natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is true that other benefits provided for by the national legislation in question might be regarded as closely linked with the social environment.
Vendar je invalidska pokojnina iz postopka v glavni stvari dodeljena za povračilo �kode za zdravje, povzročene z bivanjem v koncentracijskem tabori�ču, neodvisno od ekonomskega položaja upravičenca; pokojnina ima značilnosti od�kodnine za povzročeno trpljenje.
They cannot however, without infringing the principle of proportionality, justify a general requirement of residence throughout the period during which the benefit is granted, whatever the benefit may be.
To je potrdila tudi tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, s tem ko je v stali�čih izrecno navedla, da dodelitev pokoj- nine, ki je predmet postopka v glavni stvari, ni podrejena oceni osebnih potreb upravičenca.
It would thus be for the national legislature to make a distinction, from the viewpoint of the criterion of residence, according to the nature of the benefits in question.
Le znesek navedene pokojnine bi bilo mogoče prilagoditi ravni ekonomskega življenja na Poljskem.
In any event, as the disability pension at issue in the main proceedings does not appear to be closely linked with the social environment, there is no adequate reason to make payment thereof subject to compliance with a residence condition.
Res je, da bi druge dajatve, določene v zadevni nacionalni zakonodaji, lahko �teli za tesno povezane s socialnim okoljem.
Benefits which are classified in that way by the caselaw are benefits for the grant of which the claimant’s need is a fundamental criterion and which consequently seek to ensure that he has a minimum standard of living in the social and economic environment of the Member State which provides those benefits.
Nacionalni zakonodajalec bi torej ob upo�tevanju merila prebivali�ča moral razlikovati glede na naravo zadevnih dajatev.
The disability pension in the main proceedings is granted to compensate for damage to health caused by a stay in a place of isolation, irrespective of the recipient’s financial situation; it is in the nature of compensation for suffering which has been endured.
Ker se v vsakem primeru zadevna invalidska pokojnina v postopku v glavni stvari ne zdi tesno povezana s socialnim okoljem, pogojevanje njenega izplačila s prebivali�čem ne more biti upravičeno.
In view of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court should answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling in the following way:
Glede na ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovori tako:
‘Article 18 EC, which guarantees citizens of the European Union the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes payment of a disability pension that is linked to a stay in a place of isolation subject to a condition that the person entitled be resident in national territory throughout the period during which the benefit is paid.’
Člen 18 ES, ki državljanom Evropske unije zagotavlja svobodo gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki plačilo invalidske pokojnine, povezane z bivanjem v koncentracijskem tabori�ču, pogojuje s prebivali�čem upravičenca na nacionalnem ozemlju v celotnem obdobju izplačevanja dajatve.
2008 — CASE C-499/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-499/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 22. maja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Poland), made by decision of 13 November 2006, received at the Court on 8 December 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-499/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Poljska) z odločbo z dne 13. novembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 8. decembra 2006, v postopku
* Language of the case: Polish.
* Jezik postopka: polj�čina.
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Poiares Maduro, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-499/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-499/06 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 18(1) EC.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 18(1) ES.
Article 5 of the 1974 Law states that the benefits provided for by that Law are to be paid to the person entitled to them whilst he is resident in the territory of the Republic of Poland, unless the Law or an international agreement stipulates otherwise.
Člen 5 zakona iz leta 1974 predvideva, da se dajatve, določene s tem zakonom, plačajo upravičencu med njegovim bivanjem na ozemlju Republike Poljske, razen če ni z zakonom ali mednarodno pogodbo določeno drugače.
Under Article 3 of the 1974 Law those pensions are financed by the Polish State.
V skladu s členom 3 zakona iz leta 1974 te pokojnine financira poljska država.
Under Article 12(2) of the Law of 24 January 1991 on combatants and certain persons who are the victims of wartime and postwar repression, the cash benefits and other entitlements provided for by the 1974 Law are also to be received by persons who have been added to one of the groups of disabled persons on account of a disability connected, in particular, with a period spent in prison, in an internment camp, in a camp which was subject to the Main Administration for Affairs of Prisoners of War and Internees (GUPVI) of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) and, from March 1946, of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) of the former USSR, or in a camp subject to the Control and Filtration Camps Division of the NKVD and, from March 1946, of the MVD.
Na podlagi člena 12(2) zakona z dne 24. januarja 1991 o borcih in nekaterih osebah, žrtvah represije med vojno in po njej, imajo pravico do denarnih dajatev in druge pravice, ki jih predvideva zakon iz leta 1974, tudi osebe, razvr�čene v skupino invalidov zaradi invalidnosti, ki je zlasti posledica bivanja v ujetni�kem ali internacijskem tabori�ču med vojno ali po njej, ali v tabori�ču, ki ga je nadzorovala glavna uprava za vojne ujetnike in internirance (GUPVI) ljudskega komisariata za notranje zadeve (NKVD) in, od marca 1946, ministrstvo za notranje zadeve (MVD) nekdanje ZSSR, ali v tabori�ču, ki ga je nadzorovala enota za nadzorna in filtracijska tabori�ča NKVD in, od marca 1946, navedeno ministrstvo za notranje zadeve.
Those benefits are also received by persons who were the victims of wartime and postwar repression, that is to say by people who, on account of their political, religious and national convictions, were forcibly exiled or were deported to the former USSR.
Do teh dajatev imajo pravico tudi osebe, ki so bile žrtve represij med vojno in po njej, torej osebe, ki so bile v nekdanjo ZSSR izgnane ali odvedene v prisilno izgnanstvo zaradi svojih političnih, verskih in nacionalnih prepričanj.
A disability resulting from wounds, contusions and other lesions or from an illness which arose because of a period of deportation is considered to be a disability connected with a period of deportation.
Za invalidnost, povezano z bivanjem v prisilnem izgnanstvu, �tejemo invalidnost, ki je posledica ran, udarnin in drugih po�kodb ali bolezni, ki so nastale zaradi tak�nega bivanja.
At the age of three she lost her parents who were deported to Siberia pursuant to a court order.
Ko je bila stara tri leta, je izgubila star�e, ki so bili na podlagi sodne odločbe prisilno izgnani v Sibirijo.
In April 1951, Ms Nerkowska, her brother and her aunt were themselves deported to the former USSR.
Aprila 1951 so bili H. Nerkowska, njen brat in njena teta prav tako prisilno izgnani v nekdanjo ZSSR. Tam je H.
After almost six years she returned to Poland.
Po skoraj �estih letih se je vrnila na Poljsko.
She studied there and then, after completing her studies, she worked in an administrative post.
Začela je �tudirati in se po končanem �tudiju zaposlila kot upravna uslužbenka.
In 1985, she left Poland and settled permanently in Germany.
Leta 1985 se je izselila iz Poljske in se nastanila v Nemčiji.
That court did not uphold her arguments and dismissed the appeal by judgment of 22 May 2003, which was delivered after the taking of evidence.
To sodi�če ni ugodilo njenemu utemeljevanju in je njeno pritožbo zavrnilo s sodbo z dne 22. maja 2003, ki je bila izdana po koncu dokaznega postopka.
In support of her application, she submitted that the Republic of Poland had acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 and had consequently incorporated Community law into the Polish legal order.
V podporo svojega zahtevka je H. Nerkowska navedla, da je Republika Poljska 1. maja 2004 pristopila k Evropski uniji in sprejela pravo Skupnosti v notranje pravo Poljske.
She submitted that, on account of the Republic of Poland’s accession to the European Union, her present place of residence cannot constitute an obstacle to the payment of that benefit.
Trdila je, da zaradi pristopa Republike Poljske k Evropski uniji kraj njenega trenutnega prebivali�ča ne more biti ovira za izplačilo te dajatve.
In those circumstances, the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Does Article 18 EC, which guarantees citizens of the European Union the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, preclude the binding force of the national rules laid down in Article 5 of the [1974 Law] in so far as they make payment of a pension benefit for incapacity for work that is linked to a stay in places of isolation subject to fulfilment of the condition that the person en titled be resident in the territory of the Polish State?’
„Ali člen 18 ES, ki državljanom Evropske unije zagotavlja pravico prostega gibanja in bivanja na ozemlju držav članic, nasprotuje uporabi veljavne nacionalne zakonske ureditve iz člena 5 [zakona iz leta 1974], če je izplačilo pokojnin zaradi delovne nezmožnosti, povezane z bivanjem v koncentracijskih tabori�čih, odvisno od izpolnitve pogoja, da upravičena oseba prebiva na ozemlju Republike Poljske?“
Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling
Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
By its question, the national court essentially asks whether Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses to pay one of its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression although it has been acknowledged by a decision of the competent authority that that national is entitled to such a benefit, on the sole ground that the national is habitually resident in the territory of another Member State and not in that of the Member State in question.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 18(1) ES razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, na podlagi katere bi slednja svojim državljanom zavrnila izplačilo dajatev, odobrenih civilnim žrtvam vojne ali represije, čeprav je bila pravica do take dajatve nekemu državljanu priznana z odločbo pristojnega organa, samo zato, ker slednji nima stalnega prebivali�ča na ozemlju te države, ampak ga ima v drugi državi članici.
It must be determined at the outset whether a situation such as that in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Community law, and in particular of Article 18(1) EC.
V zvezi s tem je treba predhodno ugotoviti, ali položaj, kot je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, spada na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti, zlasti člena 18(1) ES.
The applicability of Article 18(1) EC
Uporaba člena 18(1) ES
First, regarding the scope ratione personae of this provision, suffice it to state that, under Article 17(1) EC, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union.
Glede področja uporabe navedene določbe v zvezi z osebami zadostuje ugotovitev, da je v skladu s členom 17(1) ES državljan Unije tisti, ki je državljan ene od njenih držav članic.
In addition, Article 17(2) EC attributes to citizens of the Union the rights conferred and duties imposed by the EC Treaty, including those mentioned in Article 18(1) EC (Case C-192/05 Tas-Hagen et Tas [2006] ECR I-10451, paragraph 18).
Poleg tega odstavek 2 istega člena status državljana Unije povezuje s pravicami in dolžnostmi, ki jih določa Pogodba ES, med katerimi so tudi tiste, navedene v členu 18(1) ES (sodba z dne 26. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Tas-Hagen in Tas, C-192/05, ZOdl., str. I-10451, točka 18).
Secondly, as to the scope ratione materiae of Article 18(1) EC, it is to be noted that, as Community law now stands, a benefit such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which is intended to compensate civilian victims of war or repression for physical or mental harm which they have suffered, falls within the competence of the Member States (Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 21).
Poleg tega je treba glede na stvarno področje uporabe člena 18(1) ES poudariti, da na trenutni stopnji razvoja prava Skupnosti dajatev, kot je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, katere namen je povrnitev �kode civilnim žrtvam vojne ali represije zaradi psihične ali telesne okvare, ki so jo te utrpele, spada v pristojnost držav članic (zgoraj navedena sodba Tas-Hagen in Tas, točka 21).
However, Member States must exercise that competence in accordance with Community law, in particular with the Treaty provisions concerning the freedom accorded to every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 22).
Vendar morajo slednje to pristojnost izvajati ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti, zlasti določb Pogodbe o priznavanju svobo�čine vsem državljanom Unije, da se prosto gibljejo in bivajo na ozemlju držav članic (zgoraj navedena sodba Tas-Hagen in Tas, točka 22).
By taking up residence in Germany, the applicant in the main proceedings exercised the right conferred by Article 18(1) EC on every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State other than that of which he is a national.
S tem ko je tožeča stranka v glavni stvari za svoje prebivali�če izbrala Nemčijo, je uporabila pravico, ki jo člen 18(1) ES namenja vsem državljanom Unije, da se prosto gibljejo in bivajo na ozemlju države članice, ki ni država članica njihovega državljanstva.
Furthermore, it is clear from the documents sent to the Court by the national court that the refusal to pay the disability pension which had been granted to Ms Nerkowska was attributable solely to the fact that she had taken up residence in Germany.
Poleg tega iz spisa, ki ga je predložitveno sodi�če poslalo Sodi�ču, jasno izhaja, da je zavrnitev izplačila invalidskih pokojnin, ki jih je pridobila H. Nerkowska, posledica dejstva, da je ta imela prebivali�če v Nemčiji.
It follows that a situation in which the exercise by Ms Nerkowska of a freedom accorded by Community law has an impact on her right to the payment of a benefit under national legislation cannot be considered to be a purely internal matter with no link to Community law.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da položaja, v katerem H. Nerkowska izvaja svojo svobo�čino, ki jo priznava pravni red Skupnosti, pri čemer je to izvajanje vplivalo na njeno pravico do izplačila dajatve, predvidene z nacionalno zakonodajo, ni mogoče obravnavati kot položaj čisto notranjega značaja, ki bi bil brez vsakr�ne povezave s pravom Skupnosti.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether Article 18(1) EC, which is applicable to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation requiring that the recipient of a disability pension paid to civilian victims of war or repression be resident in the territory of the Member State granting such a benefit.
Treba je torej preučiti, ali je treba člen 18(1) ES, ki se uporablja za položaje, kakr�en je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki zahteva za izplačilo invalidske pokojnine civilnim žrtvam vojne ali represije, da ima upravičenec svoje prebivali�če v državi članici, ki odloča o odobritvi tak�ne dajatve.
The residence requirement
Zahtevani pogoj prebivališča
With regard to the scope of Article 18(1) EC, the Court has already held that the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement cannot be fully effective if a national of a Member State can be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles raised to his residence in the host Member State by legislation of his State of origin penalising the fact that he has used them (Case C-224/02 Pusa [2004] ECR I-5763, paragraph 19, and Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 30).
Glede obsega člena 18(1) ES je Sodi�če že presodilo, da možnosti, ki jih daje Pogodba na področju prostega gibanja oseb, ne bi imele svojega polnega učinka, če bi državljana neke države članice lahko odvrnile od njihove uporabe zaradi ovir, ki jih njegovemu bivanju v državi članici gostiteljici iz razlogov pravne ureditve postavlja njegova lastna matična država, ki kaznuje dejstvo, da jih je ta dejansko uporabil (sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Pusa, C-224/02, Recueil, str. I-5763, točka 19, in zgoraj navedena sodba Tas-Hagen in Tas, točka 30).
National legislation which places certain of the nationals of the Member State concerned at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and to reside in another Member State is a restriction on the freedoms conferred by Article 18(1) EC on every citizen of the Union (Case C-406/04 De Cuyper [2006] ECR I-6947, paragraph 39, and Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 31).
Nacionalna zakonska ureditev, ki je za določene državljane manj ugodna zgolj zaradi tega, ker so uporabili svojo svobo�čino do prostega gibanja in bivanja v drugi državi članici, pomeni omejitev pravic, ki jih člen 18(1) ES priznava vsakemu državljanu Unije (sodba z dne 18. julija 2006 v zadevi De Cuyper, C-406/04, ZOdl., str. I-6947, točka 39, in zgoraj navedena sodba Tas-Hagen in Tas, točka 31).
The 1974 Law constitutes such a restriction.
Vendar zakon iz leta 1974 določa tako omejitev.
In making the payment of the disability pension established for civilian victims of war or repression conditional on the
S tem ko izplačilo invalidske pokojnine, vzpostavljeno v korist civilnih žrtev vojne ali represije, pogojuje s tem, da morajo upravičenci imeti svoje prebivali�če na nacionalnem ozemlju, navedeni zakon poljske
2008 — CASE C-499/06 recipients’ being resident in the territory of Poland, that Law is liable to deter Polish nationals in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings from exercising their freedom to move and to reside in a Member State other than Poland.
2008 – ZADEVA C-499/06 državljane, ki so v položaju, kot je položaj tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, namreč lahko odvrača od uporabe njihove pravice do prostega gibanja in bivanja v državi članici, ki ni Poljska.
National legislation which imposes such a restriction on the exercise of freedoms by nationals of the Member State concerned can be justified, under Community law, only if it is based on objective considerations of public interest independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and is proportionate to the legitimate objective of the national provisions (De Cuyper, paragraph 40, and Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 33).
Nacionalna zakonska ureditev, ki nalaga tako omejitev v zvezi z izvajanjem svobo�čin domačih državljanov, je z vidika prava Skupnosti lahko utemeljena le, če temelji na objektivnih preudarkih v splo�nem interesu, ki niso odvisni od državljanstva zadevnih oseb, in če je sorazmerna s ciljem, ki ga legitimno zasleduje nacionalno pravo (zgoraj navedeni sodbi De Cuyper, točka 40, in Tas-Hagen in Tas, točka 33).
As to the first condition, it is apparent from the observations submitted to the Court both by the defendant in the main proceedings and by the Polish Government that the restriction provided for by the 1974 Law results essentially from the Polish legislature’s wish to limit the obligation of solidarity with civilian victims of war or repression solely to those who have a connection with the Polish people.
Glede prvega pogoja iz pripomb, ki sta jih Sodi�ču predložili tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari in poljska vlada, izhaja, da omejitev, ki jo predvideva zakon iz leta 1974, izhaja nujno iz želje poljskega zakonodajalca po omejitvi obveznosti solidarnosti v zvezi s civilnimi žrtvami vojne ali represije le na osebe, pri katerih obstaja navezna okoli�čina s poljskim narodom.
In their submission. the residence condition is therefore an expression of the extent to which such victims are integrated in Polish society.
Pogoj prebivali�ča bi bil torej izraz stopnje njihove integracije v poljski družbi.
Furthermore, the defendant in the main proceedings and the Polish Government maintain that only a residence condition such as that at issue in the main proceedings is capable of ensuring that it can be verified that the situation of the recipient of the benefit concerned has not been subject to changes which may affect his entitlement to that benefit.
Poleg tega tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari in poljska vlada poudarjata, da le tak�en pogoj prebivali�ča, kot je ta v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari, zagotavlja možnost preverjanja, ali se položaj upravičenca do zadevne dajatve ni toliko spremenil, da bi to vplivalo na njegovo pravico do te dajatve.
1), renders the monitoring carried out by the competent Polish bodies ineffective.
1), onemogoča uspe�nost in učinkovitost nadzora, ki ga izvajajo poljski pristojni organi.
They also submit that other, less restrictive, measures would not be as effective as the residence condition.
Poleg tega trdita, da manj restriktivni ukrepi ne bi bili tako učinkoviti, kot je uporaba navedenega pogoja.
It is true that both the wish to ensure that there is a connection between the society of the Member State concerned and the recipient of a benefit and the necessity to verify that the recipient continues to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that benefit constitute objective considerations of public interest which are capable of justifying the fact that the conditions for the grant or payment of the benefit may affect the freedom of movement of the citizens of that Member State.
Nedvomno sta tako želja po zagotavljanju obstoja naveznih okoli�čin med družbo zadevne države članice in upravičencem do dajatve kot zahteva po preverjanju, ali upravičenec �e naprej izpolnjuje pogoje za prejemanje te dajatve, objektivna preudarka v splo�nem interesu, ki upravičujeta, da pogoji za pridobitev ali izplačilo take dajatve vplivajo na prosto gibanje državljanov te države članice.
As regards the requirement for a connection with the society of the Member State concerned, the Court has held, with regard to a benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is not covered by Community law, that Member States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in deciding which criteria are to be used to assess the degree of connection to society, while at the same time being required to comply with the limits imposed by Community law (Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 36).
V zvezi z zahtevo po obstoju navezne okoli�čine z družbo zadevne države članice je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da imajo države članice glede dajatve, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki se ne ureja po pravu Skupnosti, na voljo �iroko prosto presojo glede določitve meril za presojo take navezanosti, pri čemer so dolžne spo�tovati omejitve, ki jih nalaga pravo Skupnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba Tas-Hagen in Tas, točka 36).