natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows from the foregoing that point 2 of the Annex to the contested decision must be annulled.
Iz navedenega sledi, da je treba točko 2 iz Priloge k izpodbijani odločbi razglasiti za nično.
It is for the Commission to confirm whether, as a consequence, it is necessary to adapt the title of the Annex to Directive 2002/95 to which point 1 of the Annex to the contested decision refers.
Komisija mora ugotoviti, ali je zato treba prilagoditi naslov Priloge k Direktivi 2002/95, na katerega se nana�a točka 1 Priloge k izpodbijani odločbi.
Maintenance of the effects of the annulled provision
Ohranitev učinkov odločbe, razglašene za nično
At the hearing, the Commission and the United Kingdom requested the Court, should it annul the disputed provisions of the contested decision, to maintain the effects of those provisions during a period of at least nine months, which was the adaptation period which undertakings producing or using DecaBDE would have benefited from if, in October 2005, the Commission had decided not to exempt DecaBDE and had decided that the product was subject to the prohibition laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/95.
Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo sta na obravnavi predlagala Sodi�ču, naj, če bo razglasilo določbe izpodbijane odločbe za nične, ohrani njihove učinke vsaj devet mesecev, kar je bil rok za prilagoditev, do katerega naj bi bila upravičena podjetja, ki proizvajajo ali uporabljajo DecaBDE, če bi oktobra 2005 Komisija odločila, da ne izvzame DecaBDE in bi za ta proizvod veljala prepoved iz člena 4(1) Direktive 2002/95.
The applicants and the other intervening parties opposed that request on the ground that it should have been included in the written pleadings and that, in any event, the undertakings concerned should have known, following the adoption of Directive 2002/95, that DecaBDE had been prohibited by the Community legislature.
Tožeči stranki in druge intervenientke so nasprotovale temu predlogu, ker bi moral biti podan v pisnih stali�čih in ker bi v vsakem primeru zadevna podjetja po sprejetju Direktive 2002/95 morala vedeti, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti prepovedal DecaBDE.
Under the second paragraph of Article 231 EC the Court, if it considers it necessary, is to state which of the effects of a regulation which it has declared void are to be considered as definitive.
Če Sodi�če razglasi uredbo za nično, lahko na podlagi člena 231, drugi odstavek, ES, določi – kadar meni, da je to potrebno – tiste njene učinke, ki jih je treba �teti za dokončne.
Such a provision can also be applied to a decision adopted to amend an Annex contained in a directive (with regard to the directive itself, see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-21/94 Parliament v Council [1995] ECR I-1827, paragraph 31).
Taka določba lahko velja tudi za odločbo, ki je bila sprejeta zaradi spremembe Priloge, vsebovane v direktivi (glede same direktive glej v tem smislu predvsem sodbo z dne 5. julija 1995 v zadevi Parlament proti Svetu, C-21/94, Recueil, str. I-1827, točka 31).
In view of the wording of that provision, from which it is clear that, if the Court considers it necessary, it may, even of its own motion, limit the annulling effect of its judgment, it is not necessary to rule on the consequences of the request — allegedly out of time — from the Commission and the United Kingdom.
Ob upo�tevanju besedila te določbe, iz katerega izhaja, da lahko Sodi�če, če meni, da je to potrebno, učinek ničnosti, ki izhaja iz njegove iz sodbe, omeji tudi po uradni dolžnosti, ni treba odločiti o domnevno prepoznem predlogu Komisije in Združenega kraljestva.
In the present case, account taken of the fact that the dispute has essentially arisen over the manner in which Directive 2002/95 was drafted, particularly over the very complex relationship between Articles 4 and 5 of that directive and point 10 in the Annex thereto, and the fact that the Commission adopted the contested decision on 13 October 2005 — that is to say, nine months before the prohibition on DecaBDE took effect on 1 July 2006 — it is appropriate, in order to take account of the interests of the undertakings concerned, that the effects of the annulled provision be maintained, on grounds of legal certainty, for a strictly necessary adaptation period, that is until 30 June 2008.
Ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da gre v bistvu za spor o tem, kako je Direktiva 2002/95 napisana, predvsem glede posebej zapletenega razmerja med njenima členoma 4 in 5 in točko 10 njene Priloge, ter dejstva, da je Komisija sprejela izpodbijano odločbo 13. oktobra 2005, kar je devet mesecev pred 1. julijem 2006, ko je prepoved DecaBDE začela učinkovati, je treba zaradi upo�tevanja interesov zadevnih podjetji v obravnavanem primeru iz razlogov pravne varnosti ohraniti v veljavi učinke določbe, razgla�ene za nično, za obdobje, nujno potrebno za prilagoditev, namreč do 30. junija 2008.
As the Parliament and the Kingdom of Denmark, in Case C-295/06, have applied for costs against the Commission and, as the Commission has been unsuccessful in its pleadings, it must be ordered to pay the costs of the Parliament and the Kingdom of Denmark in Case C-295/06.
Parlament in Kraljevina Danska sta v zadevi C-295/06 predlagala, naj se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s svojimi predlogi ni uspela, ji je treba naložiti plačilo stro�kov Parlamenta in Kraljevine Danske v zadevi C-295/06.
Annuls Point 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes of adapting to technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment;
Točka 2 Priloge k Odločbi Komisije 2005/717/ES z dne 13. oktobra 2005 o spremembi Priloge k Direktivi 2002/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o omejevanju uporabe nekaterih nevarnih snovi v električni in elektronski opremi zaradi prilagoditve tehničnemu napredku se razglasi za nično.
Declares that the effects of point 2 of the Annex to Decision 2005/717 are maintained until 30 June 2008 inclusive;
Učinki točke 2 Priloge k Odločbi 2005/717 ostanejo v veljavi do vključno 30. junija 2008.
Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the European Parliament and those of the Kingdom of Denmark in Case C-295/06;
Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti se naloži plačilo stroškov Evropskega parlamenta in Kraljevine Danske v zadevi C-295/06.
Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, in Case C-14/06, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway to bear their own costs.
Kraljevina Danska v zadevi C-14/06, Portugalska republika, Republika Finska, Kraljevina Švedska, Združeno kraljestvo Velike Britanije in Severne Irske ter Kraljevina Norveška nosijo svoje stroške.
Case C-212/06
Zadeva C-212/06
Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v Flemish Government
Vlada francoske skupnostiinvalonska vlada proti flamski vladi
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’arbitrage, now the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium))
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Cour d’arbitrage, zdaj Cour constitutionnelle (Belgija))
(Care insurance scheme established by a federated entity of a Member State — Exclusion of persons residing in part of the national territory other than that falling within the competence of that entity — Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
„Sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki ga je vzpostavila zvezna enota države članice – Izključitev oseb s stalnim prebivali�čem na delu nacionalnega ozemlja, ki ni v pristojnosti te enote – Členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES – Uredba (EGS) �t. 1408/71“
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 28 June 2007 . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 28. junija 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I - 1687Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 1 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (veliki senat) z dne 1. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social security for migrant workers — Community legislation — Scope ratione materiae (Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4)
Socialna varnost delavcev migrantov – Skupnost ureditev – Vsebinsko področje uporabe (Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71, člen 4)
SUMMARY — CASE C-212/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-212/06
Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Purely internal situations (Arts 17 EC, 18 EC and 234 EC)
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Pristojnost Sodišča – Omejitve – Povsem notranje okoliščine
Social security for migrant workers — Competence of federated entities of a Member State to organise their social security systems — Limits
Socialna varnost delavcev migrantov – Pristojnost federalnih enot države članice za ureditev svojih sistemov socialne varnosti – Omejitve
(Arts 39 EC and 43 EC)
(člena 39 ES in 43 ES)
Furthermore, such a care insurance scheme, governed by provisions of domestic law applicable to part only of the territory of a Member State, cannot be excluded from the ambit of Regulation No 14087 if it is funded, at the very least in part, by contributions paid by the persons insured, and is not mentioned in Annex II, Section III, to that regulation.
Poleg tega takega zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki je urejen z nacionalnimi določbami, ki se uporabljajo le za del ozemlja države članice, ni mogoče izključiti s področja uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ker se vsaj deloma financira s prispevki zavarovancev in ni omenjen v prilogi II, oddelek III, te uredbe.
Benefits provided under a care insurance scheme giving the right, objectively and on the basis of a statutorily defined position, to reimbursement by a care insurance fund of the costs incurred in respect of the provision of help and nonmedical services by any person whose autonomy is reduced by reason of serious and prolonged disability, fall within the scope ratione materiae of Regulation No 1408/71.
Dajatve, izplačane iz sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki objektivno in na podlagi zakonsko določenega položaja daje pravico, da zdravstvena zavarovalnica povrne nastale stro�ke za storitve pomoči in nemedicinske storitve vsem osebam, ki imajo dolgotrajno in hudo zmanj�ano sposobnost skrbeti zase, spadajo na stvarno področje uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
(see paras 19-23, operative part 1)
(Glej točke od 19 do 23 in točko 1 izreka.)
Community law cannot be applied to purely internal situations.
Prava Skupnosti ni mogoče uporabiti za povsem notranje položaje.
It is not possible 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. Citizenship of the Union is not intended to
Ob tej ugotovitvi ni mogoče nasprotovati 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
Benefits intended to improve the state of health and quality of life of persons reliant on care have as their essential purpose the supplementing of sickness insurance benefits and must accordingly be regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ for the purpose of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation.
Cilj dajatev, ki so namenjene izbolj�anju zdravstvenega stanja in življenja oseb, ki potrebujejo pomoč in postrežbo, je predvsem dopolniti dajatve zdravstvenega zavarovanja in jih je treba �teti za „dajatve za bolezen“ v smislu člena 4(1)(a) navedene uredbe.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT those provisions, 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.
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VALONSKA VLADA poklicno dejavnost na tem istem ozemlju in stalno prebivajo v drugi državi članici, če taka omejitev prizadene državljane drugih držav članic ali domače državljane, ki so uporabili pravico do prostega gibanja v Evropski skupnosti.
extend the material scope of the Treaty to internal situations which have no link with Community law.
in prebiva na ozemlju držav članic. Državljanstvo Unije namreč ni namenjeno raz�irjanju stvarnega področja uporabe Pogodbe na notranje položaje, ki nimajo nobene zveze s pravom Skupnosti.
Nevertheless, interpretation of provisions of Community law may possibly be of use to the national court, having regard too to situations classed as purely internal, in particular if the law of the Member State concerned were to require every national of that State to be allowed to enjoy the same rights as those which a national of another Member State would derive from Community law in a situation considered to be comparable by that court.
Vendar bi razlaga določb prava Skupnosti morebiti lahko koristila nacionalnemu sodi�ču tudi glede položajev, ki so opredeljeni za povsem notranje, zlasti če bi pravo zadevne države članice določalo, da mora vsak njen državljan uživati enake pravice, kot bi jih imel na podlagi prava Skupnosti državljan druge države članice, ki je v položaju, ki ga navedeno sodi�če �teje za primerljivega.
(see paras 38-40)
(Glej točke od 38 do 40.)
Those articles of the Treaty militate against any national measure which, even though applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is capable of hindering or rendering less attractive the exercise by Community nationals of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
Navedena člena namreč nasprotujeta vsakemu nacionalnemu ukrepu, ki bi, tudi če se ga uporablja brez diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo, za državljane Skupnosti lahko pomenil oviro pri izvajanju temeljnih svobo�čin, zagotovljenih s Pogodbo.
For a measure to restrict freedom of movement, it is not necessary for it to be based on the nationality of the persons concerned or even for it to have the effect of bestowing an advantage on all national workers or of operating to the detriment solely of nationals of other Member States, but not of national workers.
Torej, da neki ukrep pomeni oviro za prosto gibanje, ni treba, da temelji na državljanstvu zadevnih oseb ali da daje prednost vsem domačim delavcem oziroma da defavorizira le državljane drugih držav članic, razen domačih delavcev.
It is enough that the measure should benefit certain categories of persons pursuing occupational activity in the Member State in question.
Zado�ča, da ukrep z ugodnostmi daje ugodnosti določenim skupinam oseb, ki opravljajo poklicno dejavnost v zadevni državi članici.
On a proper construction of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as that governing care insurance, 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
Člena 39 ES in 43 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta predpisom zvezne enote države članice, kot so predpisi, ki urejajo zdravstveno zavarovanje, ki vstop v sistem socialne varnosti in prejemanje ugodnosti iz le-tega, omejujejo na osebe, ki ali stalno prebivajo na ozemlju, za katero je pristojna ta enota, ali opravljajo
In addition, the articles of the Treaty relating to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital are funda-
Poleg tega členi Pogodbe v zvezi s prostim gibanjem oseb, pretokom blaga, storitev in kapitala pomenijo temeljne
SUMMARY — CASE C-212/06 mental provisions for the Community and any restriction, even minor, of that freedom is prohibited.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-212/06 določbe za Skupnost in da je prepovedano vsako oviranje te svobode, tudi če je manj�ega pomena.
(see paras 45, 50, 52, 60, operative part 2) militate against legislation of a federated entity of a Member State limiting affiliation to a social security scheme and entitlement to the benefits provided by that scheme only to persons residing in that entity’s territory, in so far as such limitation affects nationals of other Member States working in that entity’s territory or nationals of the Member State concerned who have made use of their right to freedom of movement within the European Community.
v sistem socialnega varstva in ugodnost dajatev, ki jih ta predvideva, le na osebe, ki imajo stalno prebivali�če na ozemlju te enote; če taka omejitev prizadene državljane drugih držav članic, ki opravljajo poklicno dejavnost na ozemlju navedene enote oziroma domače državljane, ki so uporabili pravico do prostega gibanja v Evropski skupnosti.
On a proper construction of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, those provisions
Člena 39 ES in 43 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta predpisom zvezne enote države članice, ki omejujejo vstop
(see para. 63, operative part 3)
(Glej točko 63 in točko 3 izreka.)
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE
SHARPSTONdelivered on 28 June 2007
1 predstavljeni 28. junija 2007
Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court), of Belgium 3concerns the compat-
Predloženi predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Cour d’arbitrage (arbitražno sodi�če), 2zdaj Cour constitutionnelle (ustavno sodi�če), Belgije 3zadeva skladnost
Still more broadly, what is the impact of Community law on the federal or decentralised structure of a Member State and on what is deemed to be a ‘purely internal situation’ outside the scope of Community law?
Še splo�neje, kak�en vpliv ima pravo Skupnosti na zvezno ali decentralizirano strukturo države članice in kaj �teje kot „samo notranji položaj“ zunaj dosega prava Skupnosti?
ibility of a scheme of care insurance benefits, such as the one established by the Flemish Community, with various provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 4and with Articles 18, 39 and 43 EC.
sistema dajatev iz zavarovanja, kot je tisto, ki ga je določila flamska skupnost, z različnimi določili Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t.
Prologue — the Kingdom of Belgium as a federal State
1408/71 4 ter s členi 18, 39 in 43 ES.
A broader issue is whether Community law prevents an autonomous entity of a Member State from making the grant of social security benefits conditional on residence in the territory of the autonomous entity concerned or in the territory of another Member State, thereby excluding persons working in the autonomous entity in question who are resident in another part of the national territory.
Šir�e vpra�anje je, ali pravo Skupnosti preprečuje avtonomnemu območju v državi članici, da pogojuje zagotovitev dajatev socialne varnosti s stalnim prebivali�čem na ozemlju avtonomnega območja ali na ozemlju druge države članice, ter tako izključi osebe, ki delajo na zadevnem avtonomnem območju, prebivajo pa na drugem delu nacionalnega ozemlja.
6 It is the result of incremental changes,
6Je rezultat posamičnih sprememb, ki sta jih prvotno spodbujali flamska želja za dosego kulturne avtonomije, kar se je izrazilo v
3 — On 7 May 2007, the name of the referring Court was changed, by amendment of the Belgian Constitution, into Cour constitutionnelle/Grondwettelijk Hof/Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court), Moniteur belge/BelgischStaatsblad of 8 May 2007, pp. 25101 and 25102.
3 – 7. maja 2007 je dopolnilo k belgijski ustavi spremenilo ime vložitvenega sodi�ča v Cour constitutionnelle/Grondwettelijk Hof/Verfassungsgerichtshof (ustavno sodi�če), Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblat z dne 8. maja 2007, str. 25101 in 25102.
5 — See K. Lenaerts, ‘Constitutionalism and the many faces of federalism’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 1990, pp. 205 to 263.
5 – Glej K. Lenaerts, Constitutionalism and the many faces of federalism, American Journal of Comparative Law, 1990, str. od 205 do 263.
4 — Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971(II) p.
4 – Uredba z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe, samozaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti (UL, Posebna angle�ka izdaja 1971(II), str.
416), amended on numerous occasions, most recently by Regulation (EC) No 629/2006 of 5 April 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 1).
416), večkrat spremenjena, nazadnje z Uredbo (ES) �t. 629/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 5. aprila 2006 (UL L 2006 114, str. 1).
Both the Communities and the Regions thus act as autonomous legislators with regard to their own competences.
7 nostmi tako skupnosti in regije ravnajo kot avtonomni zakonodajalec.
Decrees are the legal instruments by which the three Communities, as well as the Flemish and the Walloon Regions, exercise their legislative competences. These Decrees have the same force of law as federal laws. 12
Tri skupnosti ter regija Flandrija in regija Valonija izvr�ujejo svoje zakonodajne pristojnosti z uredbami, ki imajo enako zakonsko moč, kot jo ima zvezni zakon. 12
Belgium now consists of three Communities (the Flemish Community, the French Community and the Germanspeaking Community), 8three Regions (the Walloon
Belgijo sestavljajo tri skupnosti (flamska skupnost, francoska skupnost in nem�ko govoreča skupnost) 8, tri regije (regija
Dutchspeaking region, the Frenchspeaking region, the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital and the Germanspeaking region). 10
Valonija, regija Flandrija in regija Bruselj-Capital) 9ter �tiri jezikovne regije (nizo- zemsko govoreča regija, francosko govoreča regija, dvojezična regija Bruselj-Capital in nem�ko govoreča regija) 10.
Relevant Community law
Ustrezna zakonodaja Skupnosti
Article 17 EC provides:
Člen 17 ES določa:
8 — Article 2 of the Belgian Constitution.
8 – Člen 2 belgijske ustave.
The Dutch, French and German texts of the Belgian Constitution refer, respectively to ‘gemeenschappen’, ‘communautés’ and ‘Gemeinschaften’.
Nizozemsko, francosko in nem�ko besedilo belgijske ustave se, v tem zaporedju, nana�a na „gemeenschappen“, „communautés“ in „Gemeinschaften“.
9 — Article 3 of the Belgian Constitution.
9 – Člen 3 belgijske ustave.
The Dutch, French and German texts of the Belgian Constitution refer, respectively to ‘gewesten’, ‘régions’ and ‘Regionen’.
Nizozemsko, francosko in nem�ko besedilo belgijske ustave se, v tem zaporedju, nana�a na „gewesten“, „régions“ in „Regionen“.
10 — Article 4 of the Belgian Constitution.
10 – Člen 4 belgijske ustave.
The Dutch, French and German texts of the Belgian Constitution refer, respectively to ‘taalgebieden’, ‘régions linguistiques’ and ‘Sprachgebiete’.
Nizozemsko, francosko in nem�ko besedilo belgijske ustave se, v tem zaporedju, nana�a na „taalgebieden“, „régions linguistiques“ in „Sprachgebiete“.
On the distinction between communities, regions and linguistic regions, see further P. Peeters, cited in footnote 7 above.
O razmejitvi med skupnostmi, regijami in jezikovnimi regijami glej P. Peeters, navedeno zgoraj opombi 7.
Both point out that there are some nuances and exceptions to the system of exclusive competences.
Oba izpostavljata, da so nekateri odtenki in izjeme od sistema izključne pristojnosti.
12 — See Articles 127(2), 128(2), 129(2), 130(2) and 134, second paragraph of the Belgian Constitution and Article 19(2) of the Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles/Bijzondere wet tot hervorming der instellingen [Special law on the reform of the institutions] of 8 August 1980, Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblad of 15 August 1980.
12 – Glej člene 127(2), 128(2), 129(2), 130(2) in 134, drugi odstavek, belgijske ustave in člen 19(2) Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles/Bijzondere wet tot hervorming der instellingen (posebni zakon o reformi ustanov) z dne 8. avgusta 1980, Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblad z dne 15. avgusta 1980.
Article 43 EC provides:
Člen 43 ES določa:
Article 18 EC provides:
Člen 18 ES določa: