, it should be recalled that Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 provides, in favour of a person who, as a result of that regulation, is subject to the legislation of a Member State other than that to whose legislation he was subject under Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, for the continued application of the latter legislation for a certain period, provided that the relevant situation remains unchanged. 
49 U vezi s time valja podsjetiti da članak 87. stavak 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004 predviđa, u korist osobe koja zbog te uredbe podliježe zakonodavstvu države članice koja nije država članica čijem je zakonodavstvu podlijegala u okviru glave II. Uredbe br. 1408/71, nastavak primjene potonjeg zakonodavstva na određeno razdoblje, nakon stupanja na snagu Uredbe br. 883/2004, pod uvjetom da postojeća situacija ostane nepromijenjena.
50 That provision thus applies, first, on condition that the applicable legislation is covered by Title II of Regulation No 1408/71 and, second, on condition that the relevant situation remained unchanged. 
50 Ta se odredba dakle, kao prvo, primjenjuje na uvjet da je primjenjivo zakonodavstvo obuhvaćeno glavom II. Uredbe br. 1408/71 te, kao drugo, na uvjet da je postojeća situacija ostala nepromijenjena.
51 With regard to the first of those two conditions, it is not in dispute that Ms Peeters and Mr Arnold obtained unemployment benefit from the Netherlands authorities, pursuant to Netherlands legislation, in accordance with Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71. 
51 U odnosu na prvi od ta dva uvjeta, nije sporno da su M. A. Peeters i J. G. J. Arnold ishodili davanje za nezaposlenost od nizozemskih tijela, prema odredbama nizozemskog zakonodavstva i u skladu s člankom 71. Uredbe br. 1408/71.
However, that article does not fall under Title II of that regulation, concerning the general rules for the determining the legislation applicable, but under Title III of that regulation, concerning the specific provisions for determining that legislation with regard, inter alia, to unemployment benefit. 
Međutim, taj članak nije obuhvaćen glavom II. te uredbe, u vezi s općim pravilima utvrđivanja primjenjivog zakonodavstva, nego glavom III. te uredbe, u vezi s posebnim odredbama za utvrđivanje toga zakonodavstva u odnosu na, između ostalog, davanje za nezaposlenost.
52 Accordingly, Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 cannot be regarded as directly applicable, as such, to the main proceedings. 
52 Sukladno tome, članak 87. stavak 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004 ne može se kao takav smatrati izravno primjenjivim na glavni postupak.
53 The question arises, therefore, whether that fact precludes the continuation of the legislation which applied pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71. 
53 Stoga se javlja pitanje priječi li ta činjenica nastavak primjene zakonodavstva koje se primjenjivalo sukladno Uredbi br. 1408/71.
54 According to all the observations submitted to the Court, that fact should not, alone, preclude such continuation. 
54 U skladu sa svim očitovanjima podnesenima Sudu, ta sama činjenica ne bi smjela priječiti spomenuti nastavak.
55 In that regard, as stated, in essence, by the Advocate General in point 68 of his Opinion, the lack of any reference, in Regulation No 883/2004, to a transitional provision applicable to the situation of the workers concerned can be regarded as attributable to a lacuna which arose during the legislative process leading to the adoption of Regulation No 883/2004 and does not reflect the legislature's deliberate intention to make those workers directly subject to other legislation. 
55 U tom smislu, kao što je u bitnome naveo nezavisni odvjetnik u točki 68. svojega mišljenja, to što Uredba br. 883/2004 ne spominje prijelaznu odredbu primjenjivu na situaciju predmetnih radnika može se pripisati praznini nastaloj tijekom zakonodavnog postupka koji je doveo do donošenja Uredbe br. 883/2004, te to ne odražava svjesnu namjeru zakonodavca da te radnike izravno podvrgne drugom zakonodavstvu.
56 In those circumstances, the transitional provision laid down in Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 must be interpreted as applying, by analogy, to wholly unemployed frontier workers who, taking into account the links they have maintained in the Member State where they were last employed, receive unemployment benefit from it on the basis of the legislation of that Member State, pursuant to Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71. 
56 U tim okolnostima prijelaznu odredbu utvrđenu u članku 87. stavku 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004 valja tumačiti tako da se analogno primjenjuje na potpuno nezaposlene pogranične radnike koji, uzimajući u obzir veze koje su zadržali u državi članici njihova posljednjeg zaposlenja, od nje primaju davanje za nezaposlenost na osnovi zakonodavstva te države članice, u skladu s člankom 71.
The fact that the latter article falls under Title III of Regulation No 1408/71 does not preclude, in such a case, that application. 
Uredbe br. 1408/71. Činjenica da je potonji obuhvaćen glavom III. Uredbe br. 1408/71 u takvom slučaju ne priječi tu primjenu.
57 With regard, in the context of such an application of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004, to the question whether `the relevant situation has remained unchanged', the observations submitted to the Court concerning the meaning to be given to that wording diverge. 
57 U kontekstu takve primjene članka 87. stavka 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004 postoje razilaženja u očitovanjima koja su podnesena Sudu u odnosu na pitanje je li „postojeća situacija ostala nepromijenjena", u vezi sa značenjem koje valja dati tom izrazu.
58 From the point of view of the Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen and of the Netherlands and Danish Goverments, since the workers concerned were exercising a professional activity at the date of the entry into force of Regulation No 883/2004 and became unemployed only after that date, their situation must be considered as having changed, for the purposes of Article 87(8) of that regulation. 
58 S gledišta Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen, te nizozemske i danske vlade, budući da su predmetni radnici obavljali profesionalnu djelatnost na datum stupanja na snagu Uredbe br. 883/2004 i postali su nezaposleni tek nakon toga datuma, njihovu situaciju valja smatrati promijenjenom u smislu članka 87. stavka 8. te uredbe.
In the opinion of Ms Peeters, the German Government and the Commission, those circumstances are not decisive and do not necessarily preclude the continued application of the law which was applicable pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71. 
Prema mišljenju M. A. Peeters, njemačke vlade i Komisije, te okolnosti nisu presudne i ne priječe nužno daljnju primjenu prava koje je bilo primjenjivo prema Uredbi br. 1408/71.
59 In that regard, it should be noted that the concept of `unchanged situation' is not defined by Regulation No 883/2004. 
59 U tom smislu valja primijetiti da pojam „nepromijenjene situacije" nije definiran Uredbom br. 883/2004.
However, as the regulation is not a measure harmonising national social security systems but an enactment intended to coordinate those systems, each Member State retains the power to determine in its legislation, in compliance with European Union law, the conditions pursuant to which benefits may be granted under a social security scheme (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-611/10 and C-612/10 Hudzinski and Wawrrzyniak [2012] ECR, paragraph 42). 
Međutim, kako uredba nije mjera usklađivanja nacionalnih sustava socijalne sigurnosti, nego akt namijenjen koordinaciji tih sustava, svaka država članica zadržava ovlast da u svojem zakonodavstvu, u skladu s pravom Europske unije, utvrdi uvjete pod kojima se mogu dodijeliti davanja u okviru sustava socijalne sigurnosti (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 12. lipnja 2012., Hudzinski i Wawrrzyniak, C-611/10 i C-612/10, t. 42.).
The concept of `unchanged situation' within the meaning of Article 87(8) of that regulation must, consequently, be interpreted by reference to the definition given by national social security legislation (see, by analogy, with regard to the term `employment' within the meaning of Article 71(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, Case C-372/02 Adanez-Vega [2004] ECR I-10761 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=62002C?0372&locale=EN], paragraph 33). 
Pojam „nepromijenjene situacije" u smislu članka 87. stavka 8. te uredbe mora se, prema tome, tumačiti pozivanjem na definiciju koju daje nacionalno zakonodavstvo u području socijalne sigurnosti (u vezi s izrazom „zaposlenje" u smislu članka 71. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 1408/71, vidjeti analogijom presudu od 11. studenoga 2004., Adanez-Vega, C-372/02, Zb., str. I-10761., t. 33.).
60 With regard to workers such as Ms Peeters and Mr Arnold, it is thus for the referring court to establish whether, under Netherlands law, on the date on which those workers found employment again after a first period of unemployment or, respectively, in the course of the months of April 2010 and March 2009, they were entitled to resumption of the payment of unemployment benefit if they found themselves unemployed again following expiry of a certain period. 
60 Prema tome, što se tiče radnika kao što su M. A. Peeters i J. G. J. Arnold, na sudu koji je uputio zahtjev je da utvrdi jesu li ti radnici prema nizozemskom pravu, na datum kad su ponovno pronašli zaposlenje nakon prvog razdoblja nezaposlenosti, odnosno u tijeku travnja 2010. godine i ožujka 2009. godine, imali pravo na obnovu isplate davanja za nezaposlenost ako su ponovno postali nezaposleni prije isteka određenog razdoblja.
Reference by the Netherlands authorities to the term `resumption' may suggest that such an entitlement exists under Netherlands legislation. 
To što nizozemske vlasti spominju izraz „obnova" može značiti da takvo pravo postoji prema nizozemskom zakonodavstvu.
If that is so, it is for that court to determine whether, taking into account in particular the duration of the period during which the persons concerned worked again, they fulfil the conditions provided for under national legislation for entitlement to such resumption of the payment of that benefit, irrespective of the entry into force of Regulation No 883/2004. 
Ako je tomu tako, na tom je sudu da utvrdi ispunjavaju li predmetne osobe, uzimajući osobito u obzir trajanje razdoblja tijekom kojega su ponovno radile, uvjete koje nacionalno zakonodavstvo predviđa za pravo na takvu obnovu isplate toga davanja, neovisno o stupanju na snagu Uredbe br. 883/2004.
61 It follows that the concept of `unchanged situation' within the meaning of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 must be assessed in the light of national social security legislation and that it is for the national court to establish whether workers such as Ms Peeters and Mr Arnold satisfy the conditions provided for in that legislation which would entitle them to claim resumption of payment of the unemployment benefit which was paid to them under that legislation in accordance with Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71. 
61 Slijedi da se pojam „nepromijenjene situacije" u smislu članka 87. stavka 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004 mora ocijeniti u svjetlu nacionalnog zakonodavstva u području socijalne sigurnosti, te da je na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi zadovoljavaju li radnici kao što su M. A. Peeters i J. G. J. Arnold uvjete predviđene tim zakonodavstvom kako bi mogli potraživati obnovu isplate davanja za nezaposlenost, koje im se isplaćivalo prema tom zakonodavstvu u skladu s člankom 71. Uredbe br. 1408/71.
62 It follows from the above considerations that the answer to the third and fourth questions is: 
62 Iz gornjih razmatranja slijedi da na treće i četvrto pitanje valja odgovoriti:
the provisions of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 should be applied to wholly unemployed frontier workers who, taking into account the links they have maintained in the Member State where they were last employed, receive unemployment benefit from that Member State on the basis of its legislation, pursuant to Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71; 
odredbe članka 87. stavka 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004 treba primjenjivati na potpuno nezaposlene pogranične radnike koji, uzimajući u obzir veze koje su zadržali u državi članici njihova posljednjeg zaposlenja, primaju davanje za nezaposlenost od te države članice na osnovi njezinog zakonodavstva, u skladu s člankom 71. Uredbe br. 1408/71;
-- 
pojam „nepromijenjene situacije" u smislu članka 87. stavka 8.
the concept of `unchanged situation' within the meaning of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 must be assessed in the light of national social security legislation. 
Uredbe br. 883/2004 mora se ocijeniti u svjetlu nacionalnog zakonodavstva u području socijalne sigurnosti.
It is for the national court to establish whether workers such as Ms Peeters and Mr Arnold satisfy the conditions provided for in that legislation in order to be able to claim resumption of payment of the unemployment benefit which was paid to them under that legislation, in accordance with Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71. 
Na nacionalnom je sudu da utvrdi zadovoljavaju li radnici kao što su M. A. Peeters i J. G. J. Arnold uvjete predviđene tim zakonodavstvom kako bi mogli potraživati obnovu isplate davanja za nezaposlenost koje im se isplaćivalo prema tom zakonodavstvu, u skladu s člankom 71. Uredbe br. 1408/71.
1. After the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, the provisions of Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004 are not to be interpreted in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 June 1986 in Case 1/85 Miethe. 
1. Nakon stupanja na snagu Uredbe (EZ) br. 883/2004 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 29. travnja 2004. o koordinaciji sustava socijalne sigurnosti, kako je izmijenjena Uredbom (EZ) br. 988/2009 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. rujna 2009., odredbe članka 65. te uredbe ne smiju se tumačiti u svjetlu presude Suda od 12. lipnja 1986. u predmetu Miethe (1/85).
With regard to a wholly unemployed frontier worker who has maintained close personal and business links with the Member State where he was last employed of such a kind that his prospects of reintegration into working life are greatest in that State, Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004 must be understood as allowing such a worker to make himself available as a supplementary step to the employment services of that State, not with a view to obtaining unemployment benefit in that State but only in order to receive assistance there in finding new employment. 
Što se tiče potpuno nezaposlenog pograničnog radnika koji je zadržao bliske osobne i poslovne veze s državom članicom posljednjeg zaposlenja, i to takve da su mu izgledi za ponovno uključivanje u svijet rada najveći u toj državi, navedeni članak 65. treba razumjeti tako da takvom radniku dopušta da se dodatno stavi na raspolaganje službama za zapošljavanje te države, ne s ciljem ishođenja davanja za nezaposlenost u toj državi, već samo kako bi tamo koristio pomoć u traženju novog zaposlenja.
2. The rules on the freedom of movement for workers, contained in particular in Article 45 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding the Member State where the person was last employed from refusing, in accordance with its national law, to grant unemployment benefit to a wholly unemployed frontier worker whose prospects of reintegration into working life are best in that Member State, on the ground that he does not reside in its territory, since, in accordance with Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, the applicable legislation is that of the Member State of residence. 
2. Pravila o slobodi kretanja radnika sadržana posebno u članku 45. UFEU-a treba tumačiti tako da im nije protivno da u skladu sa svojim nacionalnim pravom država članica posljednjeg zaposlenja davanje za nezaposlenost potpuno nezaposlenom pograničnom radniku čiji su izgledi za povratak na tržište rada najbolji u toj državi članici odbije dodijeliti zbog toga što on ne boravi na njezinom državnom području, s obzirom na to da je zakonodavstvo koje je primjenjivo, u skladu s odredbama članka 65. Uredbe br. 883/2004 kako je izmijenjena Uredbom br. 988/2009, zakonodavstvo države članice boravišta.
3. The provisions of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, should be applied to wholly unemployed frontier workers who, taking into account the links they have maintained in the Member State where they were last employed, receive unemployment benefit from that Member State on the basis of its legislation, pursuant to Article 71 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1 [HYPERLINK: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:1997:028:TOC]), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008. 
3. Odredbe članka 87. stavka 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004, kako je izmijenjena Uredbom br. 988/2009, valja primjenjivati na potpuno nezaposlene pogranične radnike koji, uzimajući u obzir veze koje su zadržali u državi članici njihova posljednjeg zaposlenja, od nje primaju davanje za nezaposlenost na osnovi zakonodavstva te države članice, u skladu s člankom 71. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1408/71 od 14. lipnja 1971. o primjeni sustava socijalne sigurnosti na zaposlene osobe, samozaposlene osobe i članove njihovih obitelji koje se kreću unutar Zajednice, kako je izmijenjena i ažurirana Uredbom Vijeća (EZ) br. 118/97 od 2. prosinca 1996., koja je izmijenjena Uredbom (EZ) br. 592/2008 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 17. lipnja 2008.
The concept of `unchanged situation' within the meaning of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 as amended by Regulation No 988/2009 must be assessed in the light of national social security legislation. 
Pojam „nepromijenjene situacije" u smislu članka 87. stavka 8. Uredbe br. 883/2004, kako je izmijenjena Uredbom br. 988/2009, treba ocijeniti u svjetlu nacionalnog zakonodavstva u području socijalne sigurnosti.
It is for the national court to establish whether workers such as Ms Peeters and Mr Arnold satisfy the conditions provided for in that legislation in order to be able to claim resumption of payment of the unemployment benefit which was paid to them under that legislation, in accordance with Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008. 
Na nacionalnom je sudu da utvrdi zadovoljavaju li radnici kao što su M. A. Peeters i J. G. J. Arnold uvjete predviđene tim zakonodavstvom kako bi mogli potraživati obnovu isplate davanja za nezaposlenost, koje im se isplaćivalo prema tom zakonodavstvu u skladu s člankom 71. Uredbe br. 1408/71, kako je izmijenjena i ažurirana Uredbom br. 118/97, koja je izmijenjena Uredbom br. 592/2008.
In Case C-453/00, 
U predmetu C-453/00,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nizozemska), u postupku koji se vodi na tom sudu između
Kühne & Heitz NV 
Kühne & Heitz NV
Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren, 
Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren,
on the interpretation of Community law and, in particular, the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC, 
o tumačenju prava Zajednice, a posebno načela suradnje koje proizlazi iz članka 10. UEZ-a,
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann i J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, predsjednici vijeća, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric (izvjestiteljica) i S. von Bahr, suci,
Advocate General: P. Léger, 
nezvisni odvjetnik: P. Léger,
─ Kühne & Heitz NV, by A.J. Braakman, advocaat, 
─ za Kühne & Heitz NV, A. J. Braakman, advocaat,
─ Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren, by C.M. den Hoed, Assistant Secretary General, 
─ za Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren, C. M. den Hoed, pomoćnik glavnog tajnika,
─ the Netherlands Government, by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent, 
─ za nizozemsku vladu, H. G. Sevenster, u svojstvu agenta,
─ the French Government, by G. de Bergues and C. Vasak, acting as Agents, 
─ za francusku vladu, G. de Bergues i C. Vasak, u svojstvu agenata,
─ the Commission of the European Communities, by T. van Rijn, acting as Agent, 
─ za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, T. van Rijn, u svojstvu agenta,