natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the possibility for the Member State of origin to limit the freedom of movement of one of its own nationals on grounds of a threat to its own public order, the Romanian Government maintains that in accordance with the Romanian Constitution and Penal Code, such a limitation is only permitted in cases relating to offences in respect of which a life sentence or a custodial sentence may be imposed, in order to ensure that the criminal process follows its correct course or to prevent the accused absconding.
Romunska vlada v zvezi z možnostjo, da države članice izvora omejijo prosto gibanje svojega državljana ali več svojih državljanov, ker predstavljajo grožnjo njenemu javnemu redu, trdi, da je v skladu z romunsko ustavo in kazenskim zakonikom taka omejitev dopustna le v primerih, povezanih s kaznivimi dejanji, za katere je zagrožena dosmrtna zaporna kazen ali zaporna kazen, da se zagotovi pravilen potek kazenskega postopka ali da se prepreči, da bi obtoženec pobegnil.
Such situations are however purely internal matters and are not matters of Community law.
Taki primeri so povsem notranje zadeve in ne zadeve prava Skupnosti.
The Romanian Government considers that the readmission agreements concluded by it with other Member States of the EU and the provisions of its national law adopted pursuant to those agreements must be interpreted in the light of the relevant Community law.
Romunska vlada meni, da je treba sporazume o ponovnem sprejemu, ki jih je sklenila z drugimi državami članicami EU, in predpise nacionalnega prava, ki so bili sprejeti v skladu s temi sporazumi, razlagati ob upo�tevanju ustreznega prava Skupnosti.
It therefore considers that Article 18 EC must be interpreted so as to preclude the provisions of Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 which restrict the freedom of movement of persons.
Zato meni, da je treba člen 18 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotuje določbam iz členov 38 in 39 zakona 248/2005, ki omejuje prosto gibanje oseb.
In the event however that the Court considers that Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 is applicable in the present case, Romania considers that in accordance with the settled caselaw of the Court, 6 Mr Jipa’s ‘illegal residence’ does not pose a threat to public order or public security pursuant to Community law.
Vendar Romunija meni, da če Sodi�če presodi, da je člen 27 Direktive 2004/38 mogoče uporabiti za obravnavan primer, potem v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča 6„nezakonito prebivanje“ G. Jipe ne predstavlja grožnje za javni red ali javno varnost skladno z pravom Skupnosti.
Moreover, pursuant to Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38 and the caselaw of the Court, 7 limitations on the freedom of movement may only be imposed after an examination of an individual’s conduct and may never be imposed automatically.
Poleg tega se lahko omejitve pravice do prostega gibanja v skladu s členom 27(2) Direktive 2004/38 in sodno prakso Sodi�ča 7določi le po presoji posameznikovega osebnega obna�anja in se jih ne sme nikoli določiti samodejno.
According to Romania, Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 is not applicable in the present case.
Po mnenju Romunije člena 27 Direktive 2004/38 ni mogoče uporabiti za obravnavan primer.
Romania maintains that it follows from, inter alia, the general scheme of Chapter VI (Articles 27 to 33) of Direct- ive 2004/38 and the fact that the limitations foreseen by Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 are exceptions to the principle of freedom of movement and must thus be interpreted strictly, that only the host Member State, and not the Member State of origin, may restrict the freedom of movement of citizens pursuant to Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
Romunija trdi, da med drugim iz splo�ne sistematike poglavja VI (členi od 27 do 33) Direktive 2004/38 in dejstva, da so omejitve iz člena 27 Direktive 2004/38 izjeme od načela prostega gibanja in jih je zato treba razlagati ozko, izhaja, da lahko le država članica gostiteljica in ne država članica izvora omeji prosto gibanje državljanov v skladu s členom 27 Direktive 2004/38 zaradi javnega reda, javne varnosti ali javnega zdravja.
It is the host Member State that is the best placed to evaluate whether a
Država članica gostiteljica je v najbolj�em položaju, da presodi, ali državljan druge
The Hellenic Republic maintains that Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement of citizens of the Union pursuant to Article 18 EC and Directive 2004/38.
Helenska republika trdi, da člena 38 in 39 zakona 248/2005 pomenita oviro za prosto gibanje državljanov Unije iz člena 18 ES in Direktive 2004/38.
The Greek Government considers that it has not been demonstrated that Mr Jipa’s personal conduct warrants the imposition of restrictions on his freedom of movement.
Gr�ka vlada meni, da ni bilo dokazano, da osebno obna�anje G. Jipe upravičuje omejitev njegove pravice prostega gibanja.
That government notes that the measures envisaged by the Romanian legislation are general measures which are imposed whenever a repatriation takes place on foot of a bilateral readmission agreement.
Vlada opozarja, da so ukrepi, ki jih določa romunska zakonodaja, splo�ni in se sprejmejo, kadar pride do vrnitve na podlagi dvostranskega sporazuma o ponovnem sprejemu oseb.
The Hellenic Republic also considers that the Romanian legislation is contrary to Article 2 of Protocol IV to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) (‘Protocol IV’) which provides that no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of the right to leave a country, including one’s own, other than for specific reasons of, inter alia, national se -curity or public order.
Helenska republika meni tudi, da je romunska zakonodaja v nasprotju s členom 2 Protokola IV k Evropski konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin (v nadaljevanju: Protokol IV), ki določa, da pri uresničevanju pravice zapustiti državo, vključno z lastno, ne sme biti nobenih omejitev, razen iz posebnih razlogov, med drugim državne varnosti ali javnega reda.
to restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, also covers, at least in certain circumstances, restrictions imposed by a Member State on the right of its own citizens to leave their national territory and travel to another Member State.
in pravice do prebivanja zaradi javnega reda, javne varnosti ali javnega zdravja, vsaj v določenih okoli�činah zajema tudi omejitve, ki jih države članice določijo za pravico svojih državljanov, da zapustijo državno ozemlje in potujejo v drugo državo članico.
The Commission maintains that Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 applies in circumstances such as those prevailing in the proceedings before the referring court, where the national authorities are seeking to limit the freedom of movement of one of their nationals in order to prevent that person from returning for a certain period of time to the Member State from which he was repatriated due to his irregular residence.
Komisija trdi, da se člen 27 Direktive 2004/38 uporablja v okoli�činah, kot so te, ki prevladujejo v postopku pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, ko nacionalni organi zahtevajo omejitev pravice prostega gibanja enega svojih državljanov, da bi tej osebi za nekaj časa preprečili vrnitev v državo članico, iz katere je bil vrnjen zaradi nezakonitega prebivanja.
Moreover, in accordance with Articles 27 to 31 of Direct ive 2004/38 and the general scheme of that directive, a measure restricting a citizen’s right to freedom of movement may only be adopted by the Member State whose public order or public security is directly threatened.
Poleg tega lahko v skladu s členi od 27 do 31 Direktive 2004/38 in splo�ne sistematike te direktive ukrep, ki omejuje državljanovo pravico prostega gibanja, sprejme le država članica, katere javni red ali javna varnost sta neposredno ogrožena.
The Commission therefore considers that in accordance with Article 18 EC and the provisions of Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38, a decision to restrict the freedom of movement of a citizen of the Union may not be adopted by a Member State on foot of a simple request from another Member State from which that citizen was expelled unless the Member State adopting such a decision establishes that the behaviour of the person concerned constitutes a threat to public order or public secur- ity as defined in Article 27 of that directive.
Komisija zato meni, da v skladu s členom 18 ES in določbami poglavja VI Direktive 2004/38 država članica ne sme sprejeti odločitve o omejitvi pravice prostega gibanja državljana Unije na preprosto pro�njo druge države članice, iz katere je bili ta državljan izgnan, razen če država, ki to odločitev sprejme, ugotovi, da obna�anje zadevne osebe predstavlja grožnjo za javni red ali javno varnost, kot sta opredeljena v členu 27 te direktive.
The Commission considers that since Romania’s accession to the EU on 1 January 2007, Mr Jipa is a citizen of the Union and has the right from that date pursuant to Article 18 EC to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the EC Treaty and Directive 2004/38.
Komisija meni, da je od pristopa Romunije k EU 1. januarja 2007 G. Jipa državljan Unije in ima od tega dne dalje v skladu s členom 18 ES pravico prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic ob upo�tevanju omejitev in pogojev, določenih s Pogodbo ES in Direktivo 2004/38.
The right of a citizen of the Union to leave the territory of a Member State and to travel to another Member State is further elaborated in Article 4 of Directive 2004/38.
Pravica državljana Unije, da zapusti ozemlje države članice in potuje v drugo državo članico, je podrobneje urejena v členu 4 Direktive 2004/38.
The Commission maintains that despite the wording of the title to Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38, that chapter, which refers
Komisija trdi, da kljub besedilu naslova poglavja VI Direktive 2004/38 to poglavje, ki se nana�a na omejitve pravice do vstopa
The Commission also maintains that the reference to Mr Jipa’s ‘illegal residence’ in the order for reference from the national court is extremely vague.
Komisija trdi tudi, da je sklicevanje na „nezakonito prebivanje“ G. Jipe v predložitveni odločbi nacionalnega sodi�ča izjemno nejasno.
It therefore cannot be established whether his ‘illegal residence’ falls within the concepts of public order, public security or public health as laid down in Directive 2004/38.
Zato ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali pojmi javni red, javna varnosti in javno zdravje, kot so določeni v Direktivi 2004/38, zajemajo njegovo „nezakonito prebivanje“.
The Commission thus
Komisija zato meni, da država članica v skladu
that in accordance with the national legislation in question, limitations may be imposed on the freedom of movement abroad of a Romanian citizen where that person has been repatriated to Romania on foot of a readmission agreement or where their presence in the territory of a State other than Romania could seriously harm the interests of Romania or bilateral relations between Romania and that State.
nacionalno zakonodajo lahko omeji prosto gibanje v tujini, če je bil vrnjen v Romunijo na podlagi sporazuma o ponovnem sprejemu ali če bi njegova prisotnost na ozemlju države, ki ni Romunija, lahko resno �kodila interesom Romunije ali dvostranskim odnosom med Romunijo in to državo.
A — Article 18(1) EC and Article 4 of Directive 2004/38
A – Člen 18(1) ES in člen 4 Direk -tive 2004/38
Under Article 17(1) EC, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union.
V skladu s členom 17(1) ES je vsaka oseba, ki ima državljanstvo države članice, tudi državljan Unije. Ustaljena sodna praksa Sodi�ča je, da je namen državljanstva Unije, da je temeljni status državljanov držav članic.
8Following Romania’s accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007, Mr Jipa enjoys the status of citizen of the Union pursuant to Article 17(1) EC and may therefore, from that date, rely on the rights conferred by that status, including against his Member State of origin. 9
8Od pristopa Romunije k Evropski uniji 1. januarja 2007 ima G. Jipa v skladu s členom 17(1) ES status državljana Unije in torej lahko od tega dne uveljavlja pravice, ki se nana�ajo na ta status, in to tudi proti državi članici izvora. 9
By its first question and the first part of its second question, the national court seeks essentially clarification on whether Article 18 EC precludes measures such as Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 which provide for the placing of limitations, in certain circumstances, on the exercise of the right of freedom of movement abroad of Romanian citizens for up to three years.
Nacionalno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem in prvim delom drugega vpra�anja v bistvu prosi za pojasnilo, ali člen 18 ES nasprotuje ukrepom, kot sta člena 38 in 39 zakona 248/2005, ki v določenih okoli�činah določata omejevanje pravice romunskih državljanov do prostega gibanja v tujini za največ tri leta.
In the Baumbast and R case, the Court held that the applicant in that case, as a national of a Member State, and consequently a citizen of the Union, had the right to rely directly on Article 18(1) EC.
V zadevi Baumbast in R je Sodi�če odločilo, da je imela tožeča stranka, ki je bila državljanka države članice in zato državljanka Unije, v tem primeru pravico, da se sklicuje neposredno na člen 18(1) ES.
10In my view, the right to move freely within the
10Po mojem mnenju jasno in natančno besedilo
In accordance with the order for reference, the Ministry sought an order from the referring court limiting Mr Jipa’s movement to Belgium, the Member State from which he was repatriated on 27 November 2006, for a period of up to three years.
Glede na predložitveno odločbo je ministrstvo predlagalo, naj predložitveno sodi�če G. Jipi za največ tri leta omeji svobo�čino, da odide v Belgijo, državo članico, iz katere je bil vrnjen 27. novembra 2006.
Moreover, it would appear from the order for reference
Poleg tega iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da se romunskemu državljanu v skladu z zadevno
territory of the Member States pursuant to Article 18(1) EC is conferred directly on every citizen of the Union by the clear and precise terms of that provision of the EC Treaty, subject however to the limitations and conditions laid down by the EC Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.
te določbe Pogodbe ES podeljuje neposredno vsakemu državljanu Unije pravico prostega gibanja na ozemlju držav članic v skladu s členom 18(1) ES, vendar ob upo�tevanju omejitev in pogojev, določenih s Pogodbo ES in ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti za njeno uveljavitev.
Citizens of the Union thus have the right, which they derive directly from Article 18(1) EC, to leave the territory of a Member State, including their Member State of origin, to enter the territory of another Member State.
Državljani Unije imajo torej pravico, ki jo izpeljujejo neposredno iz člena 18(1) ES, da zapustijo ozemlje države članice, vključno z njihovo državo članico izvora, da bi vstopili na ozemlje druge države članice.
Moreover, while citizenship of the Union, established by Article 17 EC, is not intended to extend the scope ratione materiae of the Treaty to internal national situations which have no link with Community law, 11 it must be observed, as was submitted by the Romanian and Greek Governments, that the fact that Mr Jipa has not made use of his right of freedom of movement cannot, for that reason alone, assimilate his situation to a purely internal situation. 12
Medtem ko državljanstvo Unije iz člena 17 ES ni namenjeno �iritvi obsega ratione materiae Pogodbe na notranje državne primere, ki nimajo povezave s pravom Skupnosti, 11je treba opozoriti, kot sta navedli romunska in gr�ka vlada, da dejstvo, da G. Jipa ni uresničil svoje pravice prostega gibanja, njegovega položaja ne more izenačiti s povsem notranjim položajem. 12
I therefore consider that the present case has a direct link with Community law.
Zato menim, da ima primer neposredno vez s pravom Skupnosti.
It would appear from the order for reference that the proceedings before the national court arose following Mr Jipa’s repatriation to Romania from Belgium, pursuant to the Readmission Agreement, due to his ‘illegal residence’ in Belgium.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da se je postopek pred nacionalnim sodi�čem začel po tem, ko je bil G. Jipa vrnjen iz Belgije v Romunijo na podlagi sporazuma o ponovnem prevzemu zaradi „nezakonitega prebivanja“ v Belgiji.
The referring court itself pointed out, in its order for reference, that the Ministry has not clarified what is meant by the Mr Jipa’s ‘illegal residence’.
Predložitveno sodi�če je v predložitveni odločbi opozorilo, da ministrstvo ni pojasnilo, kaj je mislilo z „nezakonitim prebivanjem“ G. Jipe.
11 — Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 Uecker and Jacquet [1997] ECR I-3171, paragraph 23.
11 – Sodba z dne 5. junija 1997 v združenih zadevah Uecker in Jacquet, C-64/96 in C-65/96, Recueil, str. I-3171, točka 23.
12 — See in that respect, Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen [2004] ECR I-9925, paragraph 19.
12 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 19. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Zhu in Chen, C-200/02, ZOdl., str. I-9925, točka 19.
In my view, the limitations which may be imposed by the referring court on Mr Jipa from leaving his Member State of origin in order to enter the territory of another Member State constitute an obstacle to the right of freedom of movement provided by Article 18(1) EC.
Omejitve, ki jih predložitveno sodi�če lahko določi G. Jipi za odhod iz države članice izvora zaradi vstopa na ozemlje druge države članice, so po mojem mnenju ovira za pravico prostega gibanja iz člena 18(1) ES.
The right to move freely within the territory of the Member States guaranteed by Article 18(1) EC would be
Pravici gibati se prosto na ozemlju držav članic iz člena 18(1) ES bi bila odvzeta vsebina, če bi država članica izvora lahko
rendered meaningless if the Member State of origin could, without valid justification, prohibit its own nationals from leaving its territory to enter the territory of another Member State. 13
brez tehtne utemeljitve prepovedala svojim državljanom zapustiti njeno ozemlje zaradi vstopa na ozemlje druge države članice. 13
The national rules in question in the present proceedings must, in my view, also be assessed in the light of Article 4 of Di -rective 2004/38 14which regulates the right of Union citizens to leave the territory of a
Po mojem mnenju je treba zadevna nacionalna pravila v tem postopku preučiti ob upo�tevanju člena 4 Direktive 2004/38, 14ki ureja pravico državljanov Unije, da zapustijo
In accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State.
V skladu s členom 4(1) Direktive 2004/38 imajo vsi državljani Unije, ki imajo veljavno osebno izkaznico ali potni list, pravico zapustiti ozemlje države članice zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico.
In my view, Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38 is very broad in its scope as it grants citizens of the Union who are in possession of a valid identity card or passport the right to leave the territory of all Member States, including their Member State of origin 15to travel to another Member State.
Po mojem mnenju je področje uporabe člena 4(1) Direktive 2004/38 zelo �iroko, saj državljanom Unije, ki imajo veljavno osebno izkaznico ali potni list, podeljuje pravico zapustiti ozemlje vseh držav članic, vključno z njihovo državo članico izvora, 15zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico.
Moreover, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Directive 2004/38, no exit visa or equivalent formality may be imposed on citizens of the Union and the Member States must, pursuant to Article 4(3), issue to their own nationals, and renew, an identity card or passport stating their nationality.
Poleg tega se v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive 2004/38 od državljanov Unije ne sme zahtevani nikakr�nega izstopnega vizuma ali enakovredne formalnosti in države članice morajo v skladu s členom 4(3) svojim državljanom izdati in obnoviti osebno izkaznico ali potni list, v katerih je navedeno njihovo državljanstvo.
See also in the context of freedom of movement for persons and freedom of establishment, Case C-370/90 Singh [1992] ECR I-4265, paragraph 23.
5483, točka 16. V zvezi s prostim pretokom oseb in svobodo ustanavljanja glej tudi sodbo z dne 7. julija 1992 v zadevi Singh, C-370/90, Recueil, str.
The same considerations apply, in relation to Article [39] of the Treaty, with regard to rules which impede the freedom of movement of nationals of one Member State wishing to engage in gainful employment in another Member State’ (see paragraph 97).
V zvezi s členom [39] Pogodbe velja enako za pravila, ki ovirajo svobodo gibanja državljanov države članice, ki se želijo zaposliti v drugi državi članici“ (glej točko 97).
I therefore consider that in the absence of valid justification, Article 18(1) EC and Article 4 of Directive 2004/38 preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the present proceedings which provides
Zato menim, da – če ni tehtne uteme -ljitve – člen 18(1) ES in člen 4 Direktive 2004/38 nasprotujeta nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta, na katero se nana�a obravnavana zadeva, ki določa omejitve pravice
14 — With its accession to the EU on 1 January 2007, Romania is bound by the provisions of the EC Treaty on the rights of citizens of the Union and the legislative provisions and caselaw thereon, subject to the transitional arrangements adopted on the matter.
14 – Romunijo od pridružitve k EU 1. januarja 2007 zavezu -jejo pravila Pogodbe ES o pravicah državljanov Unije in z njo povezana zakonodaja in sodna praksa ob upo�tevanju prehodnih dogovorov, sprejetih v zvezi s tem.
It would appear from Article 20 of and Annex VII to the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157 p.
Iz člena 20 in Priloge VII Protokola o pogojih in podrobnostih sprejema Republike Bolgarije in Romunije v Evropsko unijo (UL 2005, L 157, str.
29), that Romania is bound from the date of its accession to the EU by the provisions of Directive 2004/38 save where those provisions concern, inter alia, access to the labour markets of Member States by Romanian nationals.
29) izhaja, da Romunijo od dneva pristopa k EU zavezujejo določbe Direktive 2004/38, razen tistih, ki zadevajo med drugim dostop romunskih državljanov do trgov dela držav članic.
In that regard, a number of transitional arrangements have been adopted in respect of Romania concerning the application of Art -icles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475).
V zvezi s tem je bilo za Romunijo sprejetih več prehodnih dogovorov glede veljave členov od 1 do 6 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 1612/68 z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti (UL L 257, str. 2).
As Mr Jipa’s rights as a worker are not in question before the referring court, the abovementioned transitional arrangements concerning Regulation No 1612/68 are not relevant in the context of the present case.
Jipe, za ta primer niso pomembni prehodni dogovori v zvezi z Uredbo �t. 1612/68.
Article 4 of Directive 2004/38, which concerns the rights of citizens of the Union in general, rather than citizens of the Union who are workers, is unaffected by the abovementioned transitional arrangements and applies in full to Romanian nationals from 1 January 2007.
Člena 4 Direktive 2004/38, ki se nana�a na pravice državljanov Unije na splo�no, ne pa na pravice državljanov Unije, ki so delavci, zgoraj navedeni prehodni dogovori ne zadevajo in za romunske državljane velja v celoti od 1. januarja 2007.
B — Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 restrict the right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
B – Člen 27 Direktive 2004/38 zdravja“ urejajo primere, v katerih lahko države članice omejijo pravico državljanov Unije, da se prosto gibajo in prebivajo na ozemlju držav članic.