natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as defined in Article 4 thereof?
avtonomni skupnosti federalne države članice Evropske skupnosti sprejetje določb, na podlagi katerih pri izvr�evanju svojih pristojnosti dovoljuje samo osebam s stalnim prebivali�čem na ozemlju, za katero je pristojna ta avtonomna skupnost, ter glede na državljane Evropske unije, osebe, ki so zaposlene na tem ozemlju in imajo stalno prebivali�če v drugi državi članici, da so zavarovane po sistemu socialnega varstva in zajete vanj v smislu te uredbe, ob izključitvi oseb, ne glede na njihovo nacionalnost, ki imajo stalno prebivali�če na delu ozemlja federalne države, za katerega je pristojna druga avtonomna skupnost.
(4) Must Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC be interpreted as not permitting the scope of such a system to be limited to persons who are resident in the territorial components of a federal Member State of the European Community which are covered by that system?’
Ali se morajo členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES razlagati, kot da ne dovoljujejo, da je obseg takega sistema omejen na osebe, ki imajo stalno prebivali�če na delih ozemlja federalne države Evropske skupnosti, ki so vključene v tak sistem?“
(2) If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is to be answered in the affirmative: must the regulation cited above, in particular Articles 2, 3 and 13 thereof and, in so far as they are applicable, Articles 18, 19, 20, 25 and 28 be interpreted as precluding an autonomous Community of a federal Member State of the European Community from adopting provisions which, in the exercise of its powers, allow only persons residing in the territory for which that autonomous Community is competent and, in relation to citizens of the European Union, persons employed in the territory and who are resident in another Member State to be insured under and covered by a social security scheme within the meaning of that regulation, to the exclusion of persons, whatever their nationality, who reside in a part of the territory of the federal State for which another autonomous Community is competent?
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje pritrdilen: ali se mora zgoraj navedena Uredba, �e posebej njeni členi 2, 3 in 13 ter če se uporabljajo členi 18, 19, 20, 25 in 28, razlagati kot da preprečuje avtonomni skupnosti federalne države članice Evropske skupnosti sprejetje določb, na podlagi katerih pri izvr�evanju svojih pristojnosti dovoljuje samo osebam s stalnim prebivali�čem na ozemlju, za katero je pristojna ta avtonomna skupnost, in glede na državljane Evropske unije, osebam, ki so zaposlene na ozemlju in imajo stalno prebivali�če v drugi državi članici, da so zavarovane po sistemu socialnega varstva in zajete vanj v smislu te uredbe, ob izključitvi oseb, ne glede na njihovo nacionalnost, ki imajo stalno prebivali�če na delu ozemlja federalne države, za katerega je pristojna druga avtonomna skupnost.
(3) Must Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC be interpreted as precluding an autonomous Community of a federal Member State of the European Community from
Ali se morajo členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES razlagati, kot da preprečujejo
Written observations have been submitted by the Government of the French Community and the Walloon Government, by the Flemish Government, by the Netherlands Government and by the Commission.
Pisne izjave so vložile vlada francoske skupnosti in vlada Valonije, flamska vlada, nizozemska vlada in Komisija.
All parties except the Netherlands Government attended the hearing on 27 March 2007 and presented oral argument.
Vse stranke, razen nizozemske vlade, so sodelovale pri naroku 27. marca 2007 in predstavile ustno utemeljitev.
discretionary assessment of personal needs, on the basis of a legally defined position and provided that it relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71. 30
brez posamične ali diskrecijske presoje o osebnih potrebah, na podlagi pravno določenega položaja in če se nana�a na eno od tveganj, navedenih v členu 4(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71. 30
31The Flemish care insurance appears to fit squarely within that definition.
Tako mora biti označeno kot „dajatev za bolezen“ v smislu člena 4(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
All parties are in agreement that this question should be answered in the affirmative.
Vse stranke se strinjajo, da mora biti odgovor na to vpra�anje pritrdilen.
They consider that the benefits provided by the Flemish care insurance are properly to be categorised as social security benefits within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71.
Menijo, da je dajatve, ki jih zagotavlja flamsko zavarovanje, pravilneje opredeliti kot dajatve socialne varnosti v smislu Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
32First, it is not listed in Annex II, Section III of the
Prvič, ni navedeno v Prilogi II, Oddelek III, k Uredbi.
31 — Molenaar, paragraphs 24 and 25; Jauch, paragraph 28; and Hosse, paragraph 38, all cited in previous footnote.
31 – V prej�nji opombi navedene sodbe Molenaar, točki 24 in 25; Jauch, točka 28, in Hosse, točka 38.
As the Court has stated on numerous occasions, a benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit in so far as it is granted to the recipients, without any individual and
Kot je Sodi�če navedlo ob �tevilnih priložnostih, dajatev lahko velja kot dajatev socialne varnosti, če je zagotovljena prejemniku,
32 — See point 15 above.
32 – Glej zgoraj navedeno točko 15.
Second, it appears to be a contributory benefit, 33 inasmuch as it is financed, at least partially, 34 by payment of contributions by those affiliated.
SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-212/06 za katere se plačujejo prispevki 33, če so vsaj delno 34financirani s plačili prispevkov zavarovancev.
35 questions are inadmissible, because an answer would be neither useful nor necessary to the determination of the main proceedings.
35 odgovor ne bi bil niti koristen niti potreben za opredelitev v glavni stvari.
Before the national court, the applicants have opposed the establishment of the care insurance scheme, arguing that the Flemish Community lacked the necessary competence.
Pred nacionalnim sodi�čem so vlagatelji nasprotovali ustanovitvi sistema zavarovanja, z utemeljitvijo, da flamski skupnosti manjkajo ustrezne pristojnosti.
The interpretation of Community law suggested by the applicants would, perversely, result in the extension of the scheme to persons living in the Frenchspeaking region.
Razlaga prava Skupnosti, predlagana s strani vlagateljev, bi, napačno, privedla do razširitve sistema na osebe, ki živijo v francosko govoreči regiji.
Second and third questions
Drugo in tretje vprašanje
The Flemish care insurance excludes from its scope persons working in the Dutchspeaking region or in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, but living in one of Belgium’s other linguistic regions.
Flamsko zavarovanje izključuje iz svojega obsega osebe, ki delajo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital, vendar živijo v eni od drugih belgijskih jezikovnih regij.
Do Regulation No 1408/71 and/or the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of movement for persons and on citizenship of the Union preclude such an arrangement?
Ali Uredba �t. 1408/71 in/ali določbe Pogodbe o prostem gibanju oseb in o državljanstvu Unije preprečujejo tako ureditev?
The Flemish Government also claims that the referring court has itself answered the third question, by establishing that the Flemish care insurance scheme does not endanger the competence of the federal legislator regarding the economic union within Belgium, because of the limited sums of money at stake and the limited effects of the benefits in question.
Flamska vlada prav tako trdi, da je predložitveno sodi�če že samo odgovorilo na tretje vpra�anje z ugotovitvijo, da flamski sistem zavarovanja ne ogroža načela gospodarske unije v Belgiji, zaradi vpletenih omejenih denarnih vsot in omejenih učinkov zadevnih dajatev.
36 The same could be said of any effect on freedom of movement within the Community.
36Enako bi lahko dejali o vsakem učinku na prosto gibanje v Skupnosti.
I am not convinced by these arguments.
Ti argumenti me niso prepričali.
33 — Rather than a special non-contributory cash benefit as defined in Article 4(2a).
33 – Namesto posebnih dajatev, za katere ni treba plačati prispevkov, kot določa člen 4(2a).
The Court has held on numerous occasions that the procedure provided for by Article 234 EC is an instrument of coop-
Sodi�če je ob �tevilnih priložnostih poudarilo, da je postopek, določen s členom 234 ES, sredstvo za sodelovanje med
34 — As the referring judgment indicates in its first question under (d), the care insurance is financed by a combination of members’ annual contributions and a grant paid out of the budget for expenditure of the autonomous Community concerned.
34 – Kot nakazuje predložitvena odločba v prvem vpra�anju pod (d), je zavarovanje financirano s kombinacijo letnih prispevkov članov in z izplačilom iz proračuna zadevne avtonomne skupnosti.
35 — This is a sufficient condition for a benefit to be classified as contributory: see Jauch, cited in footnote 30, paragraphs 29 to 33.
35 – To je zadosten pogoj, da se opredeli kot dajatev, za katero se plačujejo prispevki: glej v opombi 30 navedeno sodbo Jauch, točke od 29 do 33.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT eration between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides national courts with the points of interpretation of Community law which they need in order to decide disputes before them.
Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či v zvezi z razlago prava Skupnosti, ki jo potrebujejo, da bi odločila v sporu, ki ga obravnavajo.
37 conditions in which the case was referred by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction.
37 sodi�če predložilo primer, da bi presodilo, ali je pristojno.
However, the Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. 39
Vendar lahko Sodi�če zavrne razsojanje o vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje nacionalnega sodi�ča samo, če je zelo jasno, da razlaga prava Skupnosti, ki se zahteva, ni v povezavi z dejanskim stanjem glavne tožbe ali njenim namenom, kjer je problem hipotetičen ali kjer Sodi�če nima pred seboj dejanskih ali pravnih podlag, da bi lahko podalo koristen odgovor na predložena vpra�anja. 39
In the context of that cooperation, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
V okviru tega sodelovanja je izključno nacionalno sodi�če, pred katerim je bil sprožen spor in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za ustrezno sodno odločbo, pristojno, da odloči, ob upo�tevanju posebnih okoli�čin primera, o potrebi za predhodno odločanje, da bi lahko izdalo sodbo, in o relevantnosti vpra�anj, ki jih vloži na Sodi�ču.
Consequently, where the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. 38
Zato je Sodi�če, kjer vložena vpra�anja nacionalnega sodi�ča zadevajo razlago prava Skupnosti, načeloma zavezano odločiti o tem vpra�anju. 38
It is true that in exceptional circumstances the Court will examine the
Res je, da bo v izjemnih primerih Sodi�če preučilo pogoje, pod katerimi je nacionalno
In the present case, even if (as the Flemish Government submits) the Court’s answer to Questions 2 and 3 may lead to the extension of the scope of the Flemish care insurance rather than its abolition, it cannot be said that the reply to those questions will not be of assistance in enabling the national court to determine whether the Flemish care insurance as it stands is compatible with Community law.
V tem primeru, tudi če (kot zatrjuje flamska vlada) odgovor Sodi�ča na vpra�anji 2 in 3 lahko vodi v raz�iritev obsega flamskega zavarovanja ter ne k njegovi ukinitvi, ne moremo reči, da odgovor na ti vpra�anji ne bi pripomogel k temu, da bi nacionalno sodi�če presodilo, ali je flamsko zavarovanje – tak�no, kot je – v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
37 — See, inter alia, Case C-83/91 Meilicke [1992] ECR I-4871, paragraph 22; Case C-378/93 La Pyramide [1994] ECR I-3999, paragraph 10; Case C-361/97 Nour [1998] ECR I-3101, paragraph 10; and Case C-380/01 Schneider [2004] ECR-1389, paragraph 20.
39 – V opombi 38 navedena sodba PreussenElektra, točka 39, v opombi 37 navedena sodba Canal Satélite Digital, točka 19, v opombi 37 navedena sodba Schneider, točka 22, in sodba z dne 23. novembra 2006 v zadevi Asnef-Equifax (C-238/05, ZOdl., str.
Citizens of other Member States and Belgian citizens who have made use of their freedom of movement rights
Državljani drugih držav članic in belgijski državljani, ki so izkoristili pravice do prostega gibanja
Moreover, the fact that the referring court may have answered, under national law, a question that is similar to the third question referred does not mean that the answer may be transposed automatically to the situation under Community law.
Še več, dejstvo, da je lahko predložitveno sodi�če po nacionalnem pravu odgovorilo na vpra�anje, ki je podobno vloženemu tretjemu vpra�anju, ne pomeni, da se lahko odgovor avtomatično prenese v položaj po pravu Skupnosti.
It follows that the second and third questions are admissible.
Iz tega sledi, da sta drugo in tretje vpra�anje dopustni.
— Does the situation of this group of persons fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 and/or the provisions of the Treaty on the freedom of movement for persons?
– Ali položaj te skupine oseb sodi v okvir Uredbe �t. 1408/71 in/ali v okvir določb Pogodbe o prostem gibanju oseb?
Citizens of other Member States who work in the Dutchspeaking region or in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital but live in another linguistic region come within the scope of Article 39 or 43 EC (depending on whether they are, respectively, employed or self-employed).
Državljani drugih držav članic, ki delajo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital, vendar živijo v drugi jezikovni regiji, sodijo v okvir členov 39 ali 43 ES (odvisno od tega, ali so zaposleni ali samozaposleni).
They also come within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, by virtue of Article 2 thereof.
Prav tako sodijo v okvir Uredbe �t. 1408/71 na podlagi člena 2 te uredbe.
Belgian citizens who have made use of their freedom of movement rights are in an analogous situation.
Belgijski državljani, ki so izkoristili pravice prostega gibanja, so v podobnem položaju.
More generally, any Community national who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, has exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers and who has been employed in a Member State other
Splo�neje, vsak državljan Skupnosti, ne glede na stalno prebivali�če in nacionalnost, ki je izvr�eval pravico do prostega
In its written observations, the Commission distinguishes between two categories of persons: (i) citizens of other Member States and Belgian citizens who have made use of their freedom of movement rights; (ii) Belgian citizens who have not made use of their freedom of movement rights.
V pisnih stali�čih Komisija razlikuje med dvema kategorijama oseb: (i) državljani drugih držav članic in belgijski državljani, ki so izkoristili pravice do prostega gibanja; (ii) belgijski državljani, ki niso izkoristili pravic do prostega gibanja.
The distinction seems a useful one and I shall adopt it.
Razlikovanje se mi zdi koristno in ga sprejemam.
When than that of residence falls within the scope of Article 39 EC.
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE gibanja delavcev in je bil zaposlen v drugi državi članici od tiste, v kateri ima stalno prebivali�če, sodi v okvir po členu 39 ES.
40 exercising that power, the Member States must nevertheless comply with Community law. 43
40 varstva. 42 Kljub temu morajo države članice pri izvr�evanju te pravice upo�tevati pravo Skupnosti. 43
— Does the residence requirement attached to the Flemish care insurance constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers?
– Ali zahteva po stalnem prebivali�ču, ki je sestavni del flamskega zavarovanja, predstavlja oviro za prosto gibanje delavcev?
Moreover, even if, according to their wording, the rules on freedom of movement for workers are intended, in particular, to secure the benefit of national treatment in the host State, they also preclude the State of origin from obstructing the freedom of one of its nationals to accept and pursue employment in another Member State. 41
Še več, tudi če so pravila o prostem gibanju delavcev glede na njihovo besedilo namenjena predvsem zagotovitvi ugodnosti nacionalne obravnave v državi gostiteljici, pa preprečujejo državi izvora oviranje svobode enega svojih državljanov, da sprejme zaposlitev in se zaposli v drugi državi članici. 41
It is well established that the EC Treaty provisions relating to freedom of movement for workers are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community nationals of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community and that they preclude measures which might place Community nationals at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State. 44
Dobro je znano, da so določbe Pogodbe ES, ki se nana�ajo na prosto gibanje delavcev, namenjene olaj�anju opravljanja vseh vrst zaposlitvenih aktivnosti državljanom Skupnosti po vsej Skupnosti in da preprečujejo ukrepe, ki bi državljane Skupnosti lahko postavili v prikraj�an položaj, ko želijo opravljati gospodarsko dejavnost na ozemlju druge države članice. 44
Community law does not of course detract from the power of the Member States to organise their social security systems — in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it is for the legislation of each Member State to determine the conditions on which
Pravo Skupnosti seveda ne posega v pravico države članice, da organizira svoje sisteme socialne varnosti – ob neobstoju usklajenosti na ravni Skupnosti se z zakonodajo vsake države članice določi pogoje, pod katerimi so odobrene dajatve socialnega
42 — The Treaty did not provide for the harmonisation of the social security legislation of the Member States.
42 – Pogodba ne omogoča usklajenosti zakonodaje o socialni varnosti držav članic.
In particular, Article 42 EC (the legal basis, with Article 308 EC, of Regulation No 1408/71) provides only for the coordination of legislation.
Posebej člen 42 ES (s členom 308 ES je pravna podlaga Uredbe �t. 1408/71) določa le koordinacijo zakonodaj.
Substantive and procedural differences between the social security systems of individual Member States, and hence in the rights of persons working there, are therefore unaffected by that provision: see Joined Cases C-393/99 and C-394/99 Hervein [2002] ECR I-2829, paragraph 50 and the caselaw cited therein.
Zato ta določila ne vplivajo na vsebinske in postopkovne razlike med sistemi socialne varnosti posameznih držav članic ter posledično na pravice ljudi, ki tam delajo: glej sodbo z dne 19. marca 2002 v združenih zadevah Hervein in drugi (C-393/99 in C-394/99, Recueil, str.
41 — De Groot, paragraph 79; see also, inter alia, Terhoeve, paragraphs 27 to 29; and Case C-208/05 ITC [2007] ECR I-181, paragraphs 31 to 34.
41 – V opombi 40 navedena sodba De Groot, točka 79, glej tudi sodbi Terhoeve, točke od 27 do 29, in sodbo z dne 11. januarja 2007 v zadevi ITC (C-208/05, ZOdl., str. I-181, točke od 31 do 34).
Provisions which preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin to exercise his right to freedom of movement are potentially capable of constituting an obstacle to that freedom even if they apply without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned.
Določbe, ki preprečujejo ali odvračajo državljana države članice, da zapusti državo izvora, da bi uveljavil pravico do prostega gibanja, lahko potencialno predstavljajo oviro do te svobode, tudi če se uporabljajo ne glede na državljanstvo zadevnega delavca.
45In other words, a national measure can potentially constitute a prohibited obstacle even if it is non-discriminatory.
45Z drugimi besedami, nacionalni ukrep lahko potencialno predstavlja prepovedano oviro, tudi če ta ni diskriminacijska.
might therefore decide to move to Jodoigne (situated in the Frenchspeaking region of Belgium) about seven kilometres south of Hoegaarden.
lahko odločil, da se preseli v Jodoigne (nahaja se v francosko govoreči regiji), približno 7 kilometrov južno od Hoegaardna.
If he does so, he will not be able to join the Flemish care insurance.
Če to stori, se ne bo mogel vključiti v flamsko zavarovanje.
If he wanted to sign up to that scheme and still live in a region where French is an official language, he would have to choose between settling in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital (for example in Woluwe-Saint-Lambert/Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe, about 44 kilometres to the west of Hoegaarden) or keeping his residence in France. 47
Če bi se želel vključiti v ta sistem in �e vedno živeti v regiji, kjer je franco�čina uradni jezik, bi moral izbirati med naselitvijo v dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital (na primer v Woluwe-Saint-Lambert/Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe, približno 44 kilometrov zahodno od Hoegaardna) ali obdržati stalno prebivali�če v Franciji. 47
However, in order actually to constitute an obstacle, such provisions must affect access of workers to the labour market and their effect on freedom of movement must not be too indirect and uncertain. 46
Vendar morajo take določbe, da bi predstavljale oviro, vplivati na dostop delavcev do trga dela, njihov vpliv na prosto gibanje pa ne sme biti preveč posreden in negotov. 46
The prospect of daily commuting on overcrowded highways, and indeed the environmental impact of such commuting, might dissuade him from taking up the employment in question, and hence from exercising his right to freedom of movement.
Pričakovanje dnevnih migracij na prenapolnjenih avtocestah in resne okoljevarstvene posledice takih migracij ga lahko odvrnejo od tega, da bi sprejel zadevno zaposlitev in posledično od uveljavljanja pravice do prostega gibanja.
Since the French Community and the Germanspeaking Community have not established similar care insurance schemes, he could not solve the problem by seeking affiliation to a care insurance scheme at a place of residence within Belgium outside the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital.
Ker francoska skupnost in nem�ko govoreča skupnost nista uvedli podobnega sistema zavarovanja, ne bi mogel re�iti problema z vstopom v sistem zavarovanja v kraju stalnega prebivali�ča v Belgiji zunaj nizozemsko govoreče regije ali dvojezične regije Bruselj-Capital.
At this stage, let us examine the practical effect of the Flemish care insurance rules.
V tej fazi bom preučila praktičen učinek pravil flamskega zavarovanja.
Imagine a French national who wishes to take up employment in Hoegaarden (situated in the Dutchspeaking region of Belgium) and who currently lives in Givet in the Champagne-Ardenne region in France (about 95 kilometres south of Hoegaarden).
Predstavljajmo si francoskega državljana, ki je pripravljen sprejeti zaposlitev v Hoegaardnu (nahaja se v nizozemsko govoreči regiji v Belgiji) in trenutno živi v Givetu, v regiji Champagne-Ardenne v Franciji (približno 95 kilometrov južno od Hoegaardna).
Not implausibly, he might prefer to live in a region where his mother tongue is the official language and where his children can easily go to a local school in that same language. He
Ni nepričakovano, da bi raje živel v regiji, kjer je njegov materni jezik uradni jezik in kjer bi otroci brez težav obiskovali �olo v istem jeziku.