natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By its question, the national court asks essentially at what point a payment by bank transfer may be regarded as having been made on time in a commercial transaction, thus excluding the possibility that the debt may give rise to the charging of interest for late payment within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, v katerem trenutku se lahko plačilo z bančnim nakazilom �teje za pravočasno izvr�eno v okviru trgovinskega posla, tako da za terjatev ni mogoče zahtevati zamudnih obresti v smislu člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direkti ve 2000/35.
01051 Telecom, the Czech Government, and the Commission of the European Communities submit that it is apparent from the travaux préparatoires for and the wording and objective of Directive 2000/35 that payment is late when the creditor has not received the amount due within the periods allowed, that is to say, in the case of a bank transfer, when that sum has not been credited to the account of the creditor by the due date for payment.
Družba 01051 Telecom, če�ka vlada in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti menijo, da iz pripravljalnih aktov in besedila Direktive 2000/35 ter njenega namena izhaja, da gre za zamudo pri plačilu takrat, kadar upnik ni prejel zapadlega zneska v določenem roku, to pa v primeru bančnega nakazila pomeni takrat, kadar ta znesek ob poteku roka za plačilo ni bil knjižen v dobro na upnikovem računu.
The date on which the sum due is credited to the creditor’s account is therefore decisive as regards determining whether the creditor is entitled to interest for late payment.
Dan, ko je zapadli znesek knjižen v dobro na upnikovem računu, naj bi bil torej odločilen za ugotovitev, ali je upnik upravičen zahtevati plačilo zamudnih obresti.
However, Deutsche Telekom and the German, Austrian and Finnish Governments submit, principally, that Directive 2000/35 lays down only minimal requirements with regard to combating late payment in commercial transactions and, in the context of that objective, allows the legislation of the Member States some considerable leeway.
Po drugi strani družba Deutsche Telekom in nem�ka, avstrijska ter finska vlada zatrjujejo, da Direktiva 2000/35 določa le minimalne zahteve na področju boja proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih, saj v okviru tega cilja pravnim redom držav članic priznava veliko diskrecije.
In particular, Article 3 of that directive leaves it to the Member States to determine the point at which a payment by bank transfer is to be regarded as having been made in time by laying down solely, in the absence of any contractual agreement, the conditions on which and the period after which interest for late payment may be claimed.
Zlasti člen 3 te direktive naj bi s tem, da ko določa le, pod katerimi pogoji in v kak�nih rokih se lahko – če ni s pogodbo določeno drugače – zahtevajo zamudne obresti, državam članicam prepustil, da same določijo trenutek, ko je treba plačilo z bančnim nakazilom �teti za pravočasno izvr�eno.
In that context, an interpretation requiring the debtor to make the credit transfer through a financial institution by the due date achieves an adequate balance between the interests of the creditor and those of the debtor, having regard in particular to the fact that the time necessary for the credit transfer to be executed depends on the handling of the transaction by the banks and not on any action by the debtor.
V tem okviru bi razlaga, na podlagi katere se zahteva, da dolžnik v predvidenih rokih izvr�i nakazilo pri finančni ustanovi, privedla do ustreznega ravnotežja med interesi upnika in dolžnika, zlasti ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da je čas, potreben za izvr�itev naloga za nakazilo, odvisen od bančne obdelave transakcije in ne od delovanja dolžnika.
In those circumstances, it is unreasonable to make the debtor liable for any delays due to the time taken to handle banking transactions if he has acted in good faith by making the credit transfer in time, that is to say before the due date for payment.
V teh okoli�činah ne bi bilo primerno, da bi morebitne zamude, nastale zaradi trajanja obdelave bančnih transakcij, pripisali dolžniku, ki je ravnal v dobri veri, ko je svoje nakazilo izvr�il pravočasno, in sicer pred potekom roka za plačilo.
In order to answer the question referred by the national court, it must first be recalled that although, as Deutsche Telekom and the German, Austrian and Finnish Governments point out, the Directive does not harmonise fully all the rules relating
Da bi lahko odgovorili na vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, je treba najprej opozoriti, kot poudarjajo družba Deutsche Telekom in nem�ka, avstrijska ter finska vlada, da Direktiva ne usklajuje popolnoma vseh predpisov, ki se nana�ajo na zamude pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih, vsebuje pa določene posebne predpise na
01051 TELECOM to late payments in commercial transactions, it does govern certain specific rules in that regard.
01051 TELECOM tem področju.
They include, inter alia, as the Court has already held, rules on interest for late payment (see, to that effect, Case C-302/05 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I-10597, paragraph 23).
Kot je Sodi�če že razsodilo, so med njimi pravila v zvezi z obrestmi za zamudo pri plačilu (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 26. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C-302/05, ZOdl., str. I-10597, točka 23).
In that regard, after laying down in Article 3(1)(b)(i) a period for payment of 30 days to be applicable in the absence of any contractual agreement, Directive 2000/35 provides, in Article 3(1)(c)(ii), that the creditor is to be entitled to interest for late payment to the extent that ‘he has not received the amount due on time, unless the debtor is not responsible for the delay’.
Potem ko je v členu 3(1)(b)(i) Direktive 2000/35 določen tridesetdnevni rok za plačilo, ki velja, če ni s pogodbo določeno drugače, je v istem odstavku, pododstavek (c), točka (ii), predvideno, da je upnik upravičen od dolžnika zahtevati plačilo zamudnih obresti, če „zapadle vsote ne prejme pravočasno, razen če dolžnik ni odgovoren za zamudo“.
It is therefore explicit in the wording of that provision that a debtor’s payment is regarded as late, for the purposes of entitlement to interest for late payment, where the creditor does not have the sum owed at his disposal on the due date.
Iz besedila zadnjenavedene določbe izrecno izhaja, da se za upravičenost do zamudnih obresti plačilo dolžnika �teje za nepravočasno, kadar upnik ob poteku plačilnega roka ne razpolaga z zapadlim zneskom.
In the case of payment by bank transfer, only the crediting of the amount due to the creditor’s account will enable him to have that sum at his disposal.
V primeru plačila, izvr�enega z bančnim nakazilom, pa upniku omogoča razpolaganje z zapadlim zneskom le knjiženje v dobro navedenega zneska na njegovem računu.
That interpretation is confirmed by the various language versions of Directive 2000/35 which refer, unequivocally, to receipt of the amount due within the period for payment.
Tako razlago potrjujejo različne jezikovne različice Direktive 2000/35, ki se soglasno sklicujejo na prejem zapadlega zneska v roku za plačilo.
Such is the case, inter alia, of the wording ‘erhalten’, ‘received’, ‘reçu’ and ‘ricevuto’ in the German, English, French and Italian language versions respectively of Directive 2000/35.
Tako je med drugim v primeru izrazov, „erhalten“, „received“, „reçu“ in „ricevuto“ v nem�ki, angle�ki, francoski in italijanski jezikovni različici Direktive 2000/35.
Moreover, it is clear from the travaux préparatoires for that directive that the choice of the word ‘received’ was not random, but the result of a deliberate decision by the Community legislature.
Poleg tega iz pripravljalnih aktov navedene direktive jasno izhaja, da izraz „prejme“ ni bil naključen, ampak je rezultat premi�ljene odločitve zakonodajalca Skupnosti.
As the Commission points out, during the discussions in the
Kot poudarja Komisija, je bila v razpravah pred sprejetjem te direktive v Svetu Evropske unije nazadnje dana prednost temu izrazu pred drugimi manj natančnimi izrazi glede
2008 — CASE C-306/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-306/06 določitve trenutka, od katerega je treba plačilo v okviru trgovinskega posla �teti za izvr�eno v predpisanih rokih.
Furthermore, an interpretation which makes the crediting of the amount due to the account of the creditor the decisive criterion of payment, inasmuch as it is based on the point when the sum due is definitely at the creditor’s disposal, complies with the main objective pursued by Directive 2000/35, as is apparent, inter alia, from recitals 7 and 16 in the preamble thereto, that is to say the protection of those holding financial debts.
Med drugim je razlaga, da je knjiženje zapadlega zneska v dobro na upnikovem računu odločilno merilo za plačilo, ker temelji na trenutku, ko je zapadli znesek zanesljivo na razpolago temu upniku, skladna z glavnim ciljem Direktive 2000/35, kot izhaja zlasti iz njenih sedme in �estnajste uvodne izjave, in sicer z varstvom imetnikov finančnih terjatev.
It is worth adding also that such a reading of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Directive appears to be confirmed by the interpretation adopted by the Court in respect of other areas of Community law.
Nazadnje je treba dodati, da se zdi, da tak način branja člena 3(1)(c)(ii) navedene direktive potrjuje razlaga, ki jo je sprejelo Sodi�če glede drugih področij prava Skupnosti.
Thus, as 01051 Telecom points out, it is apparent from the caselaw of the Court that the crediting to the account of the own resources of the European Communities constitutes the decisive criterion for establishing whether a Member State which is required to place a sum of money at the disposal of the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations and whether, consequently, it is required to pay interest for late payment (see, to that effect, Case C-363/00 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR I-5767, paragraphs 42, 43 and 46).
Kot poudarja družba 01051 Telekom, tako iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da je dobropis na računu lastnih sredstev Evropskih skupnosti odločilno merilo za ugotavljanje, ali država članica, ki bi morala Komisiji dati na razpolago določeno vsoto denarja, ni izpolnila obveznosti in ali mora zato plačati zamudne obresti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 12. junija 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C-363/00, Recueil, str. I-5767, točke 42, 43 in 46).
Accordingly, the decisive point for the assessment of whether, in a commercial transaction, payment by bank transfer may be regarded as having been made in time, thus excluding the possibility of the debt giving rise to the charging of interest for late payment within the meaning of that provision, is the date on which the sum due is credited to the account of the creditor.
Zato je za presojo, ali je plačilo z bančnim nakazilom v okviru trgovinskega posla mogoče �teti za izvr�eno v plačilnem roku – in je tako izključeno, da se na podlagi terjatve zahteva plačilo zamudnih obresti v smislu navedene določbe –, odločilni trenutek dan, ko je zapadli znesek knjižen v dobro na upnikovem računu.
That conclusion cannot be called into question by the argument, raised in particular by the Finnish Government, that such an interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Direct- ive 2000/35 would lead to the debtor’s being unreasonably required to bear the risk relating to delays in the handling of banking transactions.
Takega sklepa ne bi bilo mogoče ovreči s trditvijo zlasti finske vlade, da naj bi taka razlaga člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35 privedla do tega, da se mora dolžniku nerazumno naložiti tveganje, povezano s trajanjem obdelave bančnih transakcij.
In that regard, it is sufficient to observe that that provision lays down specifically, in its last phrase, that the debtor must not be held liable for delays for which he is not responsible.
V zvezi s tem zadostuje ugotovitev, da navedena določba natančno predvideva in fine, da dolžnik ne sme biti odgovoren za zamude, ki mu jih ni mogoče pripisati.
In other words, Directive 2000/35 itself excludes interest for late payment in cases where the late payment is not the result of the debtor’s conduct, as he has diligently taken into account the periods normally necessary for execution of a bank transfer.
Povedano drugače, Direktiva 2000/35 izključuje plačilo zamudnih obresti, če zamuda plačila ni posledica ravnanja dolžnika, ki je skrbno upo�teval roke, običajno potrebne za izvr�itev bančnega nakazila.
Moreover, as the Czech Government observes, it is usual in commercial transactions for regulatory or contractual provisions to lay down the periods required for the execution of bank transfers, so that a debtor is in a position to take such periods into account and thus avoid incurring interest for late payment.
Poleg tega, kot opozarja če�ka vlada, je v okviru trgovinskih poslov običajno, da predpisi ali pogodbene določbe določajo roke, potrebne za izvr�itev bančnih nakazil, tako da lahko dolžnik te roke upo�teva in se s tem izogne zamudnim obrestim.
In view of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred to the Court must be that Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35 is to be interpreted as meaning that it requires, in order that a payment by bank transfer may avoid or put an end to the application of interest for late payment, that the sum due be credited to the account of the creditor within the period for payment.
Ob upo�tevanju vseh teh ugotovitev je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35 razlagati tako, da mora biti pri plačilu zapadlega zneska, izvr�enem z bančnim nakazilom, ta znesek pravočasno knjižen v dobro na upnikovem računu, da prepreči tek zamudnih obresti ali ga ustavi.
Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as meaning that it requires, in order that a payment by bank transfer may avoid or put an end to the application of interest for late payment, that the sum due be credited to the account of the creditor within the period for payment.
Člen 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih je treba razlagati tako, da mora biti pri plačilu zapadlega zneska, izvršenem z bančnim nakazilom, ta znesek pravočasno knjižen v dobro na upnikovem računu, da prepreči tek zamudnih obresti ali ga ustavi.
Case C-331/06
Zadeva C-331/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Rechtbank te Amsterdam)
(Old-age insurance — Worker who is a national of a Member State — Social security contributions — Separate periods — Different Member States — Calculation of periods of insurance — Application for a pension — Residence in a nonMember State)
„Pokojninsko zavarovanje – Delavec državljan države članice – Prispevki za socialno varnost – Različne dobe – Različne države članice – Izračun zavarovalnih dob – Zahtevek za pokojnino – Stalno prebivali�če v tretji državi“
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák delivered on 16 January 2008 . . . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 16. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social security for migrant workers — Old-age and survivor’s insurance — Calculation of benefit
Socialna varnost delavcev migrantov – Pokojninsko in življenjsko zavarovanje – Izračun prejemkov
SUMMARY — CASE C-331/06 subject to the provisions of the national law of the Member State of the institution responsible for paying the pension.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-331/06
While Article 10 of Regulation No 1408/71 introduces a binding right to have a pension paid in any Member State, neither that regulation nor any provision of Community law requires Member States to pay pensions in nonMember States.
Čeprav člen 10 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določa iztožljivo pravico prejemati pokojnino v kateri koli državi članici, niti navedena uredba niti katera koli določba prava Skupnosti držav članic ne obvezuje, da izplačujejo pokojnine v tretje države.
Article 48(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 631/2004, requires the competent institution of the last Member State in which a worker who is a national of a Member State resided to take into account, in calculating the old-age pension of that worker, who, when he submits his pension claim, is resident in a nonMember State, of the periods worked in another Member State under the same conditions as if that worker still resided in the Community.
1408/71, kot je bila spremenjena in posodobljena z Uredbo �t. 631/2004, pristojni instituciji zadnje države članice, v kateri je stalno prebival delavec državljan države članice, nalaga, da za izračun starostne pokojnine tega delavca, ki v času vložitve zahtevka za dodelitev te pokojnine prebiva v tretji državi, upo�teva dobe, v katerih je delal v drugi državi članici pod istimi pogoji, kot če bi delavec �e vedno stalno prebival na območju Skupnosti.
(see paras 38, 39, operative part)
(Glej točki 38 in 39 ter izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALMAZÁK delivered on 16 January 2008 1 other social security systems of one or several other Member States.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÁNA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 16. januarja 2008 1 socialne varnosti ene ali več drugih držav članic.
This provision concerns periods of insurance of less than one year under a given national pension system.
Ta predpis se nana�a na zavarovalne dobe, kraj�e od enega leta, pod danim nacionalnim pokojninskim sistemom.
Article 48(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 provides, in essence, that such short periods are to be aggregated to periods of insurance completed under
Člen 48(2) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 v temeljnem določa, da se tako kratke dobe se�tevajo z zavarovalnimi dobami, dopolnjenimi v drugih sistemih
2 — OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.
2 – UL, Posebna angle�ka izdaja 1971(II), str. 416.
In the case giving rise to the present reference, a British national worked for several years in the Community (mainly in the Netherlands but also for nine months in Denmark) and then moved to the United States, where he has been living ever since.
V zadevi, ki je bila povod za ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, je britanski državljan več let delal v Skupnosti (večinoma na Nizozemskem, devet let pa tudi na Danskem), nato pa se je preselil v Združene države, kjer živi od tedaj naprej.
When he submitted a request for a pension to the Netherlands pension authorities, the question arose whether the rule contained in Article 48(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 should be applied to a pension request submitted by a person residing outside the Community, which would mean, in this case, that the Netherlands pension authority would have to take into account the periods of insurance completed under both Netherlands and Danish law when calculating the pension requested.
Ko je predložil zahtevo za pokojnino pri nizozemskem pokojninskem uradu, se je postavilo vpra�anje, ali se pravilo iz člena 48(2) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 uporabi za pokojninski zahtevek, ki ga vloži oseba s stalnim prebivali�čem zunaj Skupnosti, kar bi v tem primeru pomenilo, da bi moral nizozemski pokojninski urad pri izračunu zahtevane pokojnine upo�tevati zavarovalne dobe, dopolnjene po nizozemskem in tudi po danskem pravu.
Article 3(1) of that regulation states as follows:
Člen 3(1) te uredbe določa:
‘Equality of treatment
„Enako obravnavanje
Regulation No 1408/71 lays down provisions for the coordination of the application of national social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community.
Uredba �t. 1408/71 vsebuje določbe za usklajevanje uporabe sistemov nacionalne socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe, samozaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti.
Article 2 of that regulation provides as follows:
Člen 2 te uredbe določa:
Subject to the special provisions of this Regulation, persons [resident in the territory of one of the Member States 3] to whom this Regulation applies shall be subject to the same obligations and enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of any Member State as the nationals of the State.’
Ob upo�tevanju posebnih določb te uredbe imajo osebe [s stalnim prebivali�čem na ozemlju ene od držav članic 3], za katere se uporablja ta uredba, enake pravice in obveznosti po zakonodaji vsake države članice, kot državljani te države članice.“
‘Persons covered
„Osebna veljavnost
Article 10 of the Regulation states:
Člen 10 Uredbe se glasi:
This Regulation shall apply to employed or selfemployed persons and to students who are or have been subject to the legislation of one or more Member States and who are nationals of one of the Member States or who are stateless persons or refugees residing within the territory of one of the Member States, as well as to the members of their families and their survivors.
Ta uredba se uporablja za zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe in �tudente, za katere velja ali je veljala zakonodaja ene ali več držav članic in ki so državljani ene od držav članic, ali osebe brez državljanstva ali begunce, ki stalno prebivajo na ozemlju ene od držav članic, pa tudi za njihove družinske člane in njihove preživele osebe.
‘Waiving of residence clauses — Effect of compulsory insurance on reimbursement of contributions
„Odpoved pogoju stalnega prebivali�ča – učinek obveznega zavarovanja na povračilo prispevkov
3 — Deleted by Regulation No 647/2005.
3 – Črtan z Uredbo �t. 647/2005.
Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation invalidity, old-age or survivors’ cash benefits, pensions for accidents at work or occupational diseases and death grants acquired under the legislation of one or more Member States shall not be subject to any reduction, modification, suspension, withdrawal or confiscation by reason of the fact that the recipient resides in the territory of a Member State other than that in which the institution responsible for payment is situated.
Kadar ta uredba ne določa drugače, se denarne dajatve za invalidnost, starost ter za preživele osebe, pokojnine za nesreče pri delu ali poklicne bolezni ter pomoči ob smrti, pridobljene po zakonodaji ene ali več držav članic, ne morejo zmanj�ati, spremeniti, začasno ustaviti, odvzeti ali zapleniti zaradi tega, ker prejemnik stalno prebiva na ozemlju druge države članice, kot je tista, v kateri se nahaja nosilec, ki je odgovoren za plačilo.
(a) the competent institution shall calculate the theoretical amount of the benefit to which the person concerned could lay claim provided all periods of insurance and/or of residence, which have been completed under the legislation of the Member States to which the employed person or selfemployed person was subject, have been completed in the State in question under the legislation which it administers on the date of the award of the benefit.
zahtevala, kakor da bi bile vse zavarovalne dobe in/ali dobe prebivanja, dopolnjene po zakonodaji držav članic, ki so za osebo veljale, dopolnjene v tej državi in po zakonodaji, ki jo uporablja na dan dodelitve dajatve.
If, under this legislation, the amount of the benefit is independent of the duration of the periods completed, the amount shall be regarded as being the theoretical amount referred to in this paragraph;
Če po tej zakonodaji znesek dajatve ni odvisen od trajanja dopolnjenih dob, se ta znesek obravnava kot teoretični znesek iz tega odstavka; […]“
The first subparagraph shall also apply to lump-sum benefits granted in cases of remarriage of a surviving spouse who was entitled to a survivors’ pension.
Prvi pododstavek se uporablja tudi za pav�alne dajatve, dodeljene v primeru ponovne poroke preživelega zakonca, ki je bil upravičen do pokojnine preživelih oseb.
Article 48 of the Regulation provides:
Člen 46(2) Uredbe določa:
Notwithstanding Article 46(2), the institution of a Member State shall not be required
Ne glede na člen 46(2) nosilcu v državi članici ni treba dodeliti dajatev za dobe, dopolnjene po zakonodaji, ki jo uporablja in
— the duration of the said periods does not amount to one year,
– trajanje omenjene dobe ne zna�a niti eno leto, in
Article No 574/72 4
Člen 36(3) Uredbe (EGS) �t.