natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
56 — For the purposes of granting the advance to those who have applied for incapacity benefit, Paragraph 23(2)(3) of the AlVG provides that the competent insurance body must confirm ‘that it will probably be unable to give a definite decision on the benefit within two months of the date of entitlement to the pension’, which shows that the advance is awarded to cover the time delay caused by a lengthy administrative procedure.
56 – V členu 23(2)(3) AlVG se za dodelitev predplačila osebam, ki zaprosijo za invalidsko dajatev, zahteva, da je „ustanova za pokojninsko zavarovanje poleg tega izdala dokazilo, na podlagi katerega je mogoče predvideti, da ne bo mogoče določiti načela obveznosti izplačila dajatev v dveh mesecih po datumu začetka pravice do pokojnine“, kar dokazuje, da se predplačilo dodeli zaradi časovnega zamika zaradi dolgega upravnega postopka.
57 — De Cuyper (cited in footnote 44), paragraph 25.
57 – Sodba De Cuyper, navedena v opombi 44, točka 25.
VII — The second question: the residence requirement applied to the advance is liable to conclude with the beneficiary returning to work or no longer being available for work, although this cannot be known for certain.
VII – Drugo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje: pogoj stalnega prebivališča, ki se uporablja pri predplačilu od zaposlitve v obdobju, ki se lahko, ne da bi vedeli zagotovo, konča z vrnitvijo na trg dela ali z izključitvijo s tega trga.
Thus, the purpose of the advance is to keep the applicant economically active in the employment market but also, as the German Government has pointed out, to keep him in a positive frame of mind.
Tako ni njen namen samo, da vlagatelj ostane ekonomsko dejaven na tem trgu, ampak tudi, kot poudarja nem�ka vlada, da ostane psiholo�ko motiviran.
A — Introduction
A – Uvodna ugotovitev
The second question referred by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, which is a corollary of the first, concerns the residence requirement imposed on Mr Petersen for entitlement to the advance.
Naslednje vpra�anje Verwaltungs -gerichtshof, ki je logična posledica prvega, se nana�a na pogoj stalnega prebivali�ča, naloženega J. Petersenu, da bi lahko prejemal predplačilo.
Therefore, the advance covers a twofold risk: that the application for incapacity benefit will be refused and that the applicant will decide to return to work and withdraw his original application.
Predplačilo tako torej pokriva dve tveganji: da se zahtevek za invalidsko dajatev zavrne ter da se vlagatelj odloči vrniti na trg dela in opustiti prvotno zahtevo.
In the event that the advance is classified as unemployment benefit, Article 69 of Regulation No 1408/71 lays down three conditions for allowing an individual to reside in another Member State while receiving unemployment benefit: he must have registered with the employment services before his departure; he must subsequently register with the employment services in the host State; and he must start work within a period not exceeding three months.
Člen 69 Uredbe �t. 1408/71, s tem ko pomoč opredeljuje kot dajatev za brezposelnost, nalaga tri pogoje, da lahko posamez- nik prebiva v drugi državi članici in hkrati prejema dajatev za brezposelnost: pred odhodom se mora prijaviti pri službah za zaposlovanje, nato se mora prijaviti v državi gostiteljici in začeti delati v določenem roku.
It may be inferred from all of the foregoing that the advance provided for in Paragraph 23 of the AlVG is an unemployment benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Iz vsega zgornjega izhaja, da je predplačilo iz člena 23 AlVG dajatev za brezposelnost v smislu člena 4(1)(g) Uredbe �t.
However, that classification is not conclusive for the purposes of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling which is, without doubt, the key to the resolution of the present proceedings.
1408/71, čeprav ta opredelitev ni odločilna za drugo postavljeno vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki je nedvomno ključ tega primera.
PETERSEN that Regulation No 1408/71 contains an exhaustive list of cases, outside which there is no entitlement to benefit when the claimant moves to another Member State.
PETERSEN izčrpen seznam, zunaj katerega je dajatev izključena, če se prejemnik preseli v drugo državo članico.
Unlike the Commission and the applicant, all the governments which have submitted observations in the present preliminary ruling proceedings have argued that that failure to satisfy the conditions justifies the suspension of the advance paid to Mr Petersen.
V nasprotju s Komisijo in vlagateljem so se vse vlade, ki so predložile stali�ča v tej zadevi, oklenile dejstva, da navedeni pogoji niso izpolnjeni, da bi upravičile začasno ustavitev predplačila, ki ga je prejemal J. Petersen.
However, that argument conceals a pitfall which must be avoided.
Vendar ta utemeljitev vsebuje past, ki se ji je treba izogniti.
B — Arguments of the governments, the Commission and Mr Petersen
B – Trditve vlad, Komisije in J. Petersena
Moreover, the De Cuyper judgment supports the view of the governments since, in that case, the Court ruled that a residence requirement was compatible with Article 18 EC. The Court found that, in a case such as the one before it, monitoring by the em -ployment authorities would be effective only if the recipient of the benefits, who must be available for work, were resident in the State responsible for payment.
Še več, sodba De Cuyper podpira trditev vlad, saj je v njej pogoj stalnega prebivali�ča razgla�en za skladnega s členom 18 ES; Sodi�če je odločilo, da bi bile in�pekcije službe za zaposlovanje v primeru, kot mu je bil predložen, učinkovite samo, če bi prejem- nik nadomestil, ki mora biti na razpolago službi za zaposlovanje, prebival v državi, ki izplačuje dajatev.
The German, Austrian, Spanish and Italian Governments have all put forward two arguments.
Nem�ka, avstrijska, �panska in italijanska vlada navajajo dva razloga.
First, they assert that Mr Petersen does not satisfy any of the conditions laid down in Regulation No 1408/71 for the transfer of his social security benefit.
Trdijo, da po eni strani J. Petersen ne izpolnjuje nobenega pogoja iz Uredbe �t.
Second, they assert that the De Cuyper judgment is applicable.
1408/71 za prenos svoje socialnovarstvene dajatve in da je treba po drugi strani uporabiti zgoraj navedeno sodbo De Cuyper.
Accordingly, there appears to be a consensus
Torej obstaja določeno soglasje, da Uredba �t.
However, the Commission, also invoking De Cuyper, is of the opinion that a residence requirement infringes Article 39 EC.
Komisija kljub temu meni, da je s klavzulo o stalnem prebivali�ču kr�en člen 39 ES, pri čemer se opira na sodbo De Cuyper; po mnenju Komisije obstaja bistvena razlika med dejanskim stanjem v navedeni zadevi in dejanskim stanjem v tej zadevi: medtem ko je G.
The Commission claims that there is a fundamental difference between the facts of that case and those of the present proceedings in that, while Mr De Cuyper was required to be available to the employment services, the advance paid to Mr Petersen entails a total exemption from that requirement.
De Cuyper moral ostati na razpolago službi za zaposlovanje, predplačilo, ki ga je prejemal J. Petersen, pomeni popolno oprostitev te obveznosti.
Where combating fraud takes a secondary pos -ition, a measure such as the one at issue in the present proceedings becomes disproportionate.
Če je boj proti goljufijam drugotnega pomena, ukrep, kot je bil sprejet v tistem času, postane nesorazmeren.
Accordingly, although Regulation No 1408/71 does not include a case such as the one in the present proceedings, that does not mean that it falls outside the scope of the protection provided by the Treaties.
Zato čeprav Uredba �t. 1408/71 ne zadeva primera, kot se obravnava v tej zadevi, to ne pomeni, da tak primer ne spada v okvir varstva, zagotovljenega s pogodbami.
On the contrary, Community law protects such a case and precludes a residence requirement such as the one currently before the Court.
Nasprotno, pravni red Skupnosti ga �čiti in prepoveduje pogoj stalnega prebivali�ča, kot je naložen v obravnavanem primeru.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-228/07
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-228/07 izhajajo neposredno iz delovnega razmerja 58.
Article 39 EC where the rights concerned flow directly from an employment relationship.
V tej zadevi je povezava med dajatvijo in statusom delavca J.
58In the present case, the link between the benefit and the status of Mr Petersen as a worker is clear, since the advance concerned is dependent on two concurrent circumstances: unemployment and incapacity, both of which are connected to a prior employment relationship.
Petersena očitna, ker gre za predplačilo, ki je odvisno od dveh sočasnih okoli�čin: brezposelnosti in invalidnosti, ki sta obe povezani s prej�njim delovnim razmerjem.
In the view of Mr Petersen, the excessive reduction of a financial asset together with the discriminatory treatment afforded to the applicant vis-à-vis Austrian nationals who do not move to another Member State are grounds for finding that the national decision is incompatible with Community law.
Čezmerno zmanj�evanje premoženja in diskriminatorna obravnava vlagatelja v primerjavi z Avstrijci, ki se ne preselijo v drugo državo članico, pomenita nezdružljivost nacionalne odločbe s pravom Skupnosti.
However, although Article 39 EC is particularly important for the resolution of the question referred for a preliminary ruling, it is also appropriate to take into account Article 18 EC.
Vendar, čeprav je člen 39 ES posebno pomemben za re�itev vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, je treba preučiti tudi člen 18 ES.
As I have pointed out, Mr Petersen is an example of the movement of free citizens which, in the terms set out in points 25 to 38 of this Opinion, accords a special legislative force to the individual and collective situation of the applicant.
Kot sem navedel, je J. Petersen primer gibanja svobodnih državljanov, ki na podlagi točk od 25 do 38 teh sklepnih predlogov daje posebno normativno moč individualnemu in kolektivnemu položaju vlagatelja zahtevka.
The individual legal position of Mr Petersen
Individualni pravni položaj J. Petersena
The Commission has merely stated that, if Mr Petersen is regarded as an employee, he is covered by Article 39 EC; otherwise, he is covered by Article 18 EC.
Komisija je samo trdila, da zanj, če se obravnava kot zaposleni delavec, velja člen 39 ES, sicer pa člen 18 ES.
When he became unemployed, he applied for an advance designed to assist
Ko je postal brezposeln, je zaprosil za predplačilo, predvideno za pomoč brezposelnim osebam, ki sočasno
I am inclined to regard the applicant as having the status of a worker, since the disputed entitlement is derived from an employment relationship.
Nagibam se k temu, da se vlagatelju zahtevka prizna status delavca, ker sporna pravica izhaja iz delovnega razmerja.
Although the De Cuyper judgment is ambiguous in that regard, I believe that the caselaw of the Court has confirmed the application of
Čeprav je sodba De Cuyper v tej točki dvoumna, menim, da je sodna praksa Sodi�ča potrdila uporabo člena 39 ES, če zadevne pravice
It is immaterial that the particular circumstances of Mr Petersen are not included in the cases set out in Regulation No 1408/71, since the aim of that legislation is not to exclude all the other cases but rather to implement Article 39 EC.
Ni pomembno, da posebnega primera J. Petersena ni med primeri, navedenimi v Uredbi �t.
All provisions of secondary law are interpreted and applied pursuant to primary law, a factor which means that a residence requirement such as the one in the present proceedings lacks objective and reasonable justification.
1408/71, ker namen tega akta ni izključiti vseh drugih primerov, ampak izvajati člen 39 ES.
In addition to that fact, it must also be pointed out that none of the parties in the present proceedings, including, notably, the Austrian Government, has managed to account for the refusal of the authorities to authorise Mr Petersen’s transfer of residence.
Vse določbe sekundarne zakonodaje se morajo razlagati in uporabljati z vidika primarne zakonodaje, kar pomeni, da pogoj stalnega prebivali�ča, kot je obravnavan v tem primeru, ni objektivno in razumno utemeljen, čemur je treba dodati, da nihče v tej zadevi, zlasti ne avstrijska vlada, ni mogel pojasniti zavrnitve uprave, da bi dovolila spremembo prebivali�ča J. Petersena 59.
The advance is granted provided that the conditions for the grant of unemployment benefit are satisfied, but the claimant is exempted from seeking employment.
zaprosijo za invalidsko dajatev. Navedeno predplačilo se dodeli, če so izpolnjeni pogoji za dodelitev nadomestila za brezposelnost, vendar je upravičenec opro�čen obveznosti iskanja dela.
The national provisions on social security are therefore relaxed in that regard, but the governments which have participated in these preliminary ruling proceedings argue that the Court must give a strict interpretation of the Community provisions on social security, since Mr Petersen does not satisfy the requirements of Art -icles 69 to 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 which would enable him to claim the benefit in another Member State, from which it follows that the advance must be withdrawn if he transfers his residence to another Member State.
Nacionalni predpisi o socialni varnosti so zato omiljeni, vendar vlade, ki so podale stali�ča v tej zadevi, od Sodi�ča zahtevajo ozko razlago predpisov Skupnosti o socialni varnosti, ker J. Petersen ne izpolnjuje pogojev, določenih v členih od 69 do 71 Uredbe, da se dovoli izvoz dajatev, tako da je treba preklicati predplačilo, če se zadevna oseba preseli v drugo državo članico.
Despite the fact that the concept of citizenship of the Union calls for special attention to be paid to the status of the individual, it is clear that, even though there are no fundamental rights at stake, the Austrian decision would be unlikely to stand up to a Community review of proportionality.
Medtem ko evropsko državljanstvo zahteva, naj se pravnemu položaju posameznika nameni prednostna pozornost, je očitno, da bi avstrijska odločba, čeprav se ne obravnavajo temeljne pravice, težko prestala Skupnostni nadzor sorazmernosti 60.
60Accordingly, in the light of Articles 39 EC and 18 EC, a measure such as the one at issue, which provides for different treatment based on the place of residence of the recipient of a social security benefit, is incompatible with Community law.
Zato je glede na člena 39 ES in 18 ES ukrep, kot se obravnava v tem primeru, ki zahteva različno obravnavanje glede na kraj stalnega prebivali�ča prejemnika socialnovarstvene dajatve, nezdružljiv s pravom Skupnosti.
59 — Paragraphs 12 to 14 of the written observations of the Austrian Government merely repeat the subjectmatter of Article 39 EC and of Articles 10 and 67 of Regulation No 1408/71.
59 – Avstrijska vlada v točkah od 12 do 14 pisnih stali�č povzema samo člen 39 ES ter člena 10 in 67 Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
They do not provide any substantive arguments which would justify the refusal to allow Mr Petersen to continue to claim his advance after transferring his residence to another Member State.
Avstrijska vlada ne navaja nobenih vsebinskih dokazov v podporo odločitvi, da se J. Petersenu zavrne izvoz predplačila zaradi prenosa stalnega prebivali�ča v drugo državo članico.
If he satisfies the requirements, he will not receive the advance.
Če izpolnjuje pogoje, ne prejme predplačila.
If he satisfies all the requirements apart from the one from which he is exempted, he will not receive the advance either on the ground that he has transferred his residence.
Če izpolnjuje vse pogoje, razen pogoja, ki mu ga ni treba izpolnjevati, tudi ne prejme predplačila zaradi selitve.
Further, if he does not receive the advance, he runs the risk that subsequently he will not be granted incapacity benefit and he will not be available for work.
In če predplačila ne prejme, tvega, da se mu invalidska dajatev nato ne bo dodelila in da bo izključen s trga dela.
All that remains is for him to claim ordinary unemployment benefit, although, in view of the difficulties he is experiencing (in that he is claiming incapacity benefit), perhaps he is not in the best position to secure a job in a rather competitive environment.
Preostane mu samo, da zaprosi za običajno nadomestilo za brezposelnost, vendar zaradi težav, s katerimi se srečuje (zaradi katerih je zaprosil za invalidsko dajatev), mogoče ni v najbolj�em položaju, da dobi delo v povprečno konkurenčnem okolju.
60 — Point 27 of this Opinion.
60 – Točka 27 sklepnih predlogov.
The conditions for belonging to a political community
Pogoji pripadnosti politični skupnosti
However, should the Court conclude that Mr Petersen is in receipt of unemployment benefit, it is important to recall that the advance is a preliminary step towards receiving incapacity benefit, which, if it is not awarded, converts the advance into un -employment benefit, provided that the claimant satisfies the requirements of Articles 69 to 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 when he changes residence.
Če pa se bo Sodi�če odločilo, da J. Petersen prejema nadomestilo za brezposelnost, se ne sme pozabiti, da je predplačilo čakalnica za prejemanje invalidske dajatve in da se pomoč, če ta dajatev ni odobrena, spremeni v dajatev za brezposelnost, če zadevna oseba izpolnjuje pogoje iz členov od 69 do 71 Uredbe �t.
However, one of those requirements is that ‘on the basis of the existing circumstances it is likely that the [incapacity] benefit will be granted’.
1408/71, ko spremeni kraj stalnega prebivali�ča.
62 Consequently, Mr Petersen may reside in Germany, exempt from the control procedures of the employment authorities, for a determinate period, namely the duration of the procedure for the grant of incapacity benefit.
Vendar eden od teh pogojev pomeni, da „obstoječe okoli�čine omogočajo, da se a priori predvidi dodelitev [invalidskih] dajatev iz naslova socialnega zavarovanja“ 62. Zato lahko J.
Having resided legally in that country for a number of years, he has returned to his country of birth after applying to the Austrian authorities for incapacity benefit and an advance on account.
Po večletnem zakonitem bivanju v tej državi se je v rodno državo vrnil, potem ko je pri avstrijskih organih zaprosil za invalidsko dajatev in predplačilo od te dajatve.
It is beyond doubt that the applicant is directly connected to the Austrian State, albeit only because he paid his social security contributions to the Austrian employment authorities until he completed the statutory eligibility period.
Ni dvoma, da je vlagatelj zahtevka neposredno povezan z Avstrijo, čeprav samo zato, ker je plačeval prispevke za socialno varnost avstrijski službi za zaposlovanje, dokler ni izpolnil celotnega zakonskega pogoja trajanja zaposlitve. Zveza J.
Throughout that period, the Austrian authorities, which previously encouraged Mr Petersen to apply for an advance, entailing an implicit acknowledgement that, ‘it is likely that the … benefit will be granted’ must assume the financial burden of the disputed benefit.
Avstrijska služba, ki je pred tem J. Petersena spodbujala, naj zaprosi za predplačilo, s katerim bi se mu posredno priznalo, da se lahko „a priori predvidi dodelitev dajatev“, za katere je zaprosil, v tem obdobju lahko nosi ekonomske stro�ke dajatve, ki se zdaj obravnava.
If he is refused incapacity benefit, the applicant will revert to his original situation.
Če se invalidska dajatev vlagatelju zahtevka zavrne, se znova znajde v prvotnem položaju.
However, in the meantime, Mr Petersen’s change of residence, which took place during a procedure which would probably grant him a benefit which would enable him to reside in any Member State, under no circumstances
Vendar v tem času sprememba stalnega prebivali�ča J. Petersena, ki se je preselil med postopkom, v katerem bi mu verjetno bila odobrena pomoč, ki bi mu dovoljevala prebivanje v kateri koli državi članici, nikakor
Should the Court decide to classify the advance as an invalidity benefit, it must consider the fact that Regulation No 1408/71 precludes the suspension or modification of that type of benefit on the ground of residence.
Če bi se Sodi�če odločilo, da predplačilo opredeli kot invalidsko dajatev, bi se srečalo z dejstvom, da Uredba �t. 1408/71 preprečuje začasno ustavitev ali spremembo te vrste socialnovarstvenih dajatev zaradi kraja stalnega prebivali�ča 61.
61 There is a logic to that restriction, which is aimed at promoting the free movement of individuals whose working life has ended and who decide to reside in another Member State, whether for climatic, family or sentimental reasons.
Ta omejitev ima svojo logiko, ker je njen namen omogočiti prosto gibanje oseb, ki so končale poklicno pot in se odločijo prebivati v drugih državah članicah, bodisi zaradi podnebnih, družinskih ali čustvenih razlogov.
As the expert of the Austrian Government explained at the hearing, 60% of applications for incapacity benefit are refused, which is evidence of a restrictive administrative policy when it comes to assessing the conditions which may give rise to entitlement to the benefit.
Kot je zastopnik avstrijske vlade pojasnil na obravnavi, se zavrne 60 % zahtevkov za dajatev zaradi nezmožnosti za delo, kar dokazuje restriktivno upravno politiko pri presoji pogojev, ki omogočajo upravičenost do prejemanja pomoči.
Accordingly, it is my view that the initial refusal of Mr Petersen’s application does not mean prima facie that he is unlikely to be awarded the benefit in the future.
Torej menim, da prvotna zavrnitev zahtevka J. Petersena ne pomeni a priori, da morebitna dodelitev dajatve ni bila mogoča.
61 — Article 10 of Regulation No 1408/71.
61 – Člen 10 Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
PETERSEN places conditions on the capacity to act or the financial integrity of the Austrian authorities.
Petersena skupnosti, s katero je bil dejansko povezan, je treba člen 39 ES razlagati z vidika člena 18 ES.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court should reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, declaring that:
Glede na zgornja pojasnila Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, ki ju je postavilo Verwaltungsgerichtshof, odgovori:
A monetary unemployment benefit which is granted to unemployed persons who have applied for a benefit on the ground of incapacity to work is an unemployment benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community.
„Denarna dajatev za primer brezposelnosti, ki se izplača brezposelnim osebam, ki so zaprosile za izplačilo dajatve zaradi nezmožnosti za delo, je dajatev za brezposel -nost v smislu člena 4(1)(g) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti.
Articles 18 EC and 39 EC preclude a national provision which provides for the suspension of the entitlement to that benefit where the unemployed person resides in another Member State.
Člena 18 ES in 39 ES nasprotujeta določbi nacionalnega prava, ki določa, da se pravica do te dajatve začasno ustavi, če brezposelna oseba prebiva v drugi državi članici.“
2008 — CASE C-228/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-228/07
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat)
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 3 April 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 3. aprila 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-228/07 after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 May 2008, gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-228/07 po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 15. maja 2008 izreka naslednjo