natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
He also applied to the referring court for interim measures. The latter declared, by way of an order of 4 December 2006, that that appeal brought about a stay of proceedings.
Poleg tega je pred predložitvenim sodi�čem vložil predlog za izdajo začasne odredbe, na podlagi katerega je to sodi�če s sklepom z dne 4. decembra 2006 odločilo, da ima ugovor suspenzivni učinek.
During the interlocutory proceedings, Mr Er claimed to be making efforts to find work.
V postopku za izdajo začasne odredbe je H. Er navajal, da si prizadeva najti delo.
He produced a letter of 20 December 2005 from the training centre in Frankfurt inviting him to take part in a job-support scheme for one month.
Predložil je pismo centra za usposabljanje iz Frankfurta z dne 20. decembra 2005, v katerem je bil povabljen, naj se udeleži enomesečnega programa podpore pri iskanju zaposlitve. H. Er se je udeležil programa, vendar ga je prekinil z utemeljitvijo, da ne ustreza njegovemu profilu.
The report evaluating Mr Er’s abilities concluded that these were mediocre, that he had very little perseverance and that he was unpunctual.
V poročilu o oceni sposobnosti H. Era je ugotovljeno, da so njegove sposobnosti skromne, da ni vztrajen in da ni dovolj natančen.
It was considered appropriate that he enter the job market immediately, there being no point in the acquisition of further qualifications.
Takoj�nja uvrstitev na delovni trg bi bila ustrezna, saj pridobitev dodatnih kvalifikacij ne bi bila koristna. H.
As a result of the successful progression of his course from the beginning of February 2006, it was planned that Mr Er would secure a pos -ition as a baggage handler at Frankfurt airport.
Na podlagi pozitivnega poteka njegovega usposabljanja od začetka februarja 2006 je bil H. Er predviden za delovno mesto nosača prtljage ne letali�ču v Frankfurtu.
The referring court points out, however, that, in the absence of a certificate of good behaviour, the job application was not sent to the potential employer.
Predložitveno sodi�če je opozorilo, da ker H. Er ni predložil potrdila o nekaznovanosti, kandidatov dosje vendarle ni bil poslan predvidenemu delodajalcu.
The referring court also alludes to a note from the Federal Employment Agency, dated 18 August 2006, concerning an interview with Mr Er.
Predložitveno sodi�če je nadalje opozorilo na opombo Zvezne agencije za delo z dne 18. avgusta 2006 glede pogovora s H. Erom.
According to this note, Mr Er had not made an effort to enter the job market.
V skladu s to opombo si slednji nikakor ni prizadeval za vključitev na trg dela.
He was, moreover, in debt, and his mother wished him to leave the family home.
Poleg tega je zabredel v dolgove in njegova mati je želela, da zapusti družinsko stanovanje.
He pleads that the Aliens Authority should be ordered to extend his residence permit on the ground that he benefits from the legal status conferred by the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, irrespective of whether he has, or is seeking, employment in Germany.
S to tožbo je zahteval, naj se službi za tujce naloži, da podalj�a njegovo dovoljenje za bivanje, ker ima pravico, zagotovljeno s členom 7, prvi odstavek, Sklepa �t. 1/80, in sicer ne glede na to, ali je zaposlen oziroma ali i�če zaposlitev na območju Nemčije.
The decision to refer states that, at the present time, Mr Er is not receiving social security benefits but that, because of his reluctance to work, he will be able to meet his living expenses over the long term only with the assistance of social security benefits.
V predložitveni odločbi je navedeno, da H. Er trenutno ne prejema nobene socialne pomoči, vendar bo zaradi njegovega obotavljanja pri zaposlitvi njegovo preživljanje trajno mogoče le s socialnimi dajatvami.
In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgericht Gießen decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Zaradi teh okoli�čin je Verwaltungsgericht Giessen prekinilo odločanje in je Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje postavilo to vpra�anje:
‘Does a Turkish national who, as a family member, received authorisation to join his father living in Germany who, as a Turkish worker, was duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the Federal Republic of Germany, and who acquired, by virtue of having previously lived together legally with his father for five years, the legal status as referred to in the second indent of the first paragraph of Decision No 1/80, lose that legal status as a consequence of the fact that, for more than seven years after leaving school, apart from one alleged single day of work on a trial basis, he has at no time been in employment, drops out of all government support schemes designed to
„Ali tur�ki državljan – ki mu je bilo kot družinskemu članu dovoljeno, da se pridruži očetu, ki živi v Nemčiji in ki je kot tur�ki delavec vključen v zakoniti trg dela te države, in ki je po petih letih zakonitega skupnega prebivanja z očetom pridobil pravico na podlagi člena 7, prvi odstavek, druga alinea, Sklepa �t. 1/80 – izgubi ugodnosti na podlagi te določbe, ker v več kot sedmih letih po končanem �olanju ni opravljal nobene poklicne dejavnosti, z izjemo domnevne enodnevne zaposlitve, in ker je poleg tega prenehal sodelovati pri vseh državnih programih podpore pri iskanju zaposlitve
ER promote the taking-up of employment and does not himself make any serious efforts to take up employment, instead living by turns on social security benefits, financial support from his mother living in Germany and means of unknown origin?’
ER ter si ne prizadeva resno najti dela, ampak namesto tega živi od socialne pomoči, finančne podpore svoje matere, ki živi v Nemčiji, in virov neznanega izvora?“
By its question, the referring court is essentially asking whether a Turkish national who benefits from the right to take up any paid employment of his choice in a Member State in accordance with the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 loses his right to reside in that Member State, and thereby that right freely to take up employment, on the ground that, having reached the age of 23, he has not engaged in paid employment since leaving school at the age of 16, and has participated in government job-support schemes without, however, completing them.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali tur�ki državljan, ki v državi članici na podlagi člena 7, prvi odstavek, druga alinea, Sklepa �t. 1/80 uživa pravico do prostega dostopa do vseh zaposlitev, ki jih sam izbere, izgubi pravico do bivanja v tej državi članici in prav tako tudi pravico do prostega dostopa, ker v starosti 23 let, od končanja �olanja v starosti 16 let, ni bil zaposlen in je sodeloval v programih podpore pri iskanju zaposlitve, ne da bi jih tudi končal.
In order to answer this question, it should be noted that the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 has direct effect in the Member States, with the result that Turkish nationals fulfilling the conditions which it lays down may rely directly on the rights conferred on them by that provision.
Pri odgovoru na to vpra�anje je treba spomniti, da ima člen 7, prvi odstavek, Sklepa �t. 1/80 v državah članicah neposredni učinek, tako da lahko tur�ki državljani, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, neposredno uveljavljajo pravice, ki jim jih daje ta določba.
The rights that this provision grants the child of a Turkish worker with regard to employment in the Member State concerned necessarily imply, so as not to render the right of access to the labour market and to engage in paid employment totally ineffective, a concomitant right of residence in favour of the person concerned (see, inter alia, Case C-467/02 Cetinkaya [2004] ECR I-10895, paragraph 31, and Derin, paragraph 47).
Pravice, ki jih ta določba glede zaposlitve v zadevni državi članici zagotavlja otroku tur�kega delavca, nujno obsegajo obstoj s tem povezane pravice do prebivanja zadevne osebe, saj bi bil drugače odvzet ves učinek pravici do dostopa do trga dela in do dejanske zaposlitve (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 11. novembra 2004 v zadevi Cetinkaya, C-467/02, ZOdl., str. I-10895, točka 31, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Derin, točka 47).
It follows that it is no longer open to the Member States to adopt measures relating to residence which are such as to impede the exercise of the rights expressly conferred by Decision No 1/80 on a person who satisfies the conditions which it lays down and who is therefore already legally integrated into the host Member State (see Ergat, paragraph 42).
Iz tega sledi, da države članice nimajo pravice določati pogojev za prebivanje, ki bi ovirali izvr�evanje pravic, ki so s Sklepom izrecno priznane osebam, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene v Sklepu �t. 1/80, in ki so se zakonito integrirale v državi članici gostiteljici (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ergat, točka 42).
It is particularly important not to deprive such a person of his right of residence, precisely at the time when, by virtue of free access to employment of his choosing, he has the prospect of becoming permanently integrated in his host Member State (see, to that effect, Ergat, paragraph 43).
Bistveno pa je, da se osebe ne prikraj�a za njeno pravico do bivanja, ravno ko ima zaradi prostega dostopa do zaposlitve po svoji izbiri možnost, da se trajno integrira v državo članico gostiteljico (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ergat, točka 43).
The Court has concluded, on that basis, that a Turkish national accorded rights under Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 cannot be deprived of them either because he
Sodi�če je sklenilo, da tur�ki državljan, ki so mu bile priznane pravice na podlagi člena 7 Sklepa �t. 1/80, teh ne bi smel izgubiti niti zato, ker se zaradi obsodbe na
ER was unemployed on account of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment, even one of several years’ duration which was not suspended, or because he never acquired rights relating to employment and residence pursuant to Article 6(1) of that decision.
ER zaporno kazen, četudi večletno in nepogojno, ne more zaposliti, niti zato, ker nikoli ni pridobil pravice do zaposlitve in prebivanja na podlagi člena 6(1) Sklepa �t. 1/80.
It has held that, in contrast to Turkish workers to whom Article 6(1) applies, the status of members of their family referred to in Article 7 of that decision does not depend on paid employment (Derin, paragraph 56).
V nasprotju s tur�kimi državljani, za katere se uporablja slednja določba, položaj članov njihove družine, določen v členu 7 tega sklepa, ni odvisen od tega, ali se zaposlijo (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Derin, točka 56).
Therefore, the fact that the person concerned was not active on the labour market for several years does not prevent him from relying on the provisions of the second indent of the first paragraph of Decision No 1/80 in order to claim a right of residence in the host Member State (see Polat, paragraph 21).
Tudi okoli�čina, da zadevna oseba več let ni bila na voljo na trgu dela, slednji ne preprečuje, da bi se v državi članici sklicevala na uveljavljanje pravice do bivanja, na podlagi člena 7, prvi odstavek druga alinea, Sklepa �t. 1/80 (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Polat, točka 21).
This applies a fortiori to a Turkish national, such as Mr Er, who has not left the labour market.
Ti preudarki a fortiori veljajo za tur�kega državljana, kot je H. Er, ki ni zapustil trga dela.
The fact that, at the age of 23, he still does not have paid employment does not prevent his being granted a right of residence.
Okoli�čina, da v starosti 23 let ni ves čas zaposlen, ni ovira za njegovo pravico do bivanja.
A Turkish national who has joined his parents in a Member State in the context of a family reunion, and has lived with them since the age of two, fulfils the conditions of the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80.
Tur�ki državljan, ki se je zaradi združitve družine pridružil svojim star�em v državi članici in je skupaj z njimi živel od svojega drugega leta starosti, namreč izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 7, prvi odstavek, druga alinea, Sklepa �t. 1/80.
It is important, on the contrary, not to deny him this right, without which he would be unable to accede to such employment or be able to exercise the right granted to him by that provision in order to become better integrated in the host Member State.
Nasprotno, pomembno je, da se mu ne odvzame te pravice, brez katere nima dostopa do zaposlitve in ne more izvajati pravice, ki mu jo s ciljem dalj�e integracije v državi članici gostiteljici priznava ta določba.
The question referred must, therefore, be answered to the effect that a Turkish national, who was authorised to enter the territory of a Member State as a child in the context of a family reunion and who has acquired the right to take up freely any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, does not lose the right of residence in that State, which is the corollary of that right of free access, even though, at the age of 23, he has not
Zato je na postavljeno vpra�anje treba odgovoriti tako, da tur�ki državljan, ki je kot otrok zaradi združitve družine smel vstopiti v državo članico in je na podlagi člena 7, prvi odstavek, druga alinea, Sklepa �t. 1/80 pridobil pravico do prostega dostopa do zaposlitve po svoji izbiri, ne sme izgubiti s to pravico povezane pravice do bivanja,
2008 — CASE C-453/07 been in paid employment since leaving school at the age of 16 and has taken part in government job-support schemes without, however, completing them.
2008 – ZADEVA C-453/07 tudi če v starosti 23 let od končanja �olanja v starosti 16 let ni bil zaposlen in je sodeloval v državnih programih, namenjenih pomoči pri zaposlitvi, ki jih ni končal.
A Turkish national, who was authorised to enter the territory of a Member State as a child in the context of a family reunion, and who has acquired the right to take up freely any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, does not lose the right of residence in that State, which is the corollary of that right of free access, even though, at the age of 23, he has not been in paid employment since leaving school at the age of 16 and has taken part in government job-support schemes without, however, completing them.
Turški državljan, ki je kot otrok zaradi združitve družine smel vstopiti v državo članico in je na podlagi člena 7, prvi odstavek, druga alinea, Sklepa št. 1/80 z dne 19. septembra 1980 o razvoju pridružitve, ki ga je sprejel Pridružitveni svet, ustanovljen s sporazumom med Evropsko gospodarsko skupnostjo in Turčijo pridobil pravico do prostega dostopa do zaposlitve po svoji izbiri, ne sme izgubiti s to pravico povezane pravice do bivanja, tudi če v starosti 23 let od končanja šolanja v starosti 16 let ni bil zaposlen in je sodeloval v državnih programih, namenjenih pomoči pri zaposlitvi, ki jih ni končal.
Case C-70/06: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance — Financial penalty) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-70/06: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Portugalski republiki („Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Sodba Sodišča, s katero je ugotovljena neizpolnitev obveznosti – Neizpolnitev – Denarna kazen“) . .
Case C-256/06: Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl (Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Art -icles 56 EC and 58 EC) — Inheritance tax — Valuation of assets forming part of the estate — Agricultural and forestry assets in another Member State — Less favourable method of valuation of assets and calculation of the tax payable) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-256/06: Theodor Jäger proti Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl („Prost pretok kapitala – Člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES) – Davek na dediščino – Vrednotenje premoženja, vključenega v dediščino – Premoženje v obliki kmetijskega zemljišča in gozdov, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici – Manj ugodna metoda za vrednotenje premoženja in izračun dolgovanega davka“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . .
Case C-294/06: The Queen, on the application of: Ezgi Payir and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEC–Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — First indent of Article 6(1) — Worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force — Leave to enter as a student or as an au pair — Effect on the right to remain) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Div -ision)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-294/06: The Queen, na predlog: Ezgi Payir in drugih proti Secretary of State for the Home Department („Pridružitveni sporazum EGS-Turčija – Prosto gibanje delavcev – Sklep Pridružitvenega sveta št. 1/80 – Člen 6(1), prva alinea – Delavec, vključen v zakoniti trg dela – Dovoljenje za vstop kot študent ali oseba ‚au-pair‘ – Vpliv na pravico do prebivanja“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)) . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 203
Case C-2/06: Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export of cattle — Export refunds — Final administrative decision — Interpretation of a judgment of the Court — Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision — Review and withdrawal — Time-limits — Legal certainty — Principle of cooperation — Article 10 EC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-2/06: Willy Kempter KG proti Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas („Izvoz goveda – Izvozna nadomestila – Pravnomočna upravna odločba – Razlaga sodbe Sodišča – Posledica sodbe, ki jo je Sodišče izdalo v postopku za predhodno odločanje po tej odločbi – Ponovna preučitev in odprava – Časovne omejitve – Pravna varnost – Načelo sodelovanja – Člen 10 ES“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 8 November 2007 . .
Mengozzija, predstavljeni 8. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-426/05: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission (Electronic communications — Networks and ser -vices — Common regulatory framework — Articles 4 and 16 of Direct- ive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) — Appeals — Administrative market analysis procedure) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-426/05: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH proti Telekom-Control-Kommission („Elektronske komunikacije – Omrežja in storitve – Skupni regulativni okvir – Člena 4 in 16 Direktive 2002/21/ES (okvirna direktiva) – Pravno sredstvo – Upravni postopek analize trga“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Avstrija)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-201/06: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Plant protection products — Parallel imports — Marketing authorisation proced- ure — Conditions — Common origin of a plant protection product imported in parallel and the reference product) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-201/06: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Francoski republiki („Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Fitofarmacevtska sredstva – Vzporedni uvozi – Postopek izdaje dovoljenja za dajanje v promet – Pogoji – Skupno poreklo vzporedno uvoženega fitofarmacevtskega sredstva in referenčnega sredstva“) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-271/06: Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG v Finanzamt Malchin (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 15(2) — Exemption for supplies of goods for export to a destination outside the Community — Conditions for exemption not fulfilled — Proof of export falsified by the purchaser — Supplier acting with due commercial care) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 771
Zadeva C-271/06: Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG proti Finanzamt Malchin („Šesta direktiva o DDV – Člen 15, točka 2 – Oprostitev dobave blaga za izvoz iz Skupnosti – Neizpolnjevanje pogojev za oprostitev – Ponarejen dokaz kupca o izvozu – Dobavitelj, ki ravna s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 771
Case C-498/06: Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — First paragraph of Article 3 and Article 10(a) — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under an extrajudicial conciliation procedure — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision — Principles of equality and non-discrimination) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-498/06: Maira María Robledillo Núñez proti Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) („Socialna politika – Varstvo delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti delodajalca – Direktiva 80/987/EGS, spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES – Člena 3, prvi pododstavek, in 10(a) – Odškodnina za nezakonito odpoved delovnega razmerja, dogovorjena v postopku izvensodne poravnave – Plačilo, ki ga zagotovi jamstvena ustanova – Plačilo, pogojeno s sprejetjem sodne odločbe – Načeli enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-507/06: Malina Klöppel v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse (En -titlement to childcare allowance in Austria — Periods of drawing family benefits in another Member State not taken into account — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-507/06: Malina Klöppel proti Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse („Pravica do avstrijskega nadomestila za varstvo otroka – Neupoštevanje obdobij prejemanja družinskih dajatev v drugi državi članici – Uredba (EGS) št. 1408/71“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-2/07: Paul Abraham and Others v Région wallonne and Others (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-2/07: Paul Abraham in drugi proti Région wallonne in drugim („Direktiva 85/337/EGS – Presoja vplivov projekta na okolje – Letališče z vzletno in pristajalno stezo, daljšo od 2100 metrov“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Cour de cassation (Belgija)) . . . . . .