natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
entering the service of the Communities, or to induce them to quit the employment that they carry on there’, that is to say ‘of such a nature as to impede the functioning of the Community institutions’.
ugodnost, ki bi jo ti lahko koristili, če ne bi bili v tem položaju“, ni videti, da gre za „ukrepe, namenjene odvračanju teh oseb od nastopa službe pri Skupnostih ali spodbujanju, da opustijo delo, ki ga tam opravljajo“, torej za ukrepe, „ki bi ogrozili delovanje institucij Skupnosti“.
The Court therefore concluded that Article 5 of the EEC Treaty did not preclude Member States from denying to officials or servants of the Communities a benefit such as that provided under the national scheme that was the subject of the main proceedings.
Ugotovilo je torej, da člen 5 Pogodbe EGS ni prepovedoval državam članicam, da zavrnejo uradnikom in uslužbencem Skupnosti ugodnost, kot je ta, določena z zadevnim nacionalnim sistemom v postopku v glavni stvari.
The Court had adopted a similar approach previously in Tither 33, which concerned a national scheme aimed at subsidising the purchase and improvement of dwellings, the benefits of which (subsidies on the interest paid on mortgage loans) were denied to those who performed activities for which they received taxexempt remuneration under a special exemption or immunity, and were thus denied to employees of the Communities.
Podobnemu pristopu je sicer Sodi�če pred tem sledilo v sodbi Tither 33, v zvezi z nacionalnim sistemom, katerega namen je bil olaj�ati nakup in izbolj�anje stanovanjskih hi�, ki je od predvidenih ugodnosti (subvencije za pasivne obresti hipotekarnih posojil) izključevala tiste, ki so opravljali naloge, za katere so prejemali plačilo, ki na podlagi posebne oprostitve ali imunitete ni bilo obdavčljivo, in torej uslužbence Skupnosti.
The Court had been asked by the referring court, in particular, whether Article 5 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) obliged the Member State involved to grant the benefit also to such persons if they met the other conditions laid down by the scheme in question.
Sodi�ču je bilo s strani predložitvenega sodi�ča zlasti postavljeno vpra�anje, naj ugotovi, ali člen 5 Pogodbe EGS (postal člen 10 ES) nalaga zainteresirani državi članici, naj podeli ugodnosti tudi navedenim osebam, kadar bi te izpolnile druge pogoje, določene z zadevnim sistemom.
Recalling that the cited provision ‘prohibits Member States, inter alia, from adopting measures which are likely to impede the functioning of the Community institutions’, the Court observed that although legislation such as the scheme in question could ‘have the effect of depriving officials and servants of the Communities of a financial advantage which they would enjoy if they did not have that status’, it did not appear that the scheme was ‘likely to dissuade certain persons from
Sodi�če je s tem, da je poudarilo, da navedeni predpis „zlasti nalaga državam članicam, da se vzdržijo vseh ukrepov, ki bi lahko ogrozili delovanje institucij Skupnosti“, opozorilo, da čeprav bi lahko ureditev, kot je zadevni sistem, „povzročila, da se uradnikom in uslužbencem Skupnosti odvzame finančno
Returning now to the present proceedings for a preliminary ruling, it seems difficult to maintain that a provision such as that set out in the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976 — if interpreted as meaning that the children of a selfemployed worker receiving family allowances under the Staff Regulations or the CEOS may not be taken into account in the context defined by that provision — is likely to dissuade certain persons from entering the service of the Communities, or to induce them to quit the employment that they carry on there.
Torej, če se vrnemo k postopku za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v obravnavanem primeru, bi težko trdili, da je ureditev, kot je ta iz člena 16(1), prvi pododstavek, kraljevega odloka z dne 8. aprila 1976 – v primeru, da bi jo razlagali v smislu, da izključuje upo�tevanje, v okviru, ki je z njo opredeljen, otrok samozaposlenega, ki so upravičeni do otro�kega dodatka na podlagi Kadrovskih predpisov ali PZDU – taka, da bi te osebe odvračala od nastopa službe pri Skupnostih ali bi jih spodbujala, da opustijo delo, ki ga tam opravljajo.
The Commission itself notes, with reference to the case in point, that the Belgian provision does not cause any loss to the Community servant in question (the first husband of Ms Gysen and father of Adrien), as it simply has the effect of reducing the amount of the family
Komisija v zvezi z obravnavanim primerom poudarja, da belgijska ureditev za zadevnega uslužbenca Skupnosti (prvega zakonskega partnerja S.
33 — Case C-333/88 Tither [1990] ECR I-1133.
Gysen, očeta Adriena) ne pomeni nobene izgube,
allowances that the Caisse must pay to his former wife for Augustin and Elise, her children by her second husband, who is not an official or servant of the Community.
saj pomeni zgolj zmanj�anje – glede na znesek, ki bi ga sicer prejel – zneska družinskih dodatkov, ki jih mora zavod izplačati njegovi nekdanji ženi za otroka Avgustina in Elise, ki jih je imela skupaj z drugim zakonskim partnerjem, ki ni uradnik ali uslužbenec Skupnosti 34.
34Moreover, even if one wishes to consider that that reduction has an impact on the resources that Ms Gysen can mobilise to meet the cost of maintaining her first child and that, accordingly, it ultimately affects the extension of the obligations of that child’s father — a servant of the Community — in terms of his contribution to those costs, such an effect would be too indirect and marginal to have the effect of dissuasion or inducement mentioned above.
Zato, tudi če bi želeli �teti, da ima tako zmanj�anje vpliv na vi�ino virov, ki jih ima S. Gysen na razpolago za kritje obveznosti vzdrževanja prvega otroka in torej, končno, vpliv na obseg obveznosti, ki jih ima oče prvega otroka, iz naslova prispevkov za te obveznosti, bi bil ta vpliv preveč posreden in postranski, da bi lahko ustvaril navedeni odvračilni ali spodbujevalni učinek.
Admittedly, the Commission rightly points out that application of the Belgian provision — interpreted as indicated in the preceding paragraph — would mean that, solely because Adrien’s father is employed by a Community institution, Ms Gysen and her children Augustin and Elise would be treated less favourably than if Adrien’s father did not hold that position.
Gotovo Komisija upravičeno opozarja, da bi uporaba belgijske ureditve, ki se je razlagala, kot je opisano v prej�nji točki, povzročila za S.
35 In the light of the criterion for interpretation that can be deduced from Tither and My, that disparity of treatment does not, in my opinion, constitute an
Gysen in njena otroka Augustina in Elise, le zaradi dejstva, skratka, da je oče Adriena zaposlen v instituciji Skupnosti, manj ugodno obravnavanje, kot je tisto, ki bi ga bili deležni, če ta oče ne bi opravljal tega dela 35.
It is hardly necessary to add (since it goes beyond the limits of the examination I have proposed in points 29 and 53 above) that such a disparity of treatment cannot be criticised by invoking the principle of equal treatment as a general principle of Community law or the specific expressions thereof, in particular Article 12 EC (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality) or Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community 36(under which a worker who is a national of a Member State employed in the territory of another Member State ‘shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers’).
Šele zdaj je treba dodati – ker prekoračuje meje presoje, ki sem si jih začrtal in na katere sem opozoril v točkah 29 in 53 zgoraj –, da tak�nega neenakega obravnavanja ni možno grajati s sklicevanjem na načelo enakega obravnavanja kot splo�nega načela prava Skupnosti ali na posebne izraze, ki ga sestavljajo, in zlasti člen 12 ES (prepoved diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo) in člen 7(2) Uredbe Sveta �t.
The casefile does not contain any information on the basis of which it can be held that the situation in the present case falls within the scope of Community law rather than being purely internal to the Belgian State.
1612/68 (EGS) z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti 36(v skladu s katero delavec državljan ene države članice, zaposlen na ozemlju druge države članice, „uživa enake socialne in davčne ugodnosti kot domači delavci“).
34 — Written observations of the Commission, paragraphs 37 and 38.
Iz spisa obravnavanega primera namreč ne izhaja noben element, ki bi omogočal ugotovitev, da gre v tej zadevi za položaj, ki sodi na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti in ne za čisto notranji položaj belgijske države.
35 — Ibid., paragraph 40.
34 – Pisna stali�ča Komisije, točki 37 in 38.35 – Prav tam, točka 40.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court reply in the following terms to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles:
Glede na navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anje za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles odgovori:
‘The Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, approved by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968, have general application and are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Kadrovski predpisi za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti in Pogoji za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev teh Skupnosti, sprejetih z Uredbo Sveta (EGS, Euratom, ESPJ) �t. 259/68 z dne 29. februarja 1968 se splo�no uporabljajo, so zavezujoči v celoti in se neposredno uporabljajo v vseh državah članicah.
It is for the referring court, which has jurisdiction to interpret and apply national law, to determine whether, in the light of the abovementioned characteristics, those acts constitute an ‘international social security convention in force in Belgium’ within the meaning of the national provision at issue in the main proceedings.’
Naloga predložitvenega sodi�ča, katerega pristojnost je razlaga in uporaba nacionalnega prava, je, da ugotovi, ali glede na navedene značilnosti ti akti pomenijo ”mednarodno konvencijo o socialni varnosti, ki velja v Belgiji„ v smislu zadevne nacionalne ureditve v postopku v glavni stvari.
2008 — CASE C-449/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-449/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)14 February 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 14. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium), made by decision of 17 October 2006, received at the Court on 6 November 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-449/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgija) z odločbo z dne 17. oktobra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 6. novembra 2006, v postopku
Under the second paragraph of Article 11, the Staff Regulations are ‘binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States’.
Na podlagi člena 11, drugi odstavek, so Kadrovski predpisi „v celoti zavezujoč[i] in se neposredno uporablja[jo] v vseh državah članicah“.
According to Article 67(1) of the Staff Regulations, family allowances include the household allowance, the dependent child allowance and the education allowance.
V skladu s členom 67(1) Kadrovskih predpisov družinski dodatki vključujejo gospodinjski dodatek, otro�ki dodatek in dodatek za �olanje.
Under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, officials in receipt of the family allowances specified in that article are to declare allowances of like nature paid from other sources, which are to be deducted from those paid under Articles 1 to 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
Na podlagi člena 67(2) Kadrovskih predpisov uradniki, ki prejemajo družinske dodatke iz tega člena, prijavijo podobne dodatke, ki jih prejemajo iz drugih virov; ti se od�tejejo od dodatkov, ki jih prejemajo po členih od 1 do 3 Priloge VII.
Under Article 2(7) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, if custody of a dependent child is entrusted by law or by an order of court or of the competent administrative authority to another person, the dependent child allowance is to be paid to that person in the name and on behalf of the official.
V skladu s členom 2(7) Priloge VII h Kadrovskim predpisom se, če je skrbni�tvo za vzdrževanega otroka po zakonu ali sklepu sodi�ča ali pristojnega upravnega organa zaupano drugi osebi, otro�ki dodatek izplačuje tej osebi v imenu in za račun uradnika.
Pursuant to the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976 establishing the family allowances scheme for selfemployed workers (Moniteur belge of 6 May 1976), the amount of the allowance per child increases according to the number of children.
Na podlagi belgijskega kraljevega odloka z dne 8. aprila 1976, ki določa ureditev družinskih dajatev v korist samozaposlenih (Moniteur belge z dne 6. maja 1976) se znesek dodatka za posameznega otroka povečuje s �tevilom otrok.
Under the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal Decree, in the version applicable to the facts in the main proceedings, the ranking of the children is to be determined by taking account of the chronological order of the births of the children receiving benefits under that decree, the consolidated statutes on family allowances for salaried workers, the Royal Decree of 26 March 1965 on family allowances granted to certain categories of salaried State employees, the Law of 20 July 1971 establishing guaranteed family benefits, and the international social security conventions in force in Belgium.
Po členu 16(1), prvi pododstavek, navedenega kraljevega odloka v različici, ki se je uporabljala v času dejanskega stanja postopka v glavni stvari, je red določen s časovnim zaporedjem rojstev upravičencev [do dodatka] v skladu s tem odlokom, z usklajenimi zakoni glede družinskih dodatkov za samozaposlene, s kraljevim odlokom z dne 26. marca 1965 o družinskem dodatku, ki se podeli določenim kategorijam državnih uslužbencev, z zakonom z dne 20. julija 1971, ki določa zagotovljene družinske dajatve, in z mednarodnimi konvencijami o socialni varnosti, ki veljajo v Belgiji.
She married on 1 February 1986.
Zakonsko zvezo je sklenila 1. februarja 1986. V zakonski zvezi se je 20. oktobra 1989 rodil otrok.
The couple divorced in June 1993.
Junija 1993 je pri�lo do razveze zakonske zveze.
The two children of that marriage were born on 5 May 1994 and 17 September 1996.
V tej zakonski zvezi sta se rodila dva otroka, in sicer 5. maja 1994 in 17. septembra 1996.
The couple divorced in 2000.
Leta 2000 je pri�lo do razveze te zakonske zveze.
Ms Gysen’s eldest son has lived with his mother since 17 January 2001.
Gysen od 17. januarja 2001 prebiva pri svoji materi.
With respect to the two younger children, a court decision of 13 February 2001 states that parental authority and the administration of assets are to be exercised jointly, and that Ms Gysen is to receive the family allowances.
Glede njenih dveh mlaj�ih otrok je v sodni odločbi z dne 13. februarja 2001 navedeno, da se bodo star�evske pravice in upravljanje premoženja izvr�evale skupno in da bo S. Gysen prejemala družinski dodatek.
On 1 December 2001, the father of the child born in 1989 was recruited by the Commission of the European Communities.
Oče otroka, rojenega leta 1989, se je 1. decembra 2001 zaposlil pri Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti.
From that date, the Commission services have paid Ms Gysen the full allowances for her eldest son in the name of and on behalf of his father.
Od tega dne so službe Komisije S. Gysen za njenega najstarej�ega sina v imenu in za račun očeta izplačevale celoten znesek družinskega dodatka.
Subsequently, taking the view that the allowances had been paid in error, the Caisse deducted EUR 2 284.84 from the monthly family allowances, with effect from March 2003.
Zavod je, glede na to da je bil dodatek neupravičeno izplačan, od marca 2003 pri izplačilu mesečnih družinskih dodatkov zadržal znesek 2284,84 EUR.
That amount corresponds to the difference between the allowances paid for the younger children, as second and third children, and those which — according to the Caisse — should have been paid, that is to say, allowances for two children, as first and second children.
Ta znesek ustreza razliki med že izplačanimi dodatki za mlaj�a otroka kot otroka drugega in tretjega reda in dodatki, ki bi po mnenju zavoda morali biti izplačani, in sicer za dva otroka kot otroka prvega in drugega reda.
Taking the view that the administrative decisions by the Caisse relating to the deduction were adopted on the basis of an unlawful finding as to the ranking of her three children and that they must therefore be annulled, Ms Gysen brought an action before the referring court.
Ker je S. Gysen menila, da sta bili upravni odločbi v zvezi s tem zadržanjem sprejeti na podlagi nezakonite ugotovitve redov njenih treh otrok in da morata biti zato razgla�eni za nični, se je obrnila na predložitveno sodi�če.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘May, or must, Article 67(1) of … the Staff Regulations … and Annex VII thereto, entitled “Remuneration …”, Section 1: Family allowances, … which comprise … household allowance, … dependent child allowance … education allowance … be regarded as constituting what the national rules in question describe as an “… international social security convention in force in Belgium”?
„Ali je mogoče oziroma ali je treba �teti, da so [Kadrovski predpisi] in ‚Priloga VII: Osebni prejemki […]‘, oddelek 1 […] z naslovom ‚Družinski dodatki‘, člen 67(1), ki zajemata […] gospodinjski dodatek, […] otro�ki dodatek, […] [in] dodatek za �olanje, to, kar sporni nacionalni predpis �teje za ‚[…] mednarodno konvencijo o socialni varnosti, ki velja v Belgiji […]‘?“
In order to provide the referring court with a useful answer which will enable it to resolve the dispute before it, it is appropriate to describe the nature and legal force of the Staff Regulations.
Da bi predložitvenemu sodi�ču dali ustrezen odgovor, ki bi mu omogočal re�itev spora, o katerem odloča, je treba izpostaviti naravo in pravno moč Kadrovskih predpisov.
Under the system of judicial cooperation established by Article 234 EC, it is for the Court of Justice to interpret provisions of Community law.
V okviru sistema sodnega sodelovanja, ki ga vzpostavlja člen 234 ES, je namreč naloga Sodi�ča razlagati določbe prava Skupnosti.
As far as concerns nation provisions, it must be recalled that under that system their interpretation is a matter for the national courts (see Case C-37/92 Vanacker and Lesage [1993] ECR I-4947, paragraph 7).
Kar zadeva nacionalne določbe, je treba opozoriti, da je v okviru navedenega sistema njihova razlaga naloga nacionalnih sodi�č (glej sodbo z dne 12. oktobra 1993 v zadevi Vanacker in Lesage, C-37/92, Recueil, str. I-4947, točka 7).
It is clear from the legislative background to the dispute in the main proceedings, as described by the referring court, that under Belgian law the child of a selfemployed worker who is in receipt of an allowance paid on behalf of the spouse or ex-spouse by the social security bodies of another Member State in accordance with an
Iz pravnega okvira spora v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ga je predstavilo predloži -tveno sodi�če, izhaja, da se po belgijskem pravu otroka samozaposlenega delavca – ki prejema dodatek, ki ga izplačajo organi socialne varnosti druge države članice zaradi zakonca ali biv�ega zakonca, v skladu z mednarodno konvencijo
2008 — CASE C-449/06 international convention is taken into account when determining the ranking of the children of that selfemployed worker in order to calculate the amount of the Belgian family allowances to which the latter is entitled for his other children.
– upo�teva pri določitvi reda otrok istega samozaposlenega delavca za izračun zneska belgijskih družinskih dodatkov, do katerih je ta delavec upravičen zaradi svojih preostalih otrok.
It is also clear from the order for reference that the dispute in the main proceedings arose from the refusal by the Caisse to take account of the child who receives an allowance paid wholly on the basis of the Staff Regulations in the name and on behalf of his father, a Community official, when determining the ranking of the children of the mother, a selfemployed worker, for the calculation of the amount of family allowances to which the latter is entitled for her other children.
Iz predložitvene odločbe prav tako izhaja, da je do spora v postopku v glavni stvari pri�lo zato, ker zavod pri določitvi reda otrok matere, samozaposlene delavke, za izračun zneska družinskih dodatkov, do katerih je ta upravičena za svoje preostale otroke, ni upo�teval otroka, ki je upravičen do dodatka, ki se v celoti izplačuje na podlagi Kadrovskih predpisov v imenu in za račun njegovega očeta, uradnika Skupnosti.
The documents in the casefile indicate that the difference in treatment by the Caisse of those two situations is based on the specific nature of the legal basis for the allowance under the Staff Regulations paid to the child of Ms Gysen who was born in 1989.
Pri branju spisa se zdi, da je različnost pri obravnavanju zavoda v teh dveh primerih v posebnosti pravne podlage za dodatek iz Kadrovskih predpisov, ki se izplača v korist otroka S. Gysen, rojenega leta 1989.
The Caisse contends before the referring court that the Staff Regulations confer on Community officials rights which they are able to rely on vis-à-vis their employer and, where necessary, the right to bring an action before the Community courts, but that those rights are not immediately and directly applicable in national legal systems.
Zavod pred predložitvenim sodi�čem poudarja, da Kadrovski predpisi uradnikom Skupnosti podeljujejo pravice, ki jih ti lahko uveljavljajo zoper svoje delodajalce, in, ko je to potrebno, pravico do pravnih sredstev pri sodnih organih Skupnosti, vendar pa te pravice niso takoj in neposredno uporabljive v nacionalnih pravnih redih.
It must be held that that argument runs counter to the nature and the legal force of the Staff Regulations.
Ugotoviti je treba, da je ta trditev v nasprotju z naravo in pravno močjo Kadrovskih predpisov.
Admittedly, Regulation No 259/68 — which established the Staff Regulations — cannot be treated as an international convention, because it was adopted, not by the Member States acting in accordance with the rules of international law, but by
Uredbe �t. 259/68, s katero so določeni Kadrovski predpisi, gotovo ni mogoče primerjati z mednarodno konvencijo, ker je niso sprejele države članice v skladu s
GYSEN the Council as a European Community institution acting independently (see, to that effect, Case 38/69 Commission v Italy [1970] ECR 47, paragraph 11, and Case 91/79 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1099, paragraph 7), in the same way as the EC Treaty on which that regulation is based cannot be treated as an international social security convention.
GYSEN pravili mednarodnega prava, ampak Svet kot institucija Evropske skupnosti, ki deluje samostojno (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 18. februarja 1970 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, 38/69, Recueil, str. 47, točka 11, in z dne 18. marca 1980 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, 91/79, Recueil, str.
Furthermore, as Ms Gysen submits, the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations itself expressly states that the latter are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Poleg tega, kot to trdi S. Gysen, člen 11, drugi odstavek, Kadrovskih predpisov izrecno določa zavezujoč značaj Kadrovskih predpisov v celoti in neposredno uporabljivost v vseh državah članicah.