natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They argued that nationals of nonmember countries who are spouses of Union citizens have a right, consequential to and dependent on that of the Union citizen, to move and reside in a Member State other than that of which the Union citizen is a national, a right which derives from the family relationship alone.
Trdile so, da imajo državljani tretjih držav, zakonci državljanov Unije, pravico, ki izhaja in je odvisna od pravice državljana Unije, do gibanja in prebivanja v državi članici, ki ni država članica, katere državljan je, in da ta izhaja zgolj iz sorodstvene vezi.
They submitted that Directive 2004/38 governs exhaustively the conditions of entry into and residence in a Member State for a Union citizen who is a national of another Member State and his family members, so that the Member States are not entitled to impose additional conditions.
Direktiva 2004/38 naj bi izčrpno urejala pogoje vstopa in prebivanja v državi članici za državljana Unije, ki je državljan druge države članice, in njegove družinske člane, tako da naj državam članicam ne bi bilo dovoljeno določiti dodatnih pogojev.
Since the directive makes no provision for a condition
Ker ta direktiva nikakor ne določa pogoja predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja v drugi državi
METOCK AND OTHERS of prior lawful residence in another Member State, such as that imposed by the Irish legislation, that legislation is not consistent with Community law.
METOCK IN DRUGI članici, kot je določen v irski ureditvi, naj ta ureditev ne bi bila v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
The Minister for Justice replied essentially that Directive 2004/38 does not preclude the condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State laid down in Regulation 3(2) of the 2006 Regulations.
Tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari so prav tako trdile, da državljan tretje države, ki postane družinski član državljana Unije, medtem ko ta prebiva v državi članici, razen v tisti državi, katere državljan je, spremlja tega državljana v skladu s členom 3(1) in 7(2) Direktive 2004/38.
He submitted that there is a division of competences between the Member States and the Community, under which the Member States have competence in relation to the admission into a Member State of nationals of nonmember countries coming from outside Community territory, while the Community has competence to regulate the movement of Union citizens and their family members within the Union.
Obstajala naj bi razdelitev pristojnosti med državami članicami in Skupnostjo, v skladu s katero so države članice pristojne za področje vstopa državljanov tretjih držav, ki prihajajo iz držav zunaj ozemlja Skupnosti, v državo članico, medtem ko je Skupnost pristojna za urejanje gibanja državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov znotraj Unije.
He argued that Directive 2004/38 therefore leaves Member States discretion to impose on nationals of nonmember countries who are spouses of Union citizens a condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State.
Direktiva 2004/38 naj bi torej državam članicam dajala diskrecijsko pravico, da za državljane tretjih držav, zakonce državljanov Unije, določijo pogoj predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja v drugi državi članici.
Moreover, that such a condition is consistent with Community law follows from Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607 and Case C-1/05 Jia [2007] ECR I-1.
Poleg tega naj bi združljivost takega pogoja s pravom Skupnosti izhajala iz sodb z dne 23. septembra 2003 v zadevi Akrich (C-109/01, Recueil, str. I-9607) in z dne 9. januarja 2007 v zadevi Jia (C-1/05, ZOdl., str. I-1).
The national court points out that none of the marriages in question is a marriage of convenience.
Predložitveno sodi�če poudarja, da nobena zakonska zveza, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, ni navidezna zakonska zveza.
— a spouse of a Union citizen who resides in the host Member State and satisfies a condition in Article 7(1)(a), (b) or (c) and
– je zakonec državljana Unije, ki prebiva v državi članici gostiteljici in izpolnjuje pogoj iz člena 7(1)(a)(b) ali (c) navedene direktive in
— is then residing in the host Member State with the Union citizen as his/her spouse irrespective of when or where their marriage took place or when or how the non-EU national entered the host Member State?
– prebiva v državi članici gostiteljici z državljanom Unije kot njegov zakonec, ne glede na to, kdaj in kje sta sklenila zakonsko zvezo ali kdaj in kako je oseba, ki ni državljan države članice, pri�la v državo članico gostiteljico?
— resides in the host Member State with the Union citizen as his/her spouse
– prebiva v državi gostiteljici z državljanom Unije kot njegov zakonec,
— has entered the host Member State independently of the Union citizen and
– je pri�el v državo članico gostiteljico neodvisno od državljana Unije in
— subsequently married the Union citizen in the host Member State?’
– je nato v državi članici gostiteljici sklenil zakonsko zvezo z državljanom Unije?“
By its first question the referring court asks whether Directive 2004/38 precludes legislation of a Member State which requires a national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from the provisions of that directive.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem spra�uje, ali Direktiva 2004/38 nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, ki od državljana tretje države, zakonca državljana Unije, ki prebiva v tej državi članici in katere državljan ni, zahteva, da je moral, preden se je preselil v državo gostiteljico, zakonito prebivati v drugi državi članici, zato da bi bil upravičen do ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz določb te direktive.
In the first place, it must be stated that, as regards family members of a Union citizen, no provision of Directive 2004/38 makes the application of the directive conditional on their having previously resided in a Member State.
Prvič, ugotoviti je treba, da glede družinskih članov državljana Unije v nobeni določbi Direktive 2004/38 za njeno uporabo ni določen pogoj predhodnega prebivanja v državi članici.
As Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 states, the directive applies to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 of the directive who accompany them or join them in that Member State.
V skladu s členom 3(1) Direktive 2004/38 se namreč ta uporablja za vse državljane Unije, ki se preselijo ali prebivajo v državi članici, razen v tisti državi, katere državljani so, in za njihove družinske člane, kot so opredeljeni v členu 2(2) te direktive, ki jih spremljajo ali se jim pridružijo v tej državi članici.
It must also be pointed out that Articles 5, 6(2) and 7(2) of Directive 2004/38 confer the rights of entry, of residence for up to three months, and of residence for more than three months in the host Member State on nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen whom they accompany or join in that Member State, without any reference to the place or conditions of residence they had before arriving in that Member State.
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da je s členi 5, 6(2) in 7(2) Direktive 2004/38 državljanom tretjih držav, ki so družinski člani državljana Unije, ki ga spremljajo ali se mu pridružijo v tej državi članici, priznana pravica do vstopa, prebivanja do treh mesecev ter prebivanja, ki je dalj�e od treh mesecev v državi članici gostiteljici, brez navedbe kraja ali pogojev glede njihovega prebivali�ča pred prihodom v navedeno državo članico.
In that, as follows from Articles 9(1) and 10(1) of Directive 2004/38, the residence card is the document that evidences the right of residence for more than three months in a Member State of the family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State, the fact that Article 5(2) provides for the entry into the host Member State of family members of a Union citizen who do not have a residence card shows that Directive 2004/38 is capable of applying also to family members who were not already lawfully resident in another Member State.
Ker je, kot izhaja iz členov 9(1) in 10(1) Direktive 2004/38, dovoljenje za prebivanje dokument, ki dokazuje pravico družinskih članov državljana Unije, ki niso državljani države članice, do prebivanja v državi članici, ki je dalj�e od treh mesecev, okoli�čina, da navedeni člen 5(2) določa pogoje vstop družinskih članov državljana Unije, ki nimajo dovoljenja za prebivanje, v državo članico gostiteljico, pokaže, da se Direktiva 2004/38 lahko uporablja tudi za družinske člane, ki �e niso zakonito prebivali v drugi državi članici.
Similarly, Article 10(2) of Directive 2004/38, which lists exhaustively the documents which nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen may have to present to the host Member State in order to have a residence card issued, does not provide for the possibility of the host Member State asking for documents to demonstrate any prior lawful residence in another Member State.
V členu 10(2) Direktive 2004/38 – v katerem so taksativno na�tete listine, ki so jih državljani tretjih držav, družinski člani državljana Unije, lahko dolžni predložiti državi članici gostiteljici za pridobitev dovoljenja za prebivanje – prav tako ni določena možnost za državo članico gostiteljico, da zahteva dokaze morebitnega predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja v drugi državi članici.
In those circumstances, Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as applying to all nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen within the meaning of point 2 of Article 2 of that directive and accompany or join the Union citizen in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, and as conferring on them rights of entry and residence in that Member State, without distinguishing according to whether or not the national of a nonmember country has already resided lawfully in another Member State.
V teh okoli�činah je treba Direktivo 2004/38 razlagati tako, da se uporablja za vsakega državljana tretje države, družinskega člana državljana Unije v smislu člena 2(2) te direktive, ki spremlja državljana Unije ali se mu pridruži v državi članici, razen v tisti državi, katere državljan je, ter mu daje pravico do vstopa in do prebivanja v tej državi članici, ne glede na to, ali je navedeni državljan tretje države že zakonito prebival v drugi državi članici ali ne.
That interpretation is supported by the Court’s caselaw on the instruments of secondary law concerning freedom of movement for persons adopted before Directive 2004/38.
Tako razlago potrjuje sodna praksa Sodi�ča v zvezi z akti sekundarnega prava s področja prostega gibanja oseb, ki so bili sprejeti pred Direktivo 2004/38.
To that end, the Community legislature has considerably expanded, in Regulation No 1612/68 and in the directives on freedom of movement for persons adopted before Directive 2004/38, the application of Community law on entry into and residence in the territory of the Member States to nationals of nonmember countries who are spouses of nationals of Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-503/03 Commission v Spain, paragraph 41).
Zato je zakonodajalec Skupnosti v Uredbi �t. 1612/68 in v direktivah o prostem gibanju oseb, sprejetih pred Direktivo 2004/38, precej raz�iril uporabo prava Skupnosti na področju vstopa in bivanja na ozemlju držav članic na državljane tretjih držav, zakonce državljanov držav članic (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 31. januarja 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, točka 41).
It is true that the Court held in paragraphs 50 and 51 of Akrich that, in order to benefit from the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68, the national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a Union citizen must be lawfully resident in a Member State when he moves to another Member State to which the citizen of the Union is migrating or has migrated.
Res je Sodi�če v točkah 50 in 51 zgoraj navedene sodbe Akrich presodilo, da mora državljan tretje države, zakonec državljana Unije, za pridobitev pravic iz člena 10 Uredbe �t. 1612/68, ko se seli v državo članico, v katero se seli ali se je že preselil državljan Unije, zakonito prebivati v drugi državi članici.
However, that conclusion must be
Vendar je treba o tej ugotovitvi ponovno razmisliti.
2008 — CASE C-127/08 reconsidered. The benefit of such rights cannot depend on the prior lawful residence of such a spouse in another Member State (see, to that effect, MRAX, paragraph 59, and Case C-157/03 Commission v Spain, paragraph 28).
2008 – ZADEVA C-127/08 od predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja tega zakonca v drugi državi članici (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi MRAX, točka 59, in Komisija proti Španiji z dne 14. aprila 2005, točka 28).
The same interpretation must be adopted a fortiori with respect to Directive 2004/38, which amended Regulation No 1612/68 and repealed the earlier directives on freedom of movement for persons.
Isto razlago je treba a fortiori sprejeti glede Direktive 2004/38, s katero je bila spremenjena Uredba �t. 1612/68 in razveljavljene prej�nje direktive v zvezi z prostim gibanjem oseb.
As is apparent from recital 3 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38, it aims in particular to ‘strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens’, so that Union citizens cannot derive less rights from that directive than from the instruments of secondary legislation which it amends or repeals.
Kot namreč izhaja iz njene tretje uvodne izjave, je namen Direktive 2004/38 zlasti „krepit[ev] pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja vseh državljanov Unije“, tako da državljani Unije po tej direktivi ne morejo imeti manj pravic kot na podlagi aktov sekundarne zakonodaje, ki jih ta spreminja ali razveljavlja.
In the second place, the above interpretation of Directive 2004/38 is consistent with the division of competences between the Member States and the Community.
Drugič, navedena razlaga Direktive 2004/38 je v skladu z razdelitvijo pristojnosti med državami članicami in Skupnostjo.
It is common ground that the Community derives from Articles 18(2) EC, 40 EC, 44 EC and 52 EC — on the basis of which Directive 2004/38 inter alia was adopted — competence to enact the necessary measures to bring about freedom of movement for Union citizens.
Ni namreč sporno, da je Skupnost na podlagi členov 18(2), ES, 40 ES, 44 ES in 52 ES – na temelju katerih je bila zlasti sprejeta Direktiva 2004/38 – pristojna za sprejetje ukrepov, potrebnih za uresničitev prostega gibanja državljanov Unije.
As already pointed out in paragraph 56 above, if Union citizens were not allowed to lead a normal family life in the host Member State, the exercise of the freedoms they are guaranteed by the Treaty would be seriously obstructed.
V zvezi s tem bi bilo, kot je že bilo poudarjeno v točki 56 te sodbe, izvr�evanje s Pogodbo zagotovljenih svobo�čin resno ovirano, če državljani Unije ne bi imeli pravice do običajnega družinskega življenja v državi članici gostiteljici.
Consequently, within the competence conferred on it by those articles of the Treaty, the Community legislature can regulate the conditions of entry and residence of the family members of a Union citizen in the territory of the Member States, where the fact that it is impossible for the Union citizen to be accompanied or joined by his family in the host Member State would be such as to interfere with his freedom of movement by discouraging him from exercising his rights of entry into and residence in that Member State.
Zato lahko zakonodajalec Skupnosti v okviru pristojnosti, ki mu je priznana z navedenimi členi Pogodbe, ureja pogoje za vstop in za prebivanje družinskih članov državljana Unije na ozemlje držav članic, kadar bi dejstvo, da državljana Unije njegova družina ne more spremljati ali se mu pridružiti v državi članici gostiteljici, �kodovalo njegovi svobodi gibanja, s tem da bi ga odvračala od izvr�evanja njegovih pravic do vstopa in prebivanja v tej državi članici.
The refusal of the host Member State to grant rights of entry and residence to the family members of a Union citizen is such as to discourage that citizen from moving to or residing in that Member State, even if his family members are not already lawfully resident in the territory of another Member State.
Odločitev države članice gostiteljice, da družinskim članom državljana Unije ne prizna pravic do vstopa in prebivanja, tega odvrača od selitve in prebivanja v tej državi članici, čeprav njegovi družinski člani �e niso zakonito prebivali na ozemlju druge države članice.
It follows that the Community legislature has competence to regulate, as it did by Directive 2004/38, the entry and residence of nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen in the Member State in which that citizen has exercised his right of freedom of movement, including where the family members were not already lawfully resident in another Member State.
Iz tega izhaja, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti pristojen za urejanje – kot je to storil z Direktivo 2004/38 – vstopa in prebivanja državljanov tretjih držav, ki so družinski člani državljana Unije, v državo članico, v kateri je slednji izvr�eval pravico do prostega gibanja, kar velja, tudi če družinski člani �e niso zakonito prebivali v drugi državi članici.
Consequently, the interpretation put forward by the Minister for Justice and by several of the governments that have submitted observations that the Member States retain exclusive competence, subject to Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty, to regulate the first access to Community territory of family members of a Union citizen who are nationals of nonmember countries must be rejected.
Zato je treba zavrniti razlago Minister for Justice in več vlad, ki so predložile stali�ča, in sicer, da so države članice, z izjemo naslova IV tretjega dela Pogodbe, ostale izključno pristojne za urejanje prvega dostopa družinskih članov državljana Unije, ki so državljani tretjih držav, na ozemlje Skupnosti.
That would not be compatible with the objective set out in Article 3(1)(c) EC of an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obs -tacles to the free movement of persons.
To ne bi bilo združljivo s ciljem, določenim v členu 3(1)(c) ES, in sicer notranjim trgom, za katerega je značilna odprava ovir pri prostem gibanju oseb med državami članicami.
Establishing an internal market implies that the conditions of entry and residence of a Union citizen in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess are the same in all the Member States.
Vzpostavitev notranjega trga zahteva, da so pogoji za vstop in prebivanje državljana Unije v državi članici, katere državljan ni, enaki v vseh državah članicah.
Freedom of movement for Union citizens must therefore be interpreted as the right to leave any Member State, in particular the Member State whose nationality the Union citizen
Zato je treba svobodo gibanja državljanov Unije razlagati kot pravico zapustiti katerokoli državo članico, in zlasti državo članico katere državljan je državljan Unije,
2008 — CASE C-127/08 possesses, in order to become established under the same conditions in any Member State other than the Member State whose nationality the Union citizen possesses.
2008 – ZADEVA C-127/08 zaradi prebivanja, pod istimi pogoji, v katerikoli drugi državi članici, razen v tisti državi članici, katere državljan je državljan Unije.
Furthermore, the interpretation mentioned in paragraph 66 above would lead to the paradoxical outcome that a Member State would be obliged, under Council Dir -ective 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p.
Poleg tega bi razlaga, navedena v točki 66 te sodbe, vodila do nesmisla, da bi bila država članica dolžna v skladu z Direktivo Sveta 2003/86/ES z dne 22. septembra 2003 o pravici do združitve družine (UL L 251, str.
12), to authorise the entry and residence of the spouse of a national of a nonmember country lawfully resident in its territory where the spouse is not already lawfully resident in another Member State, but would be free to refuse the entry and residence of the spouse of a Union citizen in the same circumstances.
12) dovoliti vstop in prebivanje zakonca državljana tretje države, ki zakonito prebiva na njenem ozemlju, kadar ta zakonec �e ni zakonito prebival v drugi državi članici, vendar bi lahko v istih okoli�činah zavrnila vstop in prebivanje zakonca državljana Unije.
Consequently, Directive 2004/38 confers on all nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen within the meaning of point 2 of Article 2 of that directive, and accompany or join the Union citizen in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, rights of entry into and residence in the host Member State, regardless of whether the national of a nonmember country has already been lawfully resident in another Member State.
Zato sta z Direktivo 2004/38 vsem državljanom tretjih držav, družinskim članom državljana Unije, v skladu s členom 2(2) te direktive, ki tega državljana Unije spremljajo ali se mu pridružijo v državi članici, razen v državi članici, katere državljan je, podeljeni pravica do vstopa in pravica do prebivanja v državi članici gostiteljici, ne glede na to, ali je navedeni državljan tretjih držav že zakonito prebival v drugi državi članici ali ne.
The Minister for Justice and several of the governments that have submitted observations contend, however, that, in a context typified by strong pressure of migration, it is necessary to control immigration at the external borders of the Community, which presupposes an individual examination of all the circumstances surrounding a first entry into Community territory.
Minister for Justice in več vlad, ki so predložile stali�ča, pa trdijo, da je treba glede na močan migracijski pritisk nadzirati priseljevanje na zunanjih mejah Skupnosti, kar zahteva posamezno obravnavo vseh okoli�čin, povezanih s prvim vstopom na ozemlje Skupnosti.
An interpretation of Directive 2004/38 prohibiting a host Member State from requiring prior lawful residence in another Member State would undermine the ability of the Member States to control immigration at their external frontiers.
Razlaga Direktive 2004/38, v skladu s katero bi bilo državi članici prepovedano, da zahteva predhodno zakonito prebivanje v drugi državi članici, pa bi spodkopala pristojnost držav članic, da nadzirajo priseljevanje na svojih zunanjih mejah.
The Minister for Justice submits in particular that that interpretation would have serious consequences for the Member States by bringing about a great increase in the number of persons able to benefit from a right of residence in the Community.
Minister for Justice zlasti trdi, da bi imela ta razlaga resne posledice za države članice, ker bi povzročila velikansko povečanje �tevila oseb, ki bi lahko izkoristile pravico do prebivanja v Skupnosti.
On this point, the answer must be, first, that it is not all nationals of nonmember countries who derive rights of entry into and residence in a Member State from Directive 2004/38, but only those who are family members, within the meaning of point 2 of Article 2 of that directive, of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by becoming established in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national.
V zvezi s tem je treba odgovoriti, prvič, da na podlagi Direktive 2004/38 pravice do vstopa in prebivanja v državi članici nimajo vsi državljani tretjih držav, temveč le tisti, ki so v smislu člena 2(2) te direktive družinski člani državljana Unije, ki izvr�uje pravico do prostega gibanja s tem, da je začel prebivati v državi članici, ki ni država članica, katere državljan je.
Second, Directive 2004/38 does not deprive the Member States of all possibility of controlling the entry into their territory of family members of Union citizens.
Drugič, z Direktivo 2004/38 državam članicam niso odvzete vse pristojnosti nadzora nad vstopom družinskih članov državljanov Unije na njihovo ozemlje.