natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By those two questions, which may appropriately be examined together, the national court seeks in essence to ascertain whether, on a proper construction of Articles
Predložitveno sodi�če s tema dvema vpra�anjema, ki ju je treba obravnavati skupaj, v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člene 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES oziroma Uredbo �t. 1408/71
18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, legislation of a federated entity of a Member State limiting affiliation to a scheme such as the care insurance scheme at issue in the main proceedings and entitlement to the benefits provided by that scheme to persons residing in the territory coming within that entity’s competence and to persons pursuing an activity in that territory and residing in another Member State, with the result that persons are excluded who work in that territory but reside in the territory of another federated entity of the same State, is contrary to those provisions.
2008 – ZADEVA C-212/06 razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo predpisom zvezne enote države članice, ki omejuje vstop v tak sistem, kot je sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, in upravičenost do dajatev, določenih s temi predpisi, na osebe s stalnim prebivali�čem na ozemlju, ki je v pristojnosti te enote, in na osebe, ki opravljajo poklicno dejavnost na tem ozemlju in imajo stalno prebivali�če v drugi državi članici, tako da so izključene osebe, ki so prav tako zaposlene v navedeni enoti, stalno prebivali�če pa imajo na ozemlju druge zvezne enote iste države.
The Flemish Government claims, principally, that those questions are neither helpful nor necessary to the settling of the dispute in the main proceedings, with the result that they must be declared inadmissible.
Flamska vlada primarno navaja, da ti vpra�anji nista niti koristni niti potrebni za re�itev spora v postopku v glavni stvari, tako da bi ju bilo treba razglasiti za nedopustni.
It states that before the national court the applicant Governments opposed the implementation of that care insurance scheme, denying that the Flemish Community was competent in that sphere, while the interpretation of Community law which they favour in respect of the second and third questions leads to the opposite result, that is to say, the extension of the care insurance benefits in question to persons residing in the Frenchspeaking region.
Vladi – tožeči stranki – naj bi namreč pri predložitvenem sodi�ču nasprotovali vzpostavitvi navedenega sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja, s tem da izpodbijata pristojnost flamske skupnosti na tem področju, medtem ko naj bi razlaga prava Skupnosti, ki jo predlagata v okviru drugega in tretjega vpra�anja, vodila k nasprotnemu rezultatu, namreč raz�iritvi zadevnih dajatev zdravstvenega zavarovanja na osebe s stalnim prebivali�čem v francosko govoreči regiji.
In addition, according to the Flemish Government, the Cour d’arbitrage has itself already answered those questions in its decision to refer, by considering that the care insurance scheme at issue in the main proceedings does not infringe the exclusive competence of the federal authority in the sphere of economic union within Belgium, having regard to the amount and the limited effects of the benefits in question.
Poleg tega je po mnenju flamske vlade že Cour d’arbitrage samo odgovorilo na vpra�anji iz predložitvene odločbe z ugotovitvijo, da sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki se obravnava v glavni stvari, ne kr�i izključnih pristojnosti zveznega organa na področju gospodarske unije v Belgiji ob upo�tevanju vi�ine in omejenih učinkov zadevnih dajatev.
For the same reasons, the scheme cannot be said to restrict freedom of movement of persons within the meaning of the Treaty.
Iz istih razlogov navedeni sistem torej ne bi mogel omejiti prostega gibanja oseb v smislu Pogodbe.
In that respect, it is to be borne in mind that, according to settled caselaw, in the context of cooperation between the Court and national courts as provided for by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national courts before which actions are brought, and which must bear the responsibility for the subsequent decision, to determine in the light of the special features of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da so na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse v okviru sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, kot je določeno v členu 234 ES, samo nacionalna sodi�ča, ki odločajo o sporu in morajo prevzeti odgovornost za sodno odločbo, ki jo bodo izdala, tista, ki glede na posebnosti vsake zadeve presojajo, ali je za izdajo njihove sodbe potreben sprejem predhodne odločbe in ali so vpra�anja, ki jih postavljajo Sodi�ču, upo�tevna.
Such is not, however, the case in the dispute in the main proceedings.
Vendar v postopku v glavni stvari ne gre za tak primer.
It is enough to find that it is made clear in the decision making the reference that the reply to the second and third questions asked by the Cour d’arbitrage will be of use to it in determining whether the condition of residence, on which entitlement to the care insurance scheme depends, infringes, as the applicant Governments argue in the actions in the main proceedings, certain provisions of Community law concerning freedom of movement of persons.
Zado�ča namreč ugotovitev, da iz predložitvene odločbe jasno izhaja, da Cour d’arbitrage potrebuje odgovor na drugo in tretje vpra�anje, da bi odločilo, ali pogoj stalnega prebivali�ča, od katerega je odvisen dostop do ugodnosti sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja, kr�i nekatere določbe prava Skupnosti s področja prostega gibanja oseb, kot to zatrjujeta vladi – tožeči stranki – v okviru tožbe v postopku v glavni stvari.
The second and third questions referred for a preliminary ruling must therefore be declared admissible.
Treba je torej ugotoviti, da sta drugo in tretje vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje dopustni.
The Flemish Government maintains that those questions concern only a purely internal situation quite unconnected to Community law, viz., that of the non-appli-cation of the Decree of 30 March 1999, as amended, to persons both residing and working in Belgium.
Uvodoma je treba poudariti, da flamska vlada zatrjuje, da se navedeni vpra�anji nana�ata le na položaj, ki je povsem notranji in ki nima nobene zveze s pravom Skupnosti, namreč na položaj, ki izhaja iz neuporabe spremenjenega dekreta z dne 30. marca 1999 za osebe, ki obenem stalno prebivajo v Belgiji in tam opravljajo poklicno dejavnost.
In the circumstances of this case, it is established that the second and third questions referred by the national court concern all persons, whether they have made use of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty or not, working in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, who are not, however, eligible for the care insurance scheme at issue in the main proceedings because they live in part of the national territory situated outside those two regions.
V obravnavanem primeru ni dvoma, da se drugo in tretje vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča nana�ata na vse osebe, ki so ali niso uporabile eno od temeljnih svobo�čin, zagotovljenih s Pogodbo, in ki so opravljale poklicno dejavnost v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji glavnega mesta Bruselj, vendar zaradi dejstva, da stalno prebivajo na delu nacionalnega ozemlja, ki je zunaj teh dveh regij, ne morejo koristiti ugodnosti iz v postopku v glavni stvari obravnavanega sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja.
In those circumstances, two kinds of situations must be distinguished in the light of the principles recalled in paragraphs 32 and 33 above.
V teh okoli�činah je treba v smislu načel, navedenih v točkah 32 in 33 te sodbe, ločiti dve vrsti položajev.
First, application of the legislation at issue in the main proceedings leads, inter alia, to the exclusion from the care insurance scheme of Belgian nationals working in the territory of the Dutchspeaking region or in that of the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital but who live in the French- or Germanspeaking region and have never exercised their freedom to move within the European Community.
Na eni strani uporaba zadevnih predpisov v postopku v glavni stvari povzroča zlasti izključitev – iz sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja – belgijskih državljanov, ki opravljajo poklicno dejavnost na ozemlju nizozemsko govoreče regije ali ozemlju dvojezične regije glavnega mesta Bruselj, vendar stalno prebivajo v francosko ali nem�ko govorečih regijah in niso nikoli uporabili svoje pravice do prostega gibanja v Evropski skupnosti.
Community law clearly cannot be applied to such purely internal situations.
Treba je torej ugotoviti, da prava Skupnosti ni mogoče uporabiti za take, povsem notranje položaje.
It is not possible, as the Government of the French Community suggests, to raise against that conclusion the principle of citizenship of the Union set out in Article 17 EC, which includes, in particular, according to Article 18 EC, the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
Ob tej ugotovitvi ni mogoče nasprotovati, v nasprotju s tem, kar predlaga vlada francoske skupnosti, načelu državljanstva Unije, navedenem v členu 17, ki v skladu s členom 18 ES med drugim vključuje pravico vsakega državljana Evropske unije, da se prosto giblje in prebiva na ozemlju držav članic.
Second, the legislation at issue in the main proceedings may also exclude from the care insurance scheme employed or selfemployed workers falling within the ambit of Community law, that is to say, both nationals of Member States other than the Kingdom of Belgium working in the Dutchspeaking region or in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital but who live in another part of the national territory, and Belgian nationals in the same situation who have made use of their right to freedom of movement.
Na drugi strani zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, lahko izključi iz sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja tudi zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe, ki spadajo na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti, tako državljane drugih držav članic, ki niso državljani Kraljevine Belgije in ki opravljajo poklicno dejavnost v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji glavnega mesta Bruselj, vendar stalno prebivajo v drugem delu nacionalnega ozemlja, kot tudi belgijske državljane, ki so v enakem položaju in ki so uporabili svojo pravico do prostega gibanja.
So far as that second category of worker is concerned, it falls therefore to be considered whether the provisions of Community law, interpretation of which is sought by the national court, preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, inasmuch as it applies to nationals of Member States other than the Kingdom of Belgium or to Belgian nationals who have exercised their right of free movement within the European Community.
Glede te druge skupine delavcev je treba torej preizkusiti, ali določbe prava Skupnosti, za katerih razlago prosi predložitveno sodi�če, nasprotujejo predpisom, kot so predpisi, ki se obravnajova v postopku v glavni stvari, če se uporabljajo za državljane držav članic, ki niso državljani Kraljevine Belgije, oziroma za belgijske državljane, ki so uporabili svojo pravico do prostega gibanja v Evropski skupnosti.
In this respect it is important to bear in mind that, although Member States retain the power to organise their social security schemes, they must none the less, when exercising that power, observe Community law and, in particular, the provisions of
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da če države članice obdržijo svojo pristojnost glede ureditve svojih sistemov socialnega varstva, morajo kljub temu pri izvajanju te pristojnosti spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti in zlasti določbe Pogodbe v zvezi s prostim gibanjem delavcev in pravico ustanavljanja (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT the EC Treaty on freedom of movement for workers (Case C-135/99 Elsen [2000] ECR I-10409, paragraph 33).
Terhoeve, točki 34 in 35, ter sodbo z dne 23. novembra 2000 v zadevi Elsen, C-135/99, Recueil, str. I-10409, točka 33).
In that context, nationals of the Member States have in particular the right, which they derive directly from the Treaty, to leave their State of origin to enter the territory of another Member State and reside there in order there to pursue an economic activity (see, inter alia, Bosman, paragraph 95, and Terhoeve, paragraph 38).
V takih okoli�činah državljani držav članic neposredno na podlagi Pogodbe razpolagajo zlasti s pravico, da zapustijo državo izvora in gredo na ozemlje druge države članice in na njem prebivajo zaradi izvr�evanja gospodarske dejavnosti (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Bosman, točka 95, in Terhoeve, točka 38).
Legislation such as that as issue in the main proceedings is such as to produce those restrictive effects, inasmuch as it makes affiliation to the care insurance scheme dependent on the condition of residence in either a limited part of national territory, viz., the Dutchspeaking region and the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, or in another Member State.
Predpisi, kot se obravnavajo v postopku v glavni stvari, pa so taki, da imajo omejevalne učinke, ker vstop v sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja pogojujejo s stalnim prebivali�čem v omejenem delu nacionalnega ozemlja, namreč v nizozemsko govoreči regiji in dvojezični regiji glavnega mesta Bruselj ali v drugi državi članici.
Migrant workers, pursuing or contemplating the pursuit of employment or selfemployment in one of those two regions, might be dissuaded from making use of their freedom of movement and from leaving their Member State of origin to stay in Belgium, by reason of the fact that moving to certain parts of Belgium would cause them to lose the opportunity of eligibility for the benefits which they might otherwise have claimed.
Delavci migranti, ki opravljajo dejavnost kot zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe v eni od teh dveh regij, bi bili namreč lahko pri odločitvi za bivanje v Belgiji odvrnjeni od uporabe svoje pravice do prostega gibanja in zapustitve svoje matične države članice, ker bi njihova nastanitev v nekaterih delih belgijskega ozemlja pomenila izgubo možnosti uživanja dajatev, za katere bi se sicer lahko potegovali.
In other words, the fact that employed or selfemployed workers find themselves in a situation in which they suffer either the loss of eligibility care insurance or a limitation of the place to which they transfer their residence is, at the very least, capable of impeding the exercise of the rights conferred by Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.
Povedano drugače, dejstvo, da so zadevni zaposleni ali samozaposleni delavci v položaju, da izgubijo ugodnosti iz zdravstvenega zavarovanja ali so omejeni pri izbiri kraja, kamor bi se preselili, lahko vsaj omeji izvajanje pravic, dodeljenih s členoma 39 ES in 43 ES.
It is of little importance in this regard, contrary to what the Flemish Government in substance maintains, that the differentiation at issue is based solely on the place of residence on national territory and not on any condition of nationality, with the result that it affects in the same way all workers, employed or self-employed, resident in Belgium.
V nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjuje flamska vlada, v bistvu ni pomembno, da zadevno razlikovanje temelji na kraju stalnega prebivali�ča na nacionalnem ozemlju in ne na kakr�nemkoli pogoju državljanstva, tako da na enak način prizadene vse zaposlene ali samozaposlene delavce s stalnim prebivali�čem v Belgiji.
It is enough that the measure should benefit, as in the case of the care insurance scheme at issue
Tako kot v primeru sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, zado�ča, da ukrep z ugodnostmi daje ugodnosti
In addition, as Advocate General Sharpston has pointed out in paragraphs 64 to 67 of her Opinion, the restrictive effects of the legislation in question in the main proceedings are not to be considered too indirect and uncertain for it to be impossible to regard that legislation as constituting an obstacle contrary to Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.
Poleg tega, kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točkah od 64 do 67 sklep- nih predlogov, omejevalnih učinkov, ki jih ustvarijo predpisi, ki se obravnavajo v postopku v glavni stvari, ni mogoče �teti za preveč negotove oziroma preveč posredne, ker jih ni mogoče razlagati kot ovire, ki so v nasprotju s členoma 39 ES in 43 ES.
In particular, unlike the case giving rise to the judgment in Case C-190/98 Graf [2000] ECR I-493, referred to by the Flemish Government at the hearing, possible entitlement to the insurance care benefits at issue depends, not on a future and hypothetical event for the employed or selfemployed worker concerned, but on a circumstance linked, ex hypothesi, to the exercise of the right to freedom of movement, namely, the choice of transfer of residence.
V nasprotju z zadevo, v kateri je bilo odločeno s sodbo z dne 27. januarja 2000 v zadevi Graf (C-190/98, Recueil, str. I-493), na katero se je na obravnavi sklicevala flamska vlada, možnost uživanja dajatev iz zadevnega zdravstvenega zavarovanja ni odvisna od prihodnjega dogodka, ki je hipotetičen za zadevnega zaposlenega ali samozaposlenega delavca, ampak od okoli�čine, po definiciji povezane z izvajanjem pravice do prostega gibanja, namreč izbire kraja, kamor se bo preselil.
In any event, it is not inconceivable, given such factors as the ageing of the population, that the prospect of being able or unable to receive dependency benefits such as
V nobenem primeru ni mogoče izključiti, zlasti glede na pojav staranja prebivalstva, da zadevne osebe pri izvajanju svoje pravice do prostega gibanja upo�tevajo obetane
2008 — CASE C-212/06 those offered by the care insurance scheme at issue in the main proceedings should be taken into consideration by the persons concerned in exercising their right to freedom of movement.
2008 – ZADEVA C-212/06 možnosti uživanja ali neuživanja teh dajatev za pomoč in postrežbo, kot jih ponuja sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari.
It follows that domestic legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings entails an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers and to freedom of establishment, prohibited in principle by Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.
To pomeni, da nacionalni predpisi, kot so predpisi, ki se obravnavajo v postopku v glavni stvari, ovirajo prosto gibanje delavcev in svobodo ustanavljanja, to pa je načelno prepovedano s členoma 39 ES in 43 ES.
There is, however, nothing in either the file sent to the Court by the referring court or the observations of the Flemish Government capable of justifying the application, to persons working in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brus-sels-Capital, of a requirement of residence either in one of those two regions or in another Member State, for the purpose of eligibility for the care insurance scheme at issue in the main proceedings.
Vendar pa niti spis, ki ga je predložitveno sodi�če predložilo Sodi�ču, niti stali�ča flamske vlade, ne vsebujejo dejstev, ki bi za osebe, ki opravljajo poklicno dejavnost v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji glavnega mesta Bruselj, upravičevala uporabo pogoja stalnega prebivali�ča v eni od teh dveh regij ali v drugi državi članici za dostop do ugodnosti iz v postopku v glavni stvari obravnavanega zdravstvenega zavarovanja.
Here the Flemish Government refers exclusively to the requirements inherent in the division of powers within the Belgian federal structure and, particularly, to the fact that the Flemish Community could exercise no competence in relation to care insurance in respect of persons residing in the territory of other linguistic communities of the Kingdom of Belgium.
Flamska vlada se v zvezi s tem sklicuje izključno na zahteve, ki izhajajo iz delitve oblasti v begijski zvezni ureditvi in zlasti na dejstvo, da flamska skupnost ne bi mogla izvajati nobene pristojnosti s področja zdravstvenega zavarovanja glede oseb, ki stalno prebivajo na ozemlju drugih jezikovnih skupnosti Kraljevine Belgije.
That line of argument cannot be accepted.
Take utemeljitve pa ni mogoče sprejeti.
It is therefore to be declared that a condition of residence such as that laid down in the Decree of 30 March 1999, as amended, is contrary to Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da člena 39 ES in 43 ES nasprotujeta pogoju stalnega prebivali�ča, kot je določen s spremenjenim dekretom z dne 30. marca 1999.
That being so, there is no need to raise the question of an infringement of Regulation No 1408/71, in particular of Article 3(1) thereof (see, by analogy, Terhoeve, paragraph 41).
V teh okoli�činah se ni potrebno spra�evati o morebitni kr�itvi Uredbe �t. 1408/71 in zlasti njenega člena 3(1) (glej po anologiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Terhoeve, točka 41).
Nor is there any need to give a ruling on the existence of a restriction liable to be prohibited by Article 18 EC, of which Articles 39 EC and 43 EC constitute the specific expression so far as concerns freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment.
Niti se ni treba izreči o obstoju omejitve, ki je lahko prepovedana s členom 18 ES, v zvezi s katerim člena 39 ES in 43 ES pomenita poseben izraz glede prostega gibanja delavcev in svobode ustanavljanja.
Having regard to all the foregoing, the reply to be given to the second and third questions is that, on a proper construction of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as that governing the care insurance scheme established by the Flemish Community by the Decree of 30 March 1999, as amended, limiting affiliation to a social security scheme and entitlement to the benefits provided by that scheme to persons either residing in the territory coming within that entity’s competence or pursuing an activity in that territory but residing in another Member State, is contrary to Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, in so far as such limitation affects nationals of other Member States or nationals of the Member State concerned who have made use of their right to freedom of movement within the European Community.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na drugo in tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člena 39 ES in 43 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta predpisom zvezne enote države članice, kot so ti, ki urejajo zdravstveno zavarovanje, ki ga je vzpostavila belgijska flamska skupnost s spremenjenim dekretom z dne 30. marca 1999, ki vstop v sistem socialne varnosti in ugodnost dajatev, ki jih ta določa, omejuje na osebe, ki ali stalno prebivajo na ozemlju, za katero je pristojna ta enota, ali opravljajo poklicno dejavnost na tem istem ozemlju, pri čemer stalno prebivajo v drugi državi članici, če taka omejitev prizadene državljane drugih držav članic ali domače državljane, ki so uporabili svojo pravico do prostega gibanja v Evropski skupnosti.
Concerning the fourth question
Četrto vprašanje
The fourth question deals with the consequences following from a finding by the national court of the incompatibility of the legislation in question in the main proceedings with Community law, the effect of which would be, according to that court, to re-establish the scheme in force before the Decree of 30 April 2004 was adopted.
Četrto vpra�anje se nana�a na posledice, ki bi se navezovale na ugotovitev nacionalnega sodi�ča o nezdružljivosti predpisov, ki se obravnavajo v postopku v glavni stvari, s pravom Skupnosti, kar bi po mnenju navedenega sodi�ča povzročilo, da se ponovno vzpostavi sistem, ki je veljal pred sprejetjem dekreta z dne 30. aprila 2004.
More specifically, it seeks to ascertain whether a scheme limiting eligibility for care insurance only to persons living in the Dutchspeaking region and the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital is contrary to Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC.
Natančneje, nacionalno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES nasprotujejo sistemu, ki omejuje dostop do ugodnosti iz zdravstvenega zavarovanja zgolj na osebe, ki stalno prebivajo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji in v dvojezični regiji glavnega mesta Bruselj.