natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
9 Article 90 of Regulation No 883/2004 provides that Regulation No 1408/71 is in substance repealed from the date of application of Regulation No 883/2004. 
9 Članak 90. Uredbe br. 883/2004 predviđa da je Uredba br. 1408/71 u bitnome stavljena izvan snage od datuma početka primjene Uredbe br. 883/2004.
10 Article 87(5) of Regulation No 883/2004 contains the following transitional provision: 
10 Članak 87. stavak 5. Uredbe 883/2004 sadržava sljedeću prijelaznu odredbu:
‘The rights of a person to whom a pension was provided prior to the date of application of this Regulation in a Member State may, at the request of the person concerned, be reviewed, taking into account this Regulation.’ 
„Prava osobe, koja je koristila mirovinu prije dana primjene ove Uredbe u državi članici može [mogu] se preispitati na zahtjev navedene osobe, uzimajući u obzir ovu Uredbu.”
11 Under Article 91 of that regulation, the latter is to apply from the date of entry into force of the Implementing Regulation. 
11 Na temelju članka 91. te uredbe, ona se primjenjuje od dana stupanja na snagu provedbene uredbe.
12 Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1), in accordance with its Article 97, entered into force on 1 May 2010. 
12 Uredba (EZ) br. 987/2009 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. rujna 2009. o utvrđivanju postupka provedbene Uredbe (EZ) br. 883/2004 o koordinaciji sustava socijalne sigurnosti (SL L 284, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 5. svezak 2., str. 171.), u skladu s njezinim člankom 97., stupila je na snagu 1. svibnja 2010.
Spanish law 
Španjolsko pravo
13 In accordance with Article 161(1)(b) of the General Law on Social Security (Ley General de la Seguridad Social), as amended and approved by Royal Legislative Decree No 1/1994 of 20 June 1994, in the version applicable to the case in the main proceedings (the ‘LGSS’), entitlement to a retirement pension requires, inter alia, a minimum contribution period of 15 years. 
13 U skladu s člankom 161. stavkom 1. točkom (b) općeg zakona o socijalnoj sigurnosti (Ley General de la Seguridad Social), kako je izmijenjen i potvrđen kraljevskim zakonodavnim dekretom 1/1994 od 20. lipnja 1994. (u daljnjem tekstu: LGSS), u verziji koja se primjenjuje na predmet u glavnom postupku, pravo na starosnu mirovinu zahtijeva, između ostalog, minimalno razdoblje plaćanja doprinosa od 15 godina.
14 Under Article 162(1) of the LGSS: 
14 U skladu s člankom 162. stavkom 1. LGSS-a:
‘The basic amount of the retirement pension, under the contributory scheme, will be the quotient given by dividing by 210 the bases of contribution of the interested party during the 180 months immediately before the month preceding the operative event.’ 
„Temeljni iznos starosne mirovine, sukladno sustavu doprinosa, kvocijent je dobiven dijeljenjem s brojem 210 osnovice za plaćanje doprinosa zainteresirane strane tijekom 180 mjeseci neposredno prije mjeseca koji prethodi operativnom događaju.”
15 Ms Salgado González paid contributions in Spain to the Special Scheme for Self-Employed Persons (Régimen Especial de Trabajadores Autónomos) from 1 February 1989 to 31 March 1999, i.e. a total of 3 711 days, and in Portugal from 1 March 2000 to 31 December 2005, i.e. a total of 2 100 days,. 
15 C. Salgado González je u Španjolskoj uplaćivala doprinos u Regimen Especial de Trabajadores Autonomos (posebni sustav za samozaposlene osobe) i to ukupno 3711 dana, od 1. veljače 1989. do 31. ožujka 1999., te u Portugalu ukupno 2100 dana, od 1. ožujka 2000. do 31. prosinca 2005.
16 Ms Salgado González applied for a retirement pension in Spain. On 9 November 2006, this retirement pension was granted to her by the INSS, from 1 January 2006. 
16 U Španjolskoj je zatražila starosnu mirovinu. INSS joj je 9. studenoga 2006. odobrio tu starosnu mirovinu, i to s učinkom od 1. siječnja 2006.
17 Initially, the INSS fixed the ‘basic amount’ of that benefit at EUR 341.65 per month, pursuant to Article 162(1) of the LGSS. 
17 INSS je prvo na temelju članka 162. stavka 1. LGSS-a odredio da temeljni iznos ovog davanja bude 341,65 EUR mjesečno.
18 That amount was obtained by adding the contribution bases paid in Spain from 1 January 1991 to 31 December 2005 and by dividing the amount by 210, that divisor corresponding – as appears from the documents before the Court – to the total amount of ordinary contributions (12 a year) and extraordinary contributions (two a year) paid during a period of 180 months, which is 15 years. 
18 Taj je iznos dobiven zbrajanjem osnovice doprinosa uplaćivane u Španjolskoj od 1. siječnja 1991. do 31. prosinca 2005. te dijeljenjem rezultata s 210, pri čemu taj djelitelj, kako je razvidno iz spisa, odgovara ukupnom iznosu redovnih doprinosa (12 na godinu) i izvanrednih doprinosa (dva na godinu) uplaćenih u razdoblju od 180 mjeseci, tj. 15 godina.
19 That basic amount was the subject of an initial adjustment, which was a reduction to 53%, to take account of Ms Salgado González’s years of contribution. Following that initial adjustment, the basic amount was 181.07 EUR. 
19 Navedeni temeljni iznos bio je podvrgnut prvotnoj prilagodbi, tj. smanjenju od 53 %, kako bi se uzele u obzir godine tijekom kojih je C. Salgado González uplaćivala doprinose. Nakon prve prilagodbe, temeljni iznos bio je 181,07 EUR.
20 That amount was then further adjusted in order to establish that portion of the retirement pension for which the Kingdom of Spain was responsible. To those ends, the INSS took into account the proportion of contributions paid in Spain by Ms Salgado González in relation to the total amount of her paid contributions. The portion for which that Member State was responsible was set at 63.86% of the adjusted basic amount, which came to EUR 115.63. That amount, reassessed and including supplements, was finally set at EUR 371.36. 
20 Taj je iznos bio ponovno prilagođen kako bi se odredilo koliki udio iznosa starosne mirovine ide na teret Kraljevine Španjolske. S tim je ciljem INSS uzeo u obzir udio doprinosa koji je C. Salgado González uplaćivala u Španjolskoj u odnosu prema sveukupnom iznosu njezinih uplaćenih doprinosa. Udio doprinosa na teret te države članice utvrđen je na 63,86 % iznosa prilagođene osnove, koja je odgovarala iznosu od 115,63 EUR. Taj je iznos, koji je bio revaloriziran i uključivao dodatke, konačno određen na 371,36 EUR.
21 On 8 January 2007, Ms Salgado González, who submits that the contributions she paid in Portugal must also be taken into account when calculating her retirement benefits, has applied for that monthly amount to be reviewed and set at EUR 864.14. 
21 C. Salgado González, koja smatra da prilikom izračunavanja njezine mirovine treba uzeti u obzir doprinose koje je uplaćivala u Portugalu, 8. siječnja 2007. podnijela je zahtjev da se iznos revidira i odredi na 864,14 EUR mjesečno.
22 The INSS dismissed that application and later fixed that amount at EUR 336.86 a month. 
22 INSS je taj zahtjev odbio te je naknadno taj iznos odredio na 336,86 EUR mjesečno.
23 That amount was obtained, pursuant to Article 162(1) of the LGSS, by adding the Spanish contribution bases paid between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1999, namely, the 15 years preceding payment of the last contribution by Ms Salgado González in Spain, and by dividing them by 210. The applicant in the main proceedings having, however, started to pay contributions to Spanish social security only on 1 February 1989, those contributions paid between 1 April 1984 and 31 January 1989 were calculated as zero. 
23 Taj je iznos, na temelju članka 162. stavka 1. LGSS-a, dobiven zbrajanjem osnovica doprinosa u Španjolskoj uplaćenih u razdoblju između 1. travnja 1984. i 31. ožujka 1999., tj. tijekom 15 godina koje su prethodile plaćanju zadnjeg doprinosa C. Salgado González u Španjolskoj, te njihovim dijeljenjem s 210. Međutim, budući da je tužiteljica u glavnom postupku počela plaćati doprinose za španjolsko socijalno osiguranje tek 1. veljače 1989., doprinosi uplaćeni između 1. travnja 1984. i 31. siječnja 1989. izračunani su kao nula.
24 The INSS made the adjustments described at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the present judgment to that basic amount in order to arrive at the actual amount of the benefit. 
24 Tu je osnovicu INSS prilagodio, kako je opisano u točkama 19. i 20. ove presude, kako bi utvrdio stvarni iznos davanja.
25 Having unsuccessfully brought a preliminary administrative action, Ms Salgado González brought an action before the Juzgado de lo Social (Social Court) No 3, Ourense, which was also dismissed. 
25 Nakon neuspješnih upravnih tužbi, C. Salgado González podnijela je tužbu pri Juzgado de lo Social No 3, Ourense (socijalni sud), koja je također odbijena.
26 The referring court, to which an appeal has been made, specifies that, in calculating the basic amount of the retirement pension to be granted to the applicant in the main proceedings, the INSS proceeded to apply Heading H, paragraph 4 (Spain), of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71 in combination with Article 162(1) of the LGSS. 
26 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev, pred kojim je podnesena žalba, pojašnjava da je INSS kod izračuna osnovnog iznosa starosne mirovine, koju treba dodijeliti tužiteljici u glavnom postupku, primijenio točku 4. naslov H Priloga VI. Uredbi br. 1408/71 u vezi s člankom 162. stavkom 1. LGSS-a.
27 The referring court states that it has no doubt as to the impossibility of including the contributions paid in Portugal by Ms Salgado González in the calculation of the basic amount of her Spanish retirement pension. Nonetheless, it submits that the method used by the INSS to calculate that amount is not compatible with the requirements of the freedom of movement of workers applied to social security benefits referred to at Article 48 TFEU nor with equal treatment between migrant and non-migrant workers under Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71. 
27 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev navodi da nimalo ne dvoji o tome da doprinose koje je C. Salgado González plaćala u Portugalu nije moguće uključiti u izračun osnovice njezine španjolske mirovine. Međutim, smatra da metoda kojom je INSS izračunao tu osnovicu nije u skladu sa zahtjevima slobode kretanja radnika koji se primjenjuju na socijalna davanja iz članka 48. UFEU-a kao ni s jednakim postupanjem s radnicima migrantima i onima koji to nisu na temelju članka 3. Uredbe br. 1408/71.
28 In particular, firstly, the use of 210 as a divisor in relation to Community migrant workers, even when fewer than 15 years of contributions were made in Spain, puts migrant workers on an unequal footing with non-migrant workers paying contributions in Spain. Indeed, for the same level of contributions as a non-migrant worker paying contributions in Spain, the Community migrant worker, whose contributions have been divided between Spain and another Member State, will have a basic amount reduced in proportion to the lesser amount of contributions paid in Spain. Such an outcome is contrary to the Community objective, set out at Article 48 TFEU, which is to avoid migrant workers from suffering a reduction in the amount of the benefit they would have received if they were not migrants (see judgment in Case C-406/93 Reichling [1994] ECR I-4061, paragraph 26, and Case C-251/94 Lafuente Nieto [1996] ECR I-4187, paragraph 38). 
28 Posebno, s jedne strane upotreba broja 210 kao djelitelja u pogledu radnika migranata Zajednice, čak i u slučaju razdoblja plaćanja doprinosa u Španjolskoj koje je kraće od 15 godina, stavlja radnike migrante u neravnopravan položaj u odnosu na radnike koji nisu migranti i koji uplaćuju doprinose u Španjolskoj. Zbog doprinosa jednakih onima koje ima radnik koji nije migrant a koji uplaćuje doprinose u Španjolskoj, radnik migrant Zajednice, čiji se doprinosi dijele između Španjolske i druge države članice, imat će smanjenu osnovicu razmjerno manjem iznosu doprinosa uplaćenih u Španjolskoj. Takav bi rezultat bio u suprotnosti s ciljem Zajednice utvrđenim u članku 48. UFEU-a, a to je da se izbjegne da se radniku migrantu smanji iznos davanja koji bi dobivao da nije migrant (vidjeti presude od 9. kolovoza 1994., Reichling, C-406/93, Zb., str. I.-4061., t. 26., i od 12 rujna 1996., Lafuente Nieto, C-251/94, Zb., str. I.-4187., t. 38.).
29 Secondly, the referring court sets out that, the more a worker pays in contributions in a Member State other than the Kingdom of Spain, the less time he has during his professional life to pay contributions in Spain – which are the only ones that can be taken into account under Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71 – during the 15 year period set out at Article 162(1) of the LGSS. Those circumstances differentiate the situation of a migrant worker paying contributions in Spain and a non-migrant worker also paying contributions in Spain, inasmuch as the latter has the entirety of his professional life available to him to cover those 15 years of contributions. 
29 S druge strane, sud koji je uputio zahtjev navodi da što više radnik uplaćuje doprinose u državi članici koja nije Kraljevina Španjolska, to mu manje vremena tijekom profesionalne karijere preostaje za plaćanje doprinosa u Španjolskoj - koji se jedini mogu uzeti u obzir u skladu s točkom 4. naslovom H Priloga VI. Uredbi br. 1408/71 - tijekom razdoblja od 15 godina utvrđenog u članku 162. stavku 1. LGSS-a. Te bi okolnosti bile značajne za razliku između situacije u kojoj je radnik migrant koji plaća doprinose u Španjolskoj i radnika koji nije migrant koji također plaća doprinose u Španjolskoj, u mjeri u kojoj potonji raspolaže cijelim vremenom svoje profesionalne karijere kako bi pokrio tih 15 godina doprinosa.
30 The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court: 
30 Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia je stoga odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘(1) Is it in accordance with the Community objectives set out in [Article 48 TFEU and in Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71], and with the wording of [Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71], to interpret that annex … to the effect that, for the calculation of the theoretical Spanish benefit carried out on the basis of the actual contributions of the insured person, during the years immediately preceding payment of the last contribution to the Spanish social security, the sum thus obtained is divided by 210, that divisor being established by the calculation of the basis for determination of the retirement pension in accordance with Article 162(1) of the LGSS? 
„1.Je li u skladu s ciljevima Zajednice utvrđenima u članku 48. UFEU-a i članku 3. [Uredbe br. 1408/71], te s [točkom 4. naslovom H Priloga VI. Uredbi br. 1408/71], tumačiti taj prilog […] u smislu da se, za izračun teoretskih španjolskih davanja proveden na temelju stvarnih doprinosa osigurane osobe tijekom godina koje neposredno prethode uplati posljednjeg doprinosa španjolskom socijalnom osiguranju, iznos dobiven na taj način podijeli s brojem 210, koji je u skladu s člankom 162. stavkom 1. LGSS-a određen kao djelitelj za izračun osnovice starosne mirovine?
(2) If the first question should be answered in the negative: 
2. U slučaju da je odgovor na prvo pitanje negativan:
Is it in accordance with the Community objectives set out in [Article 48 TFEU and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71], and [Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to that regulation], to interpret the said annex to the effect that, for the calculation of the theoretical Spanish benefit carried out on the basis of the actual contributions of the insured person, during the years immediately preceding payment of the last contribution to the Spanish social security, the sum thus obtained is divided by the number of years of contribution in Spain? 
Je li u skladu s ciljevima Zajednice utvrđenima u članku 48. UFEU-a i članku 3. [Uredbe br. 1408/71], te s [točkom 4. naslovom H Priloga VI. Uredbi br. 1408/71], tumačiti taj prilog u smislu da se, za izračun teoretskih španjolskih davanja proveden na temelju stvarnih doprinosa osigurane osobe tijekom godina koje neposredno prethode uplati posljednjeg doprinosa španjolskom socijalnom osiguranju, iznos dobiven na taj način podijeli s brojem godina tijekom kojih su doprinosi uplaćivani u Španjolskoj?
(3) In the event of a negative response to the second question and whatever the answer to the first question: 
.3. U slučaju da je odgovor na drugo pitanje negativan te bez obzira na odgovor na prvo pitanje:
Is [paragraph 2(a) (Spain), of Annex XI] to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 … applicable by analogy, in the case described in these proceedings, with the aim of satisfying the Community objectives set out in [Article 48 TFEU and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71], and, as a result, is it possible to cover the contribution period in Portugal with the basis of contributions in Spain closest in time to that period, taking into account the evolution of consumer prices?[ 
Je li u slučaju opisanom u predmetnom postupku, kako bi se zadovoljio cilj Zajednice iz članka 48. UFEU-a i članka 3. [Uredbe br. 1408/71] moguća analogna primjena [stavka 2. točke (a), naslov „Španjolska”, Priloga XI. Uredbi (EZ) br. 883/2004], te je li posljedično moguće za razdoblje plaćanja doprinosa u Portugalu uzeti u obzir osnovicu doprinosa u Španjolskoj vremenski najbližu tom razdoblju, uzimajući u obzir razvoj potrošačkih cijena?
(4) If the first, second and third questions are all answered in the negative: 
4. U slučaju da je odgovor na prvo, drugo i treće pitanje negativan:
What, if none of the previously mentioned interpretations were held to be wholly or partly correct, would be the interpretation of [Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71] that, being useful for the resolution of the dispute described in these proceedings, is most in accordance with the Community objectives set out in [Article 48 TFEU and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71] and with Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI]?’ 
Ako se nijedno od prethodnih tumačenja ne smatra u cijelosti ili djelomično točnim, koje bi tumačenje [točke 4. naslova H Priloga VI. Uredbi 1408/71], pod uvjetom da je korisno za rješavanje predmetnog spora, najviše odgovaralo ciljevima Zajednice iz članka 48. UFEU-a i članka 3. [Uredbe br. 1408/71], te [točki 4. naslova H Priloga VI. toj uredbi]?”
31 By its questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 48 TFEU, Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI, to that regulation, or paragraph 2(a) (Spain), of Annex XI to Regulation No 883/2004 preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the theoretical amount of the retirement pension of the self-employed worker, migrant or non-migrant, is invariably calculated on contribution bases paid by that worker over the fixed reference period of 15 years preceding the payment of his last contribution in that Member State, divided by 210, when it is impossible for either the duration of that period or the divisor used to be adapted so as to take account of the fact that the worker concerned has exercised his right to freedom of movement. 
31 Svojim pitanjima, koja valja ispitati zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita jesu li članku 48. UFEU-a, članku 3. Uredbe br. 1408/71 i točki 4. naslova H Priloga VI. toj uredbi, ili stavku 2. točki (a) naslov „Španjolska” Priloga XI. Uredbi br. 883/2004, protivni propisu države članice, kao što je onaj o kojemu je riječ u glavnom postupku, na temelju kojeg se teoretski iznos starosne mirovine samozaposlenog radnika, migranta ili onog koji to nije, redovito izračunava na temelju osnovica doprinosa tog radnika za određeno referentno razdoblje od 15 godina, koje prethodi plaćanju njegovog zadnjeg doprinosa u toj državi članici, podijeljenih s 210, a da se ni trajanje tog razdoblja ni korišteni djelitelj ne mogu prilagoditi kako bi se uzela u obzir činjenica da je dotični radnik ostvario pravo na slobodu kretanja.
32 Firstly, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 91 of Regulation No 883/2004, read in combination with Article 97 of Regulation No 987/2009, Regulation No 883/2004 is applicable only from 1 May 2010. 
32 Prvo treba napomenuti da se u skladu s člankom 91. Uredbe br. 883/2004, u vezi s člankom 97. Uredbe br. 987/2009, Uredba br. 883/2004 primjenjuje tek od 1. svibnja 2010.
33 However, as appears from paragraph 16 of the present judgment, the INSS, on 9 November 2006, granted Ms Salgado González a retirement pension with effect from 1 January 2006. In addition, as also noted by the Advocate General at point 30 of his opinion, no evidence has been submitted to the Court which shows that Ms Salgado González availed herself of the opportunity left open by Article 87(5) of that regulation relating to the reassessment of her rights. 
33 Međutim, kako je razvidno iz točke 16. ove presude, INSS je 9. studenoga 2006. C. Salgado González odobrio starosnu mirovinu s učinkom od 1. siječnja 2006. Nadalje, kako je također primijetio nezavisni odvjetnik u točki 30. svog mišljenja, u spisu nigdje nije navedeno da se C. Salgado González pozvala na mogućnost revizije svojih prava predviđenu člankom 87. stavkom 5. te uredbe.
34 It follows that Regulation No 883/2004 is not applicable ratione temporis to the case in the main proceedings. 
34 Iz toga slijedi da se Uredba br. 883/2004 ne primjenjuje ratione temporis na predmet u glavnom postupku.
"35 In order to answer the questions raised by the national court, it must be pointed out that Regulation No 1408/71 does not set up a common scheme of social security, but allows different national social security schemes to exist; its sole objective is to ensure the coordination of those schemes. Thus, according to settled case-law, Member States retain the power to organise their social security schemes (see judgment in Case C-212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government [2008] ECR I-1683, paragraph 43, and Case C-503/09 Stewart [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 75)." 
35 Kako bi se dao odgovor na pitanja koja je postavio sud koji je uputio zahtjev, valja istaknuti da Uredba br. 1408/71 ne uspostavlja zajednički sustav socijalne sigurnosti, no dopušta postojanje različitih nacionalnih sustava i čiji je jedini cilj osigurati koordinaciju tih sustava. Iz ustaljene sudske prakse stoga proizlazi da države članice zadržavaju nadležnost prilikom organizacije svojih sustava socijalne sigurnosti (vidjeti presude od 1. travnja 2008., Gouvernement de la Communauté française i gouvernement wallon, C-212/06, Zb., str. I. - 1683. t. 43, kao i od 21. srpnja 2011., Stewart, C-503/09, Zb., str. I. - 6497., t. 75.).
36 Therefore, in the absence of harmonisation at EU level, it is for the legislation of each Member State to determine, in particular, the conditions for entitlement to benefits (see Stewart, paragraph 76 and case-law cited). 
36 Sukladno tome, zbog neusklađenosti na razini Unije od zakonodavstva svake države članice očekuje se da posebno odredi uvjete za ostvarivanje prava na davanja (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Stewart, t. 76. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
37 In exercising those powers, Member States must nonetheless comply with the law of the European Union and, in particular, with the provisions of the FEU Treaty giving every citizen of the Union the right to move and reside within the territory of the Member States (see Stewart, paragraph 77 and case-law cited). 
37 Države članice moraju prilikom izvršavanja te ovlasti ipak poštovati pravo Europske unije te posebno odredbe UFEU-a, kojima se svakom državljanu Unije priznaje pravo na kretanje i boravak na državnom području države članice (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Stewart, t. 77. i navedenu sudsku praksu).