natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In a situation such as that in issue in the main proceedings, First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, cannot be relied on as such against accused persons by the authorities of a Member State within the context of criminal proceedings, in view of the fact that a directive cannot, of itself and independently of national legislation adopted by a Member State for its implementation, have the effect of determining or increasing the criminal liability of those accused persons. 
U situaciji kao što je ona u sporovima iz glavnog postupka, tijela države članice ne mogu se pozivati na Prvu direktivu Vijeća 68/151/EEZ od 9. ožujka 1968. o usklađivanju zaštitnih mjera koje, radi zaštite interesa članova i trećih strana, države članice zahtijevaju za trgovačka društva u smislu članka 58. stavka 2. Ugovora, s ciljem izjednačavanja takvih zaštitnih mjera, protiv tuženika u okviru kaznenih postupaka, jer direktiva sama po sebi i neovisno o unutarnjem zakonu države članice donesenom za njezinu provedbu ne može utjecati na određivanje ni pooštravanje kaznene odgovornosti tuženika.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)7 September 2004 
PRESUDA SUDA (veliko vijeće) 7. rujna 2004.()
(Freedom of movement of persons - Citizenship of the European Union - Right of residence - Directive 90/364/EEC - Limitations and conditions - Person working in a hostel in return for benefits in kind - Entitlement to social assistance benefits) 
„Sloboda kretanja osoba - Građanstvo Europske unije - Pravo boravka - Direktiva 90/364/EEZ - Ograničenja i uvjeti - Osoba koja radi u prihvatilištu u zamjenu za davanja u naravi - Pravo na davanja socijalne pomoći"
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal du travail de Brussels (Belgium), made by decision of 21 November 2002, received on 18 December 2002, in the proceedings: 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Radni sud u Bruxellesu, Belgija), odlukom od 21. studenoga 2002., koju je Sud zaprimio 18. prosinca 2002., u postupku
Michel Trojani 
Michel Trojani
v Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS), 
protiv Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS),
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet i J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (izvjestitelj), predsjednici vijeća, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr i K. Lenaerts, suci,
having regard to the written procedure and following the hearing on 6 January 2004,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 6. siječnja 2004., uzimajući u obzir očitovanja koja su podnijeli:
Mr Trojani, by P. Leclerc, avocat, 
za M. Trojanija, P. Leclerc, avocat,
the Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS), by M. Legein, avocat, 
za Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS), M. Legein, avocat,
the Belgian Government, by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, assisted by C. Doutrelepont, avocat, - 
za belgijsku vladu A. Snoecx, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju C. Doutrelepont, avocat,
the Danish Government, by J. Molde, acting as Agent, 
za dansku vladu J. Molde, u svojstvu agenta,
the German Government, by W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, acting as Agents, - 
za njemačku vladu W.-D. Plessing i M. Lumma, u svojstvu agenata,
the French Government, by G. de Bergues and D. Petrausch, acting as Agents, 
za francusku vladu G. de Bergues i D. Petrausch, u svojstvu agenata,
the Netherlands Government, by H.G. Sevenster and N. Bel, acting as Agents, 
za nizozemsku vladu H. G. Sevenster i N. Bel, u svojstvu agenata,
the United Kingdom Government, by R. Caudwell, acting as Agent, assisted by E. Sharpston QC, - 
za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine R. Caudwell, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju E. Sharpston, QC,
the Commission of the European Communities, by D. Martin, acting as Agent, 
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica D. Martin, u svojstvu agenta
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC; Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992 (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 1) (`Regulation No 1612/68'); and Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26). 
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje članaka 18., 39., 43. i 49 UEZ-a, članka 7. stavka 1. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1612/68 od 15. listopada 1968. o slobodi kretanja radnika unutar Zajednice (SL L 257, str. 2.), kako je izmijenjena Uredbom (EEZ) Vijeća br. 2434/92 od 27. srpnja 1992. (SL L 245, str. 1., u daljnjem tekstu: Uredba br. 1612/68) i Direktivom Vijeća 90/364/EEZ od 28. lipnja 1990. o pravu boravka (SL L 180, str. 26.).
2 The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Mr Trojani and the Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (`the CPAS') concerning its refusal to grant him the minimum subsistence allowance (`the minimex'). 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između M. Trojanija i Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (u daljnjem tekstu: CPAS) jer je CPAS odbio M. Trojaniju odobriti najnižu naknadu za osnovne životne troškove (u daljnjem tekstu: minimex).
3 Under Article 18 EC: 
3 Prema članku 18.
`1. Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect. 
UEZ-a: „1. Svaki građanin Unije ima pravo slobodno se kretati i boraviti na državnom području država članica, podložno ograničenjima i uvjetima utvrđenima u ovom Ugovoru i u mjerama usvojenima radi njegove provedbe.
4 Article 39(1) EC reads as follows: 
4 Članak 39. stavak 1.
`Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.' 
UEZ-a glasi: „Sloboda kretanja radnika osigurava se unutar Zajednice."
5 Under Article 39(3) EC, freedom of movement for workers `shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health: 
5 U skladu s člankom 39. stavkom 3. UEZ-a, „podložno ograničenjima koja su opravdana razlozima javnog poretka, javne sigurnosti ili javnog zdravlja, ta sloboda podrazumijeva pravo na:
... (c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action; 
[...] (c) boravak u državi članici radi zapošljavanja sukladno odredbama koje uređuju zapošljavanje državljana te države utvrđenih zakonom i ostalim propisima;
6 Article 1(1) of Directive 90/364 provides: 
6 Članak 1. stavak 1. Direktive 90/364 određuje:
`Member States shall grant the right of residence to nationals of Member States who do not enjoy this right under other provisions of Community law and to members of their families as defined in paragraph 2, provided 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.' 
„Države članice odobravaju pravo boravka državljanima država članica koji to pravo ne ostvaruju na temelju drugih odredaba prava Zajednice i članovima njihovih obitelji kako je utvrđeno stavkom 2., pod uvjetom da su oni sami i članovi njihovih obitelji zdravstveno osigurani u pogledu svih rizika u državi članici domaćinu i da imaju dostatna sredstva da ne postanu teret sustavu socijalne pomoći države članice domaćina tijekom svojeg boravka." [neslužbeni prijevod]
7 Article 1 of the Law of 7 August 1974 establishing the right to a minimum subsistence allowance (Moniteur belge, 18 September 1974, p. 11363) provides: 
7 Članak 1. Zakona od 7. kolovoza 1974. o uspostavljanju prava na najnižu naknadu za osnovne životne potrebe (Moniteur belge od 18. rujna 1974., str. 11363.) određuje:
`1. Any Belgian having reached the age of majority, who is actually resident in Belgium and who does not have adequate resources and is not able to obtain them either by his own efforts or by other means, is entitled to a minimum subsistence allowance. ...' 
„1. Svaki punoljetni Belgijanac koji stvarno boravi u Belgiji i koji nema dostatna sredstva te ih ne može priskrbiti vlastitim naporima ili na neki drugi način, ima pravo na najnižu naknadu za osnovne životne potrebe. [...]" [neslužbeni prijevod]
8 Under Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 27 March 1987 (Moniteur belge, 7 April 1987, p. 5086) extending the scope of the Law of 7 August 1974 establishing the right to a minimum subsistence allowance to persons not possessing Belgian nationality: 
8 U skladu s člankom 1. Kraljevskog dekreta od 27. ožujka 1987. (Moniteur belge od 7. travnja 1987., str. 5086.) o proširenju područja primjene Zakona od 7. kolovoza 1974. o uspostavljanju prava na najnižu naknadu za osnovne životne potrebe na osobe koje nemaju belgijsko državljanstvo:
`The scope of the Law of 7 August 1974 establishing the right to a minimum subsistence allowance is extended to the following persons: 
„Područje primjene Zakona od 7. kolovoza 1974. o uspostavljanju prava na najnižu naknadu za osnovne životne potrebe proširuje se na sljedeće osobe:
1. those to whom Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of the European Communities of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community applies; 
1. osobe na koje se primjenjuje Uredba Vijeća Europskih zajednica (EEZ) br. 1612/68 od 15. listopada 1968. o slobodi kretanja radnika u Zajednici;
...' The main proceedings and the reference for a preliminary ruling 
[...] [neslužbeni prijevod]" Glavni postupak i prethodna pitanja
9 Mr Trojani is a French national who after a short stay in Belgium in 1972, during which he is said to have worked as a self-employed person in the sales sector, returned there in 2000. 
9 M. Trojani je francuski državljanin koji se nakon kratkog boravka u Belgiji 1972. godine, tijekom kojeg je radio kao samozaposlena osoba u sektoru prodaje, vratio tamo 2000. godine.
He resided, without being registered, first at a campsite in Blankenberge and then from December 2001 in Brussels. 
Prvo je neprijavljeno boravio u kampu u Blankenbergeu i od prosinca 2001. u Bruxellesu.
After a stay at the Jacques Brel youth hostel, he was given accommodation in a Salvation Army hostel from 8 January 2002, where in return for board and lodging and some pocket money he does various jobs for about 30 hours a week as part of a personal socio-occupational reintegration programme. 
Nakon boravka u prihvatilištu za mlade Jacques Brel, dobio je smještaj u prihvatilištu Vojske spasa od 8. siječnja 2002., gdje u zamjenu za smještaj i prehranu te određeni džeparac obavlja različite poslove približno 30 sati tjedno u okviru individualnog programa društvene i profesionalne integracije.
10 As he had no resources, he approached the CPAS with a view to obtaining the minimex, on the grounds that he had to pay EUR 400 a month to the hostel and should also be able to leave the hostel and live independently. 
10 Budući da nije imao sredstava, s ciljem dobivanja minimexa obratio se CPAS-u s obrazloženjem da prihvatilištu mora plaćati 400 EUR mjesečno i da bi trebao imati mogućnost napustiti prihvatilište i živjeti samostalno.
11 The CPAS's refusal, on the grounds that, first, Mr Trojani did not have Belgian nationality and, second, he could not benefit from the application of Regulation No 1612/68, was the subject of proceedings in the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels). 
11 Odluka CPAS-a o odbijanju obrazložena činjenicom da, s jedne strane, M. Trojani nije imao belgijsko državljanstvo i, s druge strane, nije mogao iskoristiti primjenu Uredbe br. 1612/68 bila je predmet tužbe pred Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Radni sud u Bruxellesu).
12 That court granted Mr Trojani the right to receive provisional financial assistance of EUR 300 from the CPAS. 
12 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev priznao je M. Trojaniju pravo na primanje privremene financijske pomoći u iznosu od 300 EUR, koju plaća CPAS.
It also decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
Isto je tako odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`1. Can a citizen of the Union in the factual circumstances described in this judgment 
„1. Može li građanin Unije koji se nalazi u okolnostima opisanima u ovoj presudi
who has temporary leave to reside, 
koji ima privremenu boravišnu dozvolu,
does not have sufficient resources, - 
koji ne raspolaže dostatnim sredstvima,
carries out work for the hostel to the extent of approximately 30 hours a week in the context of a personal reintegration programme, 
koji obavlja radove za prihvatilište približno 30 sati tjedno u okviru individualnog programa integracije,
and receives in return benefits in kind which cover his basic needs at the hostel itself 
koji u zamjenu za to prima davanja u naravi kojima pokriva svoje osnovne potrebe u prihvatilištu
claim a right of residence 
zatražiti pravo boravka
as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC or Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68, - or as a worker pursuing an activity as a self-employed person within the meaning of Article 43 EC, 
kao radnik u smislu članka 39. UEZ-a ili članka 7. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 1612/68, ili - kao radnik koji obavlja djelatnost samozaposlene osobe u smislu članka 43. UEZ-a, ili
- or as a person providing a service, in view of the tasks he performs at the hostel, or as a person for whom services are intended, in view of the benefits in kind granted to him by that hostel, within the meaning of Article 49 EC, - 
kao pružatelj usluga, s obzirom na poslove koje obavlja u prihvatilištu, ili kao primatelj usluga, s obzirom na davanja u naravi koja mu daje to prihvatilište, u smislu članka 49. UEZ-a, ili -
or merely because he is taking part in a programme for his socio-occupational reintegration? 
samo zato što sudjeluje u programu društvene i profesionalne integracije?
2. If not, can he rely directly on Article 18 EC, which guarantees the right to move and reside freely in the territory of another Member State of the Union, merely in his capacity as a European citizen? 
2. Ako ne može, može li se pozvati izravno na članak 18. UEZ-a, kojim se jamči pravo slobodnog kretanja i boravka na državnom području druge države članice Unije, samo zato što je europski građanin?
What then becomes of the conditions laid down by Directive 90/364 ... and/or the "limitations and conditions" laid down in the EC Treaty, in particular the condition as to minimum resources which, if it were applied on entry to the host country, would deprive him of the very substance of the right of residence? 
Što bi onda bilo s uvjetima utvrđenima Direktivom 90/364 [...] i/ili ,ograničenjima i uvjetima' utvrđenima Ugovorom o EZ-u, i posebno uvjetom minimalnih sredstava, na temelju kojeg, ako bi se primjenjivao pri ulasku u državu domaćina, bi mu bila uskraćena sama bit prava boravka?
If, on the other hand, the right of residence arises automatically on the basis of citizenship of the Union, could the host State subsequently refuse an application for the minimex or for social assistance (non-contributory benefits), curtailing his right of residence on the ground that he does not have sufficient resources, when those benefits are granted to nationals of the host country subject to conditions which Belgians too must satisfy (proof of their availability for work, proof that they are in need)? 
Ako, naprotiv, pravo boravka automatski proizlazi iz građanstva Unije, može li država domaćin naknadno odbiti zahtjev za minimex ili socijalnu pomoć (nedoprinosna davanja) te time ograničiti njegovo pravo boravka zbog toga što on nema dostatna sredstva kada se navedena davanja dodjeljuju državljanima države domaćina pod uvjetima koje i Belgijanci moraju zadovoljiti (dokaz o spremnosti za rad - dokaz da im je potrebna pomoć)?
Must the host country comply with any other rules in order to avoid rendering meaningless the right of residence, such as a duty to assess the situation in the light of the fact that the application for the minimex or for social assistance is temporary, or to take into account the principle of proportionality (would the burden on the State in question be unreasonable)?' 
Treba li država domaćin poštovati druga pravila kako ne bi oduzela smisao pravu boravka, kao što je obveza da procijeni situaciju s obzirom na činjenicu da je zahtjev za minimex ili za socijalnu pomoć privremen, ili kako bi uzela u obzir načelo proporcionalnosti (bi li teret za ovu državu bio prekomjeran)?"
13 By its first question, the national court essentially asks whether a person in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings can claim a right of residence as a worker, a self-employed person or a provider or recipient of services, within the meaning of Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC respectively. 
13 Svojim prvim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita može li osoba u situaciji kao što je ona tužitelja u glavnom postupku zatražiti pravo boravka kao radnik, kao samozaposlena osoba ili pružatelj odnosno primatelj usluga u smislu članaka 39., 43. i 49. UEZ-a.
14 In the context of freedom of movement for workers, it should be recalled that Article 39(3)(c) EC grants nationals of the Member States the right of residence in the territory of a Member State for the purpose of employment. 
14 U okviru slobode kretanja radnika valja podsjetiti da se člankom 39. stavkom 3. točkom (c) UEZ-a državljanima država članica dodjeljuje pravo boravka na državnom području države članice radi zapošljavanja.
15 As the Court has held, the concept of `worker' within the meaning of Article 39 EC has a specific Community meaning and must not be interpreted narrowly. Any person who pursues activities which are real and genuine, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, must be regarded as a `worker'. 
15 Kao to je Sud presudio, pojam „radnik" u smislu članka 39. UEZ-a je pojam Zajednice i ne treba ga tumačiti restriktivno. „Radnikom" treba smatrati svaku osobu koja obavlja stvarne i efektivne djelatnosti, osim djelatnosti toliko ograničenog opsega da ih se može smatrati samo marginalnima i akcesornima.
The essential feature of an employment relationship is, according to that case-law, that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration (see, in particular, Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR 2121, paragraphs 16 and 17, and Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 26). 
Prema navedenoj sudskoj praksi, karakteristika je radnog odnosa da osoba tijekom određenoga razdoblja za drugu osobu i pod njezinim vodstvom obavlja poslove za koje dobiva naknadu (posebno vidjeti presude od 3. srpnja 1986., Lawrie-Blum, 66/85, Zb., str. 2121., t. 16. i 17., i od 23. ožujka 2004., Collins, C-138/02, Zb., str. I-2703., t. 26.).
16 Moreover, neither the sui generis nature of the employment relationship under national law, nor the level of productivity of the person concerned, the origin of the funds from which the remuneration is paid or the limited amount of the remuneration can have any consequence in regard to whether or not the person is a worker for the purposes of Community law (see Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035, paragraph 16; Case 344/87 Bettray [1989] ECR 1621, paragraphs 15 and 16; and Case C-188/00 Kurz [2002] ECR I-10691, paragraph 32). 
16 sim toga, pravna priroda sui generis radnog odnosa s obzirom na nacionalno pravo kao i veća ili manja produktivnost zainteresirane osobe, podrijetlo sredstava za plaćanje ili ograničena razina naknade ne mogu utjecati na to je li osoba radnik u smislu prava Zajednice (vidjeti presude od 23. ožujka 1982., Levin, 53/81, Zb., str. 1035., t. 16., od 31. svibnja 1989., Bettray, 344/87, Zb., str.. 1621., t. 15. i 16., i od 19. studenoga 2002., Kurz, C-188/00, Zb., str. I-10691., t. 32.).
17 With respect more particularly to establishing whether the condition of the pursuit of real and genuine activity for remuneration is satisfied, the national court must base its examination on objective criteria and make an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the case relating to the nature both of the activities concerned and of the employment relationship at issue (see Case C-413/01 Ninni-Orasche [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 27). 
17 Posebno u pogledu provjeravanja uvjeta u vezi s obavljanjem stvarne i učinkovite djelatnosti uz naknadu, sud koji je uputio zahtjev treba temeljiti svoje ispitivanje na objektivnim kriterijima i dati opću ocjenu svih okolnosti predmeta koji utječu na prirodu predmetnih djelatnosti i radnog odnosa o kojem je riječ (vidjeti presudu od 6. studenoga 2003., Ninni-Orasche, C-413/01, Zb., str. I-13187., t. 27.).
18 In this respect, the Court has held that activities cannot be regarded as a real and genuine economic activity if they constitute merely a means of rehabilitation or reintegration for the persons concerned (Bettray, paragraph 17). 
18 U tom je pogledu Sud presudio da se djelatnosti ne mogu smatrati stvarnim i učinkovitim gospodarskim djelatnostima ako za dotične osobe predstavljaju samo sredstvo rehabilitacije ili integracije (gore navedena presuda Bettray, t. 17.).
19 However, that conclusion can be explained only by the particular characteristics of the case in question, which concerned the situation of a person who, by reason of his addiction to drugs, had been recruited on the basis of a national law intended to provide work for persons who, for an indefinite period, are unable, by reason of circumstances related to their situation, to work under normal conditions (see, to that effect, Case C-1/97 Birden [1998] ECR I-7747, paragraphs 30 and 31). 
19 Međutim, taj se zaključak može objasniti samo posebnim značajkama slučaja o kojem je riječ, koji se odnosi na situaciju osobe koja je zbog svoje ovisnosti o drogama bila zaposlena na temelju nacionalnog propisa čija je namjena osigurati posao osobama koje zbog osobnih okolnosti neodređeno vrijeme ne mogu raditi u uobičajenim uvjetima (u tom smislu vidjeti presudu od 26. studenoga 1998., Birden, C-1/97, Zb., str. I-7747., t. 30. i 31.).
20 In the present case, as is apparent from the decision making the reference, Mr Trojani performs, for the Salvation Army and under its direction, various jobs for approximately 30 hours a week, as part of a personal reintegration programme, in return for which he receives benefits in kind and some pocket money. 
20 Kao što proizlazi iz odluke kojom se upućuje prethodno pitanje, M. Trojani u ovom predmetu obavlja različite poslove za Vojsku spasa pod njezinim vodstvom približno 30 sati tjedno u okviru osobnog programa integracije te u zamjenu za to dobiva davanja u naravi i nešto džeparca.