natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
32 The referring court seeks to know whether the judgment in Baumbast and R is based on the application of Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 together or on Article 12 alone. More precisely, the court asks whether the right of residence of the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State, and that of the parent who is the primary carer of those children, derive implicitly from Article 12. 
32 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita temelji li se navedena presuda Baumbast i R. na zajedničkoj primjeni članaka 10. i 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 ili samo na zadnje navedenom članku. Točnije, taj sud pita proizlaze li pravo boravka djece državljanina države članice koji radi ili je radio u državi članici domaćinu i pravo roditelja koji ima stvarno skrbništvo nad djecom implicitno iz navedenog članka 12.
33 First, the right of the children of migrant workers to equal treatment in access to education, under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, applies only to children who ‘are residing’ in the Member State in which one of their parents is or has been employed. 
33 Prvo, pravo djece radnika migranata na jednako postupanje prilikom pristupa obrazovanju, na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, imaju samo djeca koja „borave” na državnom području države članice u kojoj je zaposlen ili je bio zaposlen jedan od njihovih roditelja.
34 Access to education thus depends on the child first being installed in the host Member State. 
34 Pristup obrazovanju tako ovisi o prijašnjem stanovanju djeteta u državi članici domaćinu.
35 Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, as interpreted by the Court in Baumbast and R, means that the child can, in connection with his right of access to education, have an independent right of residence. In particular, the exercise of the right of access to education was not conditional on the child retaining, throughout the period of his education, a specific right of residence under Article 10(1)(a) of that regulation, when that provision was still in force. 
35 Članak 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, kako ga je protumačio Sud u navedenoj presudi Baumbast i R., u vezi s njegovim pravom na pristup obrazovanju priznaje djetetu pravo na samostalni boravak. Posebno, ostvarivanje prava na pristup obrazovanju nije bilo uvjetovano time da dijete tijekom cijelog svog školovanja zadrži posebno pravo boravka na temelju članka 10. stavka 1. točke (a) te uredbe, dok je ta odredba još bila na snazi.
36 In paragraphs 21 to 24 of its judgment in Case C-7/94 Gaal [1995] ECR I-1031, the Court explicitly rejected the German Government’s argument that there was a close relationship between Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1612/68 on the one hand and Article 12 of that regulation on the other, so that Article 12 granted the right to equal treatment in access to education in the host Member State only to children who satisfied the conditions set out in Articles 10 and 11. In paragraph 23 of Gaal, the Court expressly stated that Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 contains no reference to Articles 10 and 11 of the regulation. 
36 U točkama 21. do 24. presude od 4. svibnja 1995., Gaal (C-7/94, Zb., I-1031.) Sud je izričito odbio argumentaciju njemačke vlade da s jedne strane postoji uska povezanost između članaka 10. i 11. Uredbe br. 1612/68, s jedne strane, i članka 12. iste uredbe s druge strane, tako da je ovom potonjom odredbom pravo jednakog postupanja za pristup obrazovanju u državi članici domaćinu dodijeljeno samo djeci koja ispunjavaju uvjete iz članaka 10. i 11. U točki 23. navedene presude Gaal Sud je izričito istaknuo da članak 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 ne sadržava nikakvo upućivanje na navedene članke 10. i 11.
37 It would be contrary to the context of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 and the aims pursued by that article to make the exercise of the right of access to education depend on the existence of a separate right of residence of the child, assessed by reference to other provisions of that regulation (see, to that effect, Gaal, paragraph 25). 
37 Naime, bilo bi suprotno kontekstu i ciljevima članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 kada bi se ostvarivanje prava na pristup obrazovanju uvjetovalo posebnim pravom djeteta na boravak prema drugim odredbama iste uredbe (vidjeti u tom smislu navedenu presudu Gaal, t. 25.).
38 It follows that, once the right of access to education derived by the child from Article 12 of that regulation has been acquired because of his being installed in the host Member State, the right of residence is retained by the child and can no longer be called into question because the conditions which were set out in Article 10 of that regulation are not satisfied. 
38 Iz toga slijedi da kada je dijete steklo pravo na pristup obrazovanju na temelju članka 12. te uredbe zbog svog nastanjenja u državi članici domaćinu, dijete zadržava pravo boravka i to se pravo više ne može dovesti u pitanje zbog neispunjavanja uvjeta iz članka 10. iste uredbe.
39 Second, as is apparent from the very wording of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, the right to equal treatment in respect of access to education is not limited to children of migrant workers. It applies also to children of former migrant workers. 
39 Drugo, kako proizlazi iz naslova članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, pravo na jednako postupanje u pogledu pristupa na obrazovanje nije ograničeno na djecu radnika migranata. Primjenjuje se i na djecu bivših radnika migranata.
40 The right derived by children from Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 is also not dependent on the right of residence of their parents in the host Member State. It is settled case-law that Article 12 requires only that the child has lived with his parents or either one of them in a Member State while at least one of them resided there as a worker (Case 197/86 Brown [1988] ECR 3205, paragraph 30, and Gaal, paragraph 27). 
40 Pravo koje djeca imaju prema članku 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 isto tako nije ovisno o pravu boravka njihovih roditelja u državi članici domaćinu. Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi taj članak 12. zahtijeva samo da je dijete živjelo sa svojim roditeljima ili s jednim od njih u državi članici dok je barem jedan od njihovih roditelja tamo boravio kao radnik (presude od 21. lipnja 1988., Brown, 197/86, Zb., I-3205., t. 30. i navedena presuda Gaal, t. 27.).
41 To accept that children of former migrant workers can continue their education in the host Member State although their parents no longer reside there is equivalent to allowing them a right of residence which is independent of that conferred on their parents, such a right being based on Article 12. 
41 Priznati da djeca bivših radnika migranata mogu nastaviti svoje školovanje u državi članici domaćinu iako njihovi roditelji više tamo ne borave jednako je kao kada bi im se priznalo pravo boravka neovisno od prava boravka njihovih roditelja, a to se pravo temelji na navedenom članku 12.
42 Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 must therefore be applied independently of the provisions of European Union law which govern the conditions of exercise of the right to reside in another Member State. That independence of Article 12 from Article 10 of that regulation formed the basis of the judgments of the Court referred to in paragraphs 29 to 31 above, and cannot but subsist in relation to the provisions of Directive 2004/38. 
42 Članak 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 stoga se treba primjenjivati neovisno o odredbama prava Unije koje određuju uvjete ostvarivanja prava boravka u drugoj državi članici. Ta neovisnost članka 12. u odnosu na članak 10. iste uredbe predstavljala je temelj sudske prakse Suda navedene u točkama 29. do 31. ove presude i mora vrijediti i u odnosu na odredbe Direktive 2004/38.
43 A contrary conclusion would be liable to compromise the aim of integrating the migrant worker’s family into the host Member State, as stated in the fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1612/68. According to settled case-law, for such integration to come about, the children of a worker who is a national of a Member State must have the possibility of undertaking and, where appropriate, successfully completing their education in the host Member State (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 389/87 and 390/87 Echternach and Moritz [1989] ECR 723, paragraph 21, and Baumbast and R, paragraph 69). 
43 Suprotno rješenje moglo bi ograničiti cilj integracije obitelji radnika migranta u državi članici domaćinu, kako je naveden u petoj uvodnoj izjavi Uredbe br. 1612/68. Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi takva integracija može uspjeti samo ako dijete radnika koji je državljanin države članice ima mogućnost školovati se u državi članici domaćinu i u danom slučaju uspješno završiti to školovanje (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 15. ožujka 1989, Echternatz i Moritz, 389/87 i 390/87, Zb., str. 723., t. 21. i navedenu presudu Baumast i r., t. 69.).
44 The London Borough of Harrow, the United Kingdom and Danish Governments and Ireland submit that Directive 2004/38, since its entry into force, constitutes the sole basis for the conditions governing the exercise of the right of residence in the Member States of citizens of the Union and members of their families, and consequently that no right of residence may now be derived from Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68. 
44 London Borough of Harrow, vlada Ujedinjene Kraljevine, danska vlada i Irska tvrde da od stupanja na snagu Direktive 2004/38 ta direktivi čini jedini temelj za uvjete kojima se uređuje ostvarivanje prava boravka u državama članicama za građane Unije i članove njihove obitelji i da stoga iz članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 od sada ne smije proizići nikakvo pravo boravka.
45 On this point, there is nothing to suggest that, when adopting Directive 2004/38, the European Union legislature intended to alter the scope of Article 12 of that regulation, as interpreted by the Court, so as to limit its normative content from then on to a mere right of access to education. 
45 U tom pogledu ne postoji nikakvo uporište da je zakonodavac Unije donošenjem Direktive 2004/38 htio izmijeniti područje primjene navedenog članka 12. kako ga je protumačio Sud kako bi njegov normativni sadržaj ubuduće ograničio na obično pravo na pristup obrazovanju.
46 Similarly, it should be noted that, in contrast to what was done in the case of Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1612/68, Directive 2004/38 did not repeal Article 12 of that regulation. Such a choice necessarily reveals the intention of the European Union legislature not to introduce restrictions of the scope of that article, as interpreted by the Court. 
46 U istom smislu valja istaknuti da, suprotno onome što je učinjeno za članke 10. i 11. Uredbe br. 1612/68, Direktiva 2004/38 nije stavila izvan snage članak 12. te Uredbe. Takav izbor samo otkriva namjeru zakonodavca Unije da u područje primjene tog članka, kako ga je protumačio Sud, ne uvodi ograničenja.
47 The interpretation in the preceding paragraph is confirmed by the fact that the travaux préparatoires to Directive 2004/38 show that it was designed to be consistent with the judgment in Baumbast and R (COM(2003) 199 final, p. 7). 
47 Tumačenje iz prethodne točke potvrđeno je činjenicom da iz pripremnih radova na Direktivi 2004/38 proizlazi da je ona zamišljena tako da bude sukladna s navedenom presudom Baumbast i R. (COM (2003) 199 final, str. 7.).
48 If Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 had been limited to conferring the right to equal treatment with regard to access to education without providing for any right of residence for the children of migrant workers, it would have become superfluous with the entry into force of Directive 2004/38. Article 24(1) of that directive provides that all Union citizens residing in the territory of the host Member State are to enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that State within the scope of the Treaty, it not being in doubt that access to education falls within the scope of European Union law (see, inter alia, Case 293/83 Gravier [1985] ECR 593, paragraph 19). 
48 Da je članak 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 bio ograničen na dodjeljivanje prava na jednako postupanje u pogledu pristupa obrazovanju bez predviđanja ikakvog prava boravka u korist djece radnika migranata, to bi pravo od stupanja na snagu Direktive 2004/38 postalo suvišno. Naime, članak 24. stavak 1. te Direktive predviđa da svaki građanin Unije koji boravi na području države članice domaćina ima pravo na jednako postupanje kao prema državljanima te države članice unutar područja primjene Ugovora, pa prema tome nema sumnje da pristup obrazovanju potpada pod područje primjene prava Unije (vidjeti osobito presudu od 13. veljače 1985., Gravier, 293/83, Zb., str. 593., t. 19.).
49 Moreover, according to recital 3 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38, the aim of that directive is inter alia to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens (see, to that effect, Case C-127/08 Metock and Others [2008] ECR I-6241, paragraph 59). The application of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 7(1)(b) and (d) and (2) of Directive 2004/38 to the children of migrant workers would have the effect that the right of residence of those children in the host Member State in order to commence or continue their education would be subject to stricter conditions than those which applied to them before the entry into force of Directive 2004/38. 
49 Uostalom, treća uvodna izjava Direktive 2004/38 ima za cilj pojednostaviti i poduprijeti pravo na slobodu kretanja i boravka svih građana Unije (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 25. srpnja 2008., Metock i dr., C-127/08, Zb., I-6241., t. 59.). Primjena članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 i članka 7. stavka 1. točke (b) i (d) te članka 7. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38 na djecu radnika migranata imala bi za posljedicu da bi pravo boravka te djece u državi članici domaćinu podlijegalo strožim uvjetima od onih koji su se na njih primjenjivali prije stupanja na snagu Direktive 2004/38.
50 It follows that the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State and the parent who is their primary carer can claim a right of residence in the latter State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, without being required to satisfy the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38. 
50 Iz toga slijedi da djeca državljanina države članice koji radi ili je radio u državi članici domaćinu kao i roditelj koji ima stvarno skrbništvo nad njima mogu ostvariti pravo boravka u toj državi članici samo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, a da ne moraju ispuniti uvjete utvrđene u Direktivi 2004/38.
51 It remains to be determined whether the exercise of that right of residence is conditional on the persons concerned having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State. 
51 Ostaje utvrditi je li izvršavanje tog prava boravka podređeno uvjetu da zainteresirane osobe raspolažu dostatnim sredstvima i da su sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osigurane u državi članici domaćinu.
52 It must be stated at the outset that there is no such condition in Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 and that, as the Court has already held, that article cannot be interpreted restrictively and must not, under any circumstances, be rendered ineffective (Baumbast and R, paragraph 74). 
52 Na početku valja pojasniti da u članku 12. Uredbe 1216/68 nema takvog uvjeta i da se, kako je Sud već presudio, taj članak ne smije tumačiti restriktivno i ni u kojem slučaju ne smije biti lišen svojega korisnog učinka (navedena presuda Baumbast i R., t. 74.).
53 Nor does a requirement as to the self-sufficiency of the members of the family of a worker who is a national of a Member State and their protection in the host Member State in the case of illness follow from the case-law of the Court. 
53 Iz sudske prakse Sude ne proizlazi ni zahtjev za ekonomsku neovisnost članova obitelji radnika koji je državljanin države članice kao ni njihova zdravstvena zaštita u slučaju bolesti.
54 The Court, in a case where it had to rule on whether children who were resident in the Member State in which their father, a national of another Member State, had been employed before returning to his State of origin were entitled under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 to State assistance intended to cover the costs of their education, the maintenance of them and their dependants and sickness insurance, held, without ruling on the economic situation of the students in question, that the status of children of a worker who is a national of a Member State within the meaning of Regulation No 1612/68 implies, in particular, that it is recognised in European Union law that such children must be eligible for study assistance from the State in order to make it possible for them to achieve integration in the society of the host Member State, that requirement applying afortiori where the persons covered by the provisions of that regulation are students who arrived in that State even before the age at which they had to attend school (Echternach and Moritz, paragraph 35). 
54 Na pitanje da jesu li djeca koja su boravila u državi članici u kojoj je njihov otac, državljanin druge države članice, obavljao nesamostalni rad prije povratka u svoju državu porijekla, imala pravo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 na državnu pomoć s ciljem pokrivanja troškova školovanja, njihovog uzdržavanja i uzdržavanja njihovih uzdržavanika, te troškova zdravstvenog osiguranja, Sud je presudio, bez izjašnjavanja o ekonomskoj situaciji dotičnih studenata, da status djece radnika koji je državljanin države članice, u smislu Uredbe br. 1612/68, ima za posljedicu osobito to da ta djeca na temelju prava Unije uživaju državnu pomoć za školovanje kako bi se mogli integrirati u društveni život države članice domaćina te da se taj zahtjev nameće tim više u slučaju kada se odredbe te uredbe odnose na studente koji su u tu državu stigli prije školske dobi (navedena presuda Echternach i Moritz, t. 35.).
55 In the Baumbast and R case Mr Baumbast, the father of the children whose right of residence in the host Member State under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 was at issue, had resources which allowed him and his family not to be dependent on social assistance. None the less, the answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the right of residence of the children and their mother who cared for them were based not on their self-sufficiency but on the fact that the aim of Regulation No 1612/68, namely freedom of movement for workers, requires the best possible conditions for the integration of the worker’s family in the host Member State and that a refusal to allow the parents caring for the children to remain in the host Member State during the period of their children’s education might deprive the children of a right granted to them by the European Union legislature (Baumbast and R, paragraphs 50 and 71). 
55 U navedenoj presudi Baumbast i R., gospodin Baumbast, otac djece čije je pravo boravka u državi članici domaćinu na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68 bilo u pitanju, imao je doduše dostatna sredstva koja su mu omogućavala da on i njegova obitelj ne budu ovisni o socijalnoj pomoći. Međutim, odgovori na prethodna pitanja o pravu boravka djece i njihove majke koja je za njih brinula, nisu se temeljili na njihovoj ekonomskoj neovisnosti, već na činjenici da cilj Uredbe br. 1612/68, naime slobodno kretanje radnika, zahtijeva optimalne uvjete za integraciju obitelji radnika u državi članici domaćinu i da bi odbijanje roditeljima koji se brinu za djecu mogućnosti boravka u državi članici domaćinu tijekom njihovog školovanja moglo uskratiti djeci pravo koje im priznaje zakonodavac Unije (navedena presuda Baumbast i R., t. 50. i 71.).
56 Directive 2004/38 likewise does not make the right of residence in the host Member State of children who are in education and the parent who is their primary carer depend, in certain circumstances, on their having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover. 
56 Direktiva 2004/38 u određenim situacijama također ne uvjetuje pravo boravka u državi članici domaćinu djece koja se školuju i roditelja koji je njihov stvarni skrbnik time da roditelji raspolažu dostatnim sredstvima i imaju sveobuhvatno zdravstveno osiguranje.
57 The interpretation that the right of residence in the host Member State of children who are in education there and the parent who is their primary carer is not subject to the condition that they have sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover is supported by Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/38, which provides that the departure or death of the citizen of the Union does not entail the loss of the right of residence of the children or the parent who has actual custody of them, irrespective of their nationality, if the children reside in the host Member State and are enrolled at an educational establishment for the purpose of studying there, until the completion of their studies. 
57 Tumačenje prema kojem pravo boravka u državi članici domaćinu djece koja se školuju i roditelja koji je njihov stvarni skrbnik nije uvjetovano raspolaganjem dostatnim sredstvima i sveobuhvatnim zdravstvenim osiguranjem potvrđeno je člankom 12. stavkom 3. Direktive 2004/38, koji određuje da odlazak građanina Unije iz države članice domaćina ili njegova smrt nema za posljedicu gubitak prava boravka njegove djece ili roditelja koji je njihov stvarni skrbnik, bez obzira na njihovo državljanstvo, ako djeca borave u državi članici domaćinu i upisani su u obrazovnu ustanovu s svrhu stjecanja obrazovanja i to sve do završetka njihovog školovanja.
58 While that provision is not applicable in the main proceedings, it illustrates the particular importance which Directive 2004/38 attaches to the situation of children who are in education in the host Member State and the parents who care for them. 
58 Čak i ako ova odredba nije primjenjiva na glavni postupak, ona ilustrira posebnu važnost koju Direktiva 2004/38 pridaje situaciji djece koja se školuju u državi članici domaćinu i roditelja koji za njih brinu.
59 In the light of the above considerations, the answer to the first two questions is that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State and the parent who is their primary carer can claim a right of residence in the latter State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, without such a right being conditional on their having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in that State. 
59 S obzirom na prethodna razmatranja, na prva dva pitanja valja odgovoriti da u okolnostima kao što su one u glavnom postupku djeca državljanina države članice koji radi ili je radio u državi članici domaćinu i roditelj koji ima stvarno skrbništvo nad njima mogu ostvariti pravo boravka u toj državi samo na temelju članka 12. Uredbe br. 1612/68, a da takvo pravo ne bude uvjetovano time da raspolažu dostatnim sredstvima i sveobuhvatnim zdravstvenim osiguranjem u toj državi.
60 In view of the answer to Questions 1 and 2, there is no need to answer Question 3. 
60 S obzirom na odgovore na prva dva pitanja, nije potrebno odgovoriti na treće pitanje.
61 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national 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. 
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.