natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If the analysis that I have set out earlier is correct, application of EC law will result in the Flemish care benefit, which is already available to all living within the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, having also to be made available (a) to ‘classic’ EC migrant workers (nationals of other Member States working in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital of Belgium but
Če je prej predstavljena analiza pravilna, bo uporaba prava ES omogočila, da bo flamsko zavarovanje, ki je zdaj na voljo vsem živečim v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital, dostopno tudi (a) „klasičnim“ delavcem migrantom v ES (državljanom drugih držav članic, ki delajo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital v Belgiji, vendar prebi-
102 — See, for example, D’Hoop, cited in footnote 86, paragraphs 30 and 31, where the Court held that the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement could not be fully effective if a national of a Member State could be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles raised on his return to his country of origin by legislation penalising the fact that he has used them.
102 – Glej na primer v opombi 86 navedeno sodbo D’Hoop, točki 30 in 31, v katerih je Sodi�če menilo, da priložnosti, ki jih ponuja Pogodba v zvezi s prostim gibanjem, ne morejo popolnoma učinkovati, če je državljanu države članice preprečeno izkoristiti pravice zaradi ovir ob vrnitvi v državo z zakonodajo, ki kaznuje dejstvo, da jih je uveljavil.
See also Singh, cited in footnote 44, paragraphs 19 and 23; and Alevizos, cited in footnote 64, paragraph 75.
Glej tudi v opombi 44 navedeno sodbo Singh, točki 19 in 23, ter v opombi 64 navedeno sodbo Alevizos, točka 75.
103 — Compare the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Carbonati, cited in footnote 73, at points 61 and 62.
103 – Primerjaj sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Poiares Madura v opombi 73 navedeni zadevi Carbonati, točki 61 in 62.
101 — Eman, cited in footnote 96, paragraphs 58 to 61.
101 – V opombi 96 navedena sodba Eman, točke od 58 do 61.
freedom of movement rights within Belgium as he could derive from national law.
užival pravice do prostega gibanja v Belgiji le v omejenem obsegu.
To that extent, the EC-Switzerland Agreement throws into even sharper relief the fact that, if the traditional ‘purely internal situation’ argument is accepted, Belgian nationals who have not exercised classic economic rights of freedom of movement are, by the very operation of EC law (in combination with national law), the only class of persons residing or moving within the Union against whom the conditions for entitlement to the Flemish care insurance may discriminate with impunity.
V tem pogledu Sporazum med ES in Švico �e močneje izpostavi dejstvo, da so, če je sprejet tradicionalni argument „samo notranjega položaja“, belgijski državljani, ki niso uveljavili klasičnih ekonomskih pravic prostega gibanja, po delovanju prava ES, edini razred oseb, ki bivajo ali se gibljejo po Uniji, za katere lahko veljajo nekaznivi diskriminacijski pogoji za pridobitev flamskega zavarovanja.
In such circumstances, a prima facie case can, it seems to me, be made for saying that the group of Belgian nationals who have not exercised classic economic rights of freedom of movement nevertheless falls in principle within the scope of EC law and/or is sufficiently affected by its application that they ought also to be able to invoke EC law. 105
V takih okoli�činah se mi zdi, da lahko govorimo o verjetno izkazanem primeru, da skupina belgijskih državljanov, ki ni uveljavila klasičnih ekonomskih pravic do prostega gibanja, kljub temu načeloma sodi v obseg prava ES in/ali nanjo uporabnost tega zadostno vpliva, da bi se lahko sklicevali na pravo ES. 105
The Government of the French Community raises an interesting tangential argument based on the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and Switzerland on the freedom of movement for persons (‘the EC-Switzerland Agreement’).
Vlada francoske skupnosti je sprožila zanimiv pogodbeni argument, ki temelji na Sporazumu med Evropsko skupnostjo in njenimi državami članicami ter Švico o prostem gibanju oseb (v nadaljevanju: Sporazum med ES in Švico) 104.
104Article 7(b) of that Agreement requires the Contracting Parties to make provision for ‘the right to occupational and geographical mobility which enables nationals of the Contracting Parties to move freely within the territory of the host State and to pursue the occupation of their choice’.
Člen 7(b) tega sporazuma zahteva od pogodbenih strank oblikovanje določbe za „pravico do poklicne in geografske mobilnosti, ki omogoča državljanom pogodbenih strank prosto gibanje po ozemlju države gostiteljice in opravljanje poklica po lastni izbiri“.
That provision would indeed appear expressly to grant Swiss citizens the right to move freely, not only between Switzerland and the various Member States, but also between different parts of the territory of an individual Member State.
Ta določba dejansko zagotavlja �vicarskim državljanom pravico do prostega gibanja ne le med Švico in državami članicami, temveč tudi med različnimi deli ozemelj posamezne države članice.
Any discrimination against that group would, of course, be indirect rather than direct.
Vsaka diskriminacija te skupine bi bila seveda prej posredna kot neposredna.
If so, the paradoxical result would be that a Swiss citizen (like a national of another Member State) would be entitled to freedom of movement throughout Belgium, whilst a Belgian national would merely enjoy such
Če je tako, bi bil paradoksalen rezultat, da bi bil �vicarski državljan (kot državljan druge države članice) upravičen do prostega gibanja po vsej Belgiji, medtem ko bi belgijski državljan na podlagi nacionalnega prava
104 — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6).
104 – Sporazum med Evropsko skupnostjo in državami članicami ter Švicarsko konfederacijo o prostem gibanju oseb (UL 2002, L 114, str. 6).
105 — Compare the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Carbonati, cited in footnote 73, at points 59 to 71, also relying on an interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination.
105 – Primerjaj sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Poiaresa Madura k zgoraj v opombi 73 navedeni sodbi Carbonati, točke od 59 do 71, ki se prav tako nana�ajo na razlago načela nediskriminacije. Glej tudi Spaventa, From Gebhard to Carpenter: Towards a (non-economic) European Constitution, Common Market Law Review, 2004, str.
771, suggesting that the combined effect of Articles 17 and 12 EC is to grant protection, as a matter of Community rather than national law, to citizens who have not exercised their free movement rights.
771, ki namiguje, da je kombinirani učinek členov 17 in 12 ES zagotoviti za�čito, ki zadeva pravo Skupnosti in ne nacionalno pravo, državljanom, ki niso uveljavili pravic prostega gibanja.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE se dejstva, da je v danem primeru posredovala le ena država članica, tj. Nizozemska.
It would seem desirable for a proper exploration of the elements that I have canvassed above to take place against the background of fuller participation from the Member States and (as a corollary) a more developed presentation by the Commission.
Z vidika ustrezne preučitve elementov, ki sem jih temeljito predstavila zgoraj, bi bilo zaželeno �tevilčnej�e sodelovanje držav članic in (posledično) bolj razdelana predstavitev Komisije.
It might be that, on more detailed examination, the prima facie case that I have outlined above is refuted.
Po temeljitej�i preučitvi se lahko zgodi, da bo prima facie primer, ki sem ga opisala zgoraj, zavrnjen.
Member States to raise arguments of objective justification.
lahko države članice pridobijo argumente za objektivno utemeljitev.
It is not difficult to foresee circumstances in which such objective justification could potentially be made out.
Ni težko predvideti okoli�čin, v katerih bi bila podana taka objektivna utemeljitev.
One can readily imagine (for example) that, in order to promote a less-developed region within its territory, or to deal with a problem that is endemic to one region but does not affect the rest of its territory, a Member State might wish to make certain advantages available only to those living within a particular region.
Lahko si predstavljamo (na primer), da lahko zaradi spodbujanja manj razvite regije na ozemlju države članice ali zaradi ukvarjanja s težavo, značilno za regijo, ki ne zadeva preostalega ozemlja, država članica želi ponuditi določene prednosti samo tistim, ki živijo v določeni regiji.
Well-founded objective justification would leave Member States ample scope to apply differentiated rules in situations that, objectively, merited such treatment, whilst safeguarding citizens of the Union against arbitrary discrimination that could not be so justified.
Dobro osnovana objektivna utemeljitev bi državi članici omogočila ozek obseg uporabe diferenciranih pravil v položajih, ki objektivno upravičujejo tako obravnavo, medtem ko �čitijo državljane Unije pred arbitrarno diskriminacijo, ki ne more biti utemeljena.
It goes without saying that counterarguments to the analysis that I have set out above on the impact of citizenship of the Union on purely internal situations, based upon continuing competences of the Member States, 106could be put forward.
Samoumevno je, da se lahko vložijo protiargumenti zgoraj opisane analize o vplivu državljanstva Unije na samo notranje položaje, ki temeljijo na trajajočih pristojnostih držav članic.
Given that purely internal situations have traditionally been viewed as falling outside the scope of EC law, it is likely that Member
106 Upo�tevajoč, da se je za samo notranje položaje tradicionalno menilo, da ne sodijo v obseg prava ES, je verjetno, da bi države članice dejansko želele predstaviti te argumente Sodi�ču; in njihove argumente bi bilo treba podrobno preučiti. Zavedam
106 — Thus far in the present case, the essential argument has been that a Member State with a decentralised constitutional structure thereby retains competence to discriminate between its own citizens without being required to provide objective justification for that discrimination.
106 – Doslej je bil v tem primeru bistven argument, da federalna država članica tako ohranja pristojnost diskriminiranja med svojimi državljani, ne da bi od nje zahtevali, naj zagotovi objektivno utemeljenost za tako diskriminacijo.
The Court would not, I suspect, wish to decide such a fundamental point in the present case (unless, of course, it decides to reopen the oral procedure and invite Member States to make their views on this issue known); and I do not see an overriding need for it to do so.
Menim, da Sodi�če v dani zadevi ne bo želelo odločati o tako temeljnem vpra�anju (razen če se odloči za vnovično odprtje ustnega postopka in povabi države članice, naj podajo mnenja o tej zadevi); in sama za tako ravnanje ne najdem pretirane potrebe.
There does nevertheless appear to me to be a possible argument — and one that is prima facie attractive because it would help to eradicate arbitrary discrimination — that citizens of the Union may rely upon that citizenship, in combination with the principle of non-discrimi-nation, as against a decentralised authority that unquestionably exercises the auctoritas of the State, in order to access a benefit that Community law clearly intends should be available widely to all workers and that groups of fellow-workers can indeed access through the intervention of Community law.
Ne glede na to se mi zdi kot mogoč argu -ment – in tak, ki je prima facie atraktiven, ker bi pomagal izkoreniniti arbitrarno diskriminacijo – ,,da državljani Unije lahko računajo na državljanstvo v kombinaciji z načelom nediskriminacije do federalne enote, ki nedvoumno izvr�uje auctoritas države, da bi bili upravičeni do dajatev, za katere pravo Skupnosti jasno določa, da morajo biti na voljo vsem delavcem in da lahko skupine sodelavcev vanj vstopijo s posredovanjem prava Skupnosti.
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-212/06
SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-212/06 uporabnosti
At the hearing, the question was raised as to whether Regulation No 1612/68 might be applicable to the proceedings.
Na naroku se je postavilo vpra�anje, ali se Uredba �t. 1612/68 uporablja v teh postopkih.
In the present case, I consider that Regulation No 1408/71 is applicable and that Article 3(1) thereof precludes citizens of other Member States and Belgian citizens who have made use of their right to freedom of movement being denied access to the Flemish care benefit.
V danem primeru menim, da se uporablja Uredba �t. 1408/71 in da njen člen 3(1) preprečuje, da bi bil državljanom drugih držav članic in belgijskim državljanom, ki so uveljavili svojo pravico do prostega gibanja, onemogočen vstop v flamsko zavarovanje.
That regulation applies in general to freedom of movement for workers.
Tako lahko velja za socialne ugodnosti, ki sočasno sodijo na področje uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
108The two Regulations do not have the same scope ratione personae.
109Pojem socialnih ugodnosti v členu
475), amended most recently by Directive 2004/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).
475), nazadnje dopolnjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/58/EC z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in bivanja na ozemlju držav članic (UL L 158, str. 77).
If the Court is minded to treat Belgian citizens who have not made use of a classic economic right to freedom of movement as entitled nevertheless to protection under Community law, it would likewise be
Če Sodi�če meni, da bi kljub temu obravnavalo belgijske državljane, ki niso uveljavili klasične ekonomske pravice do prostega gibanja, kot upravičene do za�čite
109 — Commission v Luxembourg, cited in previous footnote, paragraph 20, following the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in the same case, points 32 to 34.
109 – V prej�nji opombi navedena sodba Komisija proti Luksemburgu, točka 20, po sklepnih predlogih generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v istem primeru, točke 32 do 34.
110 — See the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Hosse, cited in footnote 30, point 104, and the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 29 March 2007 in Case C-287/05 Hendrix, pending, point 52.
Kokott k zgoraj v opombi 30 navedeni sodbi Hosse, točka 104, in sklepne predloge generalne pravobranilke J. Kokott predstavljene 29. marca 2007 v zadevi Hendrix (C-287/05, �e nere�ena zadeva pred Sodi�čem, točka 52).
Commission v Luxembourg and Martínez Sala, both cited in footnote 108, appear to be exceptions to this practice.
V opombi 108 navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Luksemburgu in Martínez Sala sta očitno izjemi od te prakse.
If the Court shares my view on the answers to be given to the first three questions, it is indeed necessary to answer the fourth question.
Če se Sodi�če strinja z mojimi predlogi odgovorov na prva tri vpra�anja, je dejansko treba odgovoriti na četrto vpra�anje.
unnecessary to examine their position from the perspective of Regulation No 1612/68.
po pravu Skupnosti, prav tako ne bi bilo treba preučiti njihovega položaja po Uredbi �t. 1612/68.
Fourth question
Četrto vprašanje
By a letter of formal notice of 17 December 2002, the Commission informed the Belgian Government that in its view the 2001 version of the Decree infringed Articles 39 and 43 EC as well as Regulation No 1408/71.
Na podlagi pisnega opomina z dne 17. decembra 2002 je Komisija obvestila belgijsko vlado, da po njenem mnenju različica uredbe 2001 kr�i člena 39 in 43 ES ter tudi Uredbo �t. 1408/71.
The Commission specifically took issue with the residence requirement, under which only persons living in the Flemish region or in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital could be affiliated to the Flemish care insurance.
Komisija je posebej nasprotovala zahtevi po stalnem prebivali�ču, po kateri so bile upravičene do flamskega zavarovanja le osebe, ki živijo v flamski regiji ali dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital.
By its fourth question, the referring court wishes to know what would happen if the current (2004) version of the 1999 Decree were inconsistent with Community law.
S četrtim vpra�anjem želi predložitveno sodi�če izvedeti, kaj bi se zgodilo, če veljavna (2004) različica uredbe 1999 ne bi bila v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
More particularly, the question arises whether Community law would preclude reversion to the system in force before the adoption of the 2004 Decree, i.e. a system where access to benefits under the Flemish care insurance was unequivocally dependent on residence in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, irrespective of the category of claimant (‘the 2001 version of the Decree’).
Natančneje, pojavlja se vpra�anje, ali pravo Skupnosti preprečuje vrnitev na sistem, ki je veljal pred sprejetjem uredbe 2004, tj. na sistem, v katerem je bil dostop do dajatev po flamskem zavarovanju nedvoumno odvisen od stalnega prebivali�ča v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital, ne glede na kategorijo vlagatelja („različica uredbe 2001“).
The Flemish Parliament took the Commission’s complaints into account and modified the Decree with the specific intention of making it compatible with Community law. 112
Flamski parlament je upo�teval pritožbe Komisije in spremenil uredbo, da bi jo uskladil s pravom Skupnosti. 112
2: ‘It appears from the final report [of the commission of experts] that the European Commission has rightly pointed out that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 applies to the legislation concerning the Flemish care insurance … On the request of the European Commission, this conclusion has to be transposed explicitly into legislation.
2: „Iz končnega poročila [strokovnjakov komisije] izhaja, da je Evropska komisija pravilno poudarila, da velja Uredba (EGS) �t. 1408/71 za zakonodajo flamskega zavarovanja […] Na zahtevo Evropske komisije mora biti zaključek izrecno prenesen v zakonodajo.
An amendment of the Decree of 30 March 1999 concerning the organisation of the care insurance is therefore necessary …’ (my translation).
Zato je potrebna sprememba Uredbe z dne 30. marca 1999 […]“ (moj prevod).
The Flemish Government submits that a reply to the fourth question is necessary only if the present version of the Decree is inconsistent with Community law, which, in its submission, is not the case.
Flamska vlada je predložila, da je odgovor na četrto vpra�anje potreben le, če veljavna različica uredbe ni v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, za kar pa meni, da ni tako.
It is however quite unclear why that fact of itself makes the whole situation a purely internal one.
Torej, ni povsem jasno, zakaj to dejstvo naredi predstavljeni položaj samo za notranji.
The Flemish Government argues that the applicants in the main proceedings are not interested in promoting freedom of movement for migrant workers, but only in protecting the inhabitants of the Frenchspeaking region.
Flamska vlada trdi, da tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ne zanima spodbujanje prostega gibanja za delavce migrante, temveč samo za�čita prebivalcev francosko govoreče regije.
The situation is therefore purely internal.
Položaj je zato samo notranji.
It also repeats its earlier argument that, since the Belgian constitutional structure prevents the Decree (in any of its versions) from being applied to inhabitants of the Frenchspeaking or Germanspeaking regions, there is no infringement of Community law.
Prav tako ponavlja prej�nje argumente, da ne gre za kr�itev prava Skupnosti, saj belgijska ustavna struktura preprečuje veljavnost uredbe (v kateri koli različici) za prebivalce francosko ali nem�ko govoreče regije.
As to the second, I have already recalled that according to the Court’s consistent caselaw, the internal constitutional structure of a Member State cannot excuse an infringement of Community law.
Glede drugega sem že spomnila, da glede na ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča notranja ustavna struktura države članice ne more biti izgovor za kr�itev prava Skupnosti.
For the reasons given above, I consider that the questions referred by the Cour d’arbitrage (Court of Arbitration), now Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court), of Belgium should be answered as follows:
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov menim, da bi morali na vložena vpra�anja Cour d’Arbitrage de Belgique/Arbitragehof van België (belgijsko arbitražno sodi�če) odgovoriti tako:
‘— A care insurance scheme such as the one established by the Flemish Community falls within the scope ratione materiae of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
– Shema zavarovanja, kot jo je uvedla flamska skupnost, sodi v obseg ratione materiae Uredbe �t. 1408/71, kot jo določa člen 4.
— In so far as nationals of other Member States working in Belgium and Belgian nationals who have exercised rights of freedom of movement are concerned, Articles 39 and 43 EC and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude an autonomous Community of a federal Member State from adopting provisions which, in the exercise of its powers, allow only persons residing in the territory for which that autonomous Community is competent or in another Member State to be insured under and covered by a social security scheme within the meaning of that regulation, to the exclusion of persons, whatever their nationality, who reside in a part of the territory of the same federal State for which another autonomous Community is competent.
– Glede državljanov drugih držav članic, ki delajo v Belgiji, in belgijskih državljanov, ki so uveljavili pravice do prostega gibanja, člena 39 in 43 ES ter člen 3 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 preprečujejo avtonomni skupnosti federalne države članice sprejetje določb, na podlagi katerih pri izvr�evanju svojih pristojnosti dovoljuje samo osebam, ki bivajo na ozemlju, za katero je pristojna ta avtonomna skupnost, ali v drugi državi članici, da so zavarovane po sistemu socialnega varstva in krite z njim v okviru te uredbe, na račun izključitve oseb, ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo, ki bivajo na delu ozemlja iste federalne države, za katerega je pristojna druga avtonomna skupnost.
— Community law would preclude a system where access to benefits under the Flemish care insurance is unequivocally dependent on residence in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, irrespective of the category of claimant.’
– Pravo Skupnosti bi onemogočilo sistem, v katerem je dostop do dajatev po flamskem zavarovanju nedvoumno odvisen od stalnega prebivali�ča v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital, ne glede na kategorijo vlagatelja.
2008 — CASE C-212/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-212/06
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Cour d’arbitrage, now the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium), made by decision of 19 April 2006, received at the Court on 10 May 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-212/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Cour d’arbitrage (arbitražno sodi�če), sedaj Cour constitutionnelle (ustavno sodi�če) (Belgija), z odločbo z dne 19. aprila 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 10. maja 2006, v postopku vlada francoske skupnosti, valonska vlada proti flamski vladi,
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE generalna pravobranilka: E.
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, Head of Unit, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 27 March 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Sharpston, sodni tajnik: M.-A. Gaudissart, vodja enote, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 27. marca 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili: