natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Asked to decide whether Netherlands legislation requiring such vehicles to undergo an identication check and a roadworthiness test prior to registration in the Netherlands was compatible with Community law, the Court held, first of all, that the vehicle identication check did not constitute a hindrance to the free movement of goods.
V zadevi Jia se je spor, o katerem je odločalo predložitveno sodišče, nanašal na taščo nemške državljanke, kitajsko državljanko, ki se je pridružila svojemu sinu na Švedskem, kjer je njena snaha opravljala dejavnost kot samozaposlena oseba.
It was unlikely to have any deterrent eect whatsoever on the import of a vehicle into the Netherlands or to make the import of vehicles less attractive, given the manner in which it was carried out and the fact
Ko ji je potekel turistični vizum, ji ni bilo izdano dovoljenje za bivanje, ker ni dovolj dokazala nančne
Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Uredba Sveta št. 1612/68 (EGS) z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti (UL L 257, str. 2).
Court of Justice that it constituted a simple administrative formality which did not introduce any additional check and which was integral to the actual processing of the registration application and to the conduct of the associated procedure.
Predložitveno sodišče se je sklicevalo na sodbo Akrich (sodba z dne 23. septembra 2003, C-109/01, Recueil, str. I-9607) in v bistvu vprašalo, ali pogoj zakonitega bivanja, ki je bil sprejet v navedeni sodbi, velja tudi v obravnavanem primeru.
Ruling, secondly, on whether the roadworthiness test relating to the general condition of vehicles at the time of their registration in the Netherlands was compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC, the Court stated that a restrictive measure of that kind, when applied to vehicles more than three years old which had previously been registered in another Member State, was not proportionate to the legitimate objectives of road safety and the protection of the environment.
Sodišče je na to vprašanje odgovorilo, da pravo Skupnosti glede na zgoraj navedeno sodbo Akrich državam članicam ne nalaga, naj za dodelitev pravice do bivanja državljanu tretje države, ki je družinski član državljana Skupnosti, ki je uporabil pravico do prostega gibanja, določijo pogoj, da je ta družinski član pred tem zakonito bival v drugi državi članici.
The Court observed in this regard that less restrictive measures existed, such as recognition of the proof issued in another Member State showing that a vehicle registered in its territory had passed a roadworthiness test, and cooperation between the Netherlands customs authorities and their counterparts in other Member States concerning any data that might be missing.
Vendar pa morata tega družinskega člana vzdrževati državljan Skupnosti ali njegov zakonec v takem smislu, da družinski član potrebuje nančno pomoč slednjih, da bi zadovoljil svoje temeljne potrebe v državi izvora ali državi, iz katere je prišel, ko je zaprosil za to, da se jima pridruži.
Caselaw in this eld was particularly abundant, making a well-ordered presentation dicult, in particular as the cases brought before the Court often concerned the exercise of several freedoms simultaneously. It has therefore been decided to divide the caselaw into four areas, three of which reect a sectoral approach, that is to say the free movement of workers, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the free movement of capital, while the fourth — namely the limitations imposed by those freedoms on the exercise by the Member States of their powers of taxation — involves a cross-sectoral approach.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Eind je Sodišče presodilo, da pravica do združitve družine na podlagi člena 10 Uredbe št. 1612/68 družinskim članom delavcev migrantov ne daje samostojne pravice do prostega gibanja, ampak je ta določba namenjena predvsem delavcu migrantu, k čigar družini pripada državljan tretje države.
With regard to the free movement of natural persons, that is to say of workers, the Court ruled, inter alia, on the right of residence of nationals of third countries who are members of the family of a Community national, in particular a Community migrant worker, and the social advantages which those family members may claim.
Zato ob vrnitvi delavca Skupnosti v državo članico, katere državljan je, pravo Skupnosti organom te države ne nalaga priznanja državljanu tretje države, ki je družinski član tega delavca, pravice do vstopa in do prebivanja le zato, ker ima v državi članici, v kateri je bil delavec zaposlen, ta državljan tretje države veljavno dovoljenje za prebivanje, izdano na podlagi zgoraj navedenega člena.
It is also to be noted that the Court explained the concept of ‘migrant worker’ in its judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-212/05 Hartmann.
Ob vrnitvi delavca v državo članico, katere državljan je, potem ko je bil zaposlen v drugi državi članici, pa ima državljan tretje države, njegov družinski član, na podlagi člena 10(1)(a) Uredbe št. 1612/68, kot je bila spremenjena, pravico do prebivanja v državi, katere državljan je delavec, tudi če slednji tam ne opravlja nobene resnične in dejanske gospodarske dejavnosti.
Thus, a national of a Member State who, while maintaining his employment in that State, has transferred his residence to another Member State and has since then carried on his occupation as a frontier worker can claim the status of migrant worker for the purposes of Regulation No 1612/68 (16).
Dejstvo, da državljan tretje države, družinski član delavca Skupnosti, pred bivanjem v državi članici, v kateri je bil delavec zaposlen, ni imel pravice do prebivanja na podlagi nacionalnega prava v državi članici, katere državljan je delavec, ne vpliva na presojo pravice do prebivanja tega državljana v slednji državi.
In relation to the right of residence of nationals of third countries who are members of the family of a Community national who has exercised the right to freedom of movement, Case C-1/05 Jia [2007] ECR I-1 and Case C-291/05 Eind (judgment of 11 December 2007) warrant particular attention.
Delavci Skupnosti in njihovi družinski člani, ki se naselijo v državi članici, uživajo enake socialne ugodnosti kot domači delavci.Tako je v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Hartmann Sodišče presodilo, da člen 7(2) Uredbe št. 1612/68 nasprotuje temu, da je brezposelna oseba, ki prebiva v drugi državi članici in je zakonec delavca migranta, ki opravlja poklicno dejavnost v državi članici, izključena od pravice do socialne ugodnosti, ki ima lastnosti nemškega dodatka za vzgojo, z obrazložitvijo, da nima niti stalnega niti običajnega prebivališča v prvi državi.
In Jia, the dispute before the national court concerned the case of a Chinese national who was the mother-in-law of a German national and went to join her son in Sweden where her daughter-in-law was self-employed.
Tak pogoj prebivališča je namreč posredno diskriminatoren, ker lahko že zaradi svoje narave bolj vpliva na delavce migrante oziroma njihove zakonce, ki pogosteje prebivajo v drugi državi članici, kot na domače delavce in ker so zato lahko v slabšem položaju zlasti delavci migranti.
When her visitor’s visa expired she was refused a residence permit on the ground that she had not provided adequate proof that she was
Nasprotno pa je Sodišče v zadevi Geven (sodba z dne 18. julija 2007, C-213/05) ugotovilo, da isti člen ne nasprotuje temu, da nacionalna ureditev države članice državljanu druge države članice s prebivališčem v tej državi, ki v prvi državi opravlja neznatno poklicno dejavnost (manj kot 15 ur tedensko), onemogoča prejemanje socialne ugodnosti, kot je dodatek za vzgojo otroka, ker v prvi državi nima niti stalnega niti običajnega prebivališča.
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).
Sodišče je enako ugotovilo v zadevi Hendrix (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2007, C-287/05), in sicer da člen 39 ES in člen 7 Uredbe št. 1612/68 ne
Proceedings nancially dependent on her son and his wife.
Vendar uresničevanje te zakonodaje ne sme ogroziti pravic, ki izhajajo iz prostega gibanja delavcev, tako da bi presegalo to, kar se zahteva za uresničitev legitimnega cilja, ki mu sledi nacionalna zakonodaja.
The national court, referring to the judgment in Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607, essentially asked whether the lawful-residence condition that was adopted in that judgment also applied to the circumstances of the case in point.
Tako je Sodišče v združenih zadevah Habelt, Möser in Watcher (sodba z dne 18. decembra 2007, C-396/05, C-419/05 in C-450/05), katerih predmet je bilo izplačevanje starostne pokojnine izgnanim osebam z nemškim državljanstvom ali nemške narodnosti, razglasilo, da je s prostim gibanjem delavcev nezdružljivo dovoljenje, dano Zvezni republiki Nemčiji, da za upoštevanje dopolnjenih dob plačevanja prispevkov zunaj ozemlja navedene republike določa pogoj, da upravičenec stalno prebiva v Nemčiji.
The Court stated in reply to this question that, having regard to the judgment in Akrich, Community law does not require Member States to make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a third country, who are members of the family of a Community national who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the condition that those family members have previously been residing lawfully in another Member State.
Če bi namreč dovolili, da se pristojna država članica pri uvedbi pogoja stalnega prebivališča sklicuje na namen vključevanja v družbeno življenje te države članice, bi to neposredno nasprotovalo temeljnemu cilju Unije, ki je spodbujanje gibanja oseb v njej in njihovo vključevanje v družbo drugih držav članic.
However, such family members must be dependent on the Community national or his or her spouse in the sense that they need those persons’ material support in order to meet their essential needs in their State of origin or the State from which they have come at the time when they apply to join them.
Zato so nacionalni organi, s tem ko pri izračunu dajatev za starost niso upoštevali prispevkov, ki jih je delavec plačal v tujini, očitno otežili ali celo onemogočili izvrševanje pravice do prostega gibanja v Uniji, kar torej pomeni oviro za to svobodo.
In Eind, the Court held that the right to family reunication under Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 does not entail for members of the families of migrant workers any autonomous right to free movement, since that provision benets the migrant worker whose family includes a national of a third country.
Na področju svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev je Sodišče opredelilo področje uporabe določb Pogodbe, ko gre za primere z zunajskupnostnim elementom, in ugotovilo različne omejitve.
Accordingly, in the event of a Community worker returning to the Member State of which he is a national, Community law does not require the authorities of that State to grant a right of entry and residence to a third-country national who is a member of that worker’s family because of the mere fact that, in the host Member State where that worker was gainfully employed, the third-country national held a valid residence permit issued on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, ki se nanaša na zakonodajo države članice v zvezi s tem, da je družba rezidentka odbijala obresti za davčne namene, ki jih je ta plačala pri vračilu posojila matični družbi ali družbi, ki jo taka matična družba nadzira, je Sodišče presodilo, da se za razmerja med družbo rezidentko države članice in družbo rezidentko druge države članice ali tretje države, ki sama ne nadzira prve družbe, ampak ki jo, tako kot drugo družbo, neposredno ali posredno nadzira skupna povezana družba, ki je rezidentka tretje države, ne uporablja člen 43 ES.
However, when that worker returns to the Member State of which he is a national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State, a third-country national who is a member of his family has a right under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 1612/68 as amended to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national, even where that worker does not carry on any eective and genuine economic activities.
Enako je Sodišče presodilo v zadevi Holböck (sodba z dne 24. maja 2007, C-157/05), in sicer da se določbe poglavja Pogodbe ES o pravici do ustanavljanja ne uporabljajo takrat, kadar prejme delničar dividende od družbe s sedežem v tretji državi.
The fact that a third-country national who is a member of a Community worker’s family did not, before residing in the Member State where the worker was employed, have a right under national law to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national has no bearing on the determination of the third-country national’s right to reside in the latter State.
To poglavje namreč ne vključuje nobene določbe, ki bi razširjala njegovo uporabo na položaje, ki zajemajo ustanavljanje v tretji državi za državljana države članice ali družbo, ustanovljeno v skladu z zakonodajo države članice.
Community workers and members of their families who settle in a Member State can be entitled to the same social advantages as national workers.
Glede omejitev naj najprej omenimo zadevo Placanica (sodba z dne 6. marca 2007, C-338/04, ZOdl., str. I-1891) v zvezi z organiziranjem iger na srečo.
Thus, in Hartmann the Court held that Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 precludes the spouse of a migrant worker carrying on an occupation in one Member State, who does not work and is resident in another Member State, from being refused a social advantage with the characteristics of the German child-raising allowance on the ground that he did not have his permanent or ordinary residence in the former State.
Spor, o katerem je odločalo predložitveno sodišče, se je nanašal na nacionalno ureditev o organiziranju iger na srečo in na pobiranje stav, ki je bila sprejeta zaradi boja proti nezakonitim igram in stavam.
On the other hand, in its judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-213/05 Geven, the Court stated that the same article does not preclude the exclusion, by the national legislation of a Member State, of a national of another Member State who resides in that other State and is in minor employment (fewer than 15 hours’work a week) in the former State from receipt of a social advantage such as a child-raising allowance on the ground that he does not have his permanent or ordinary residence in the former State.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti (UL L 149, str. 2).
However, implementation of that legislation must not entail an infringement of the rights derived by a person from the free movement of workers which goes beyond what is required to achieve the legitimate objective pursued by the national legislation.
Pristojni nacionalni organi so poleg tega za podelitev koncesij iz razpisov izključili subjekte, ki so organizirani v obliki družb, katerih delnice kotirajo na organiziranem trgu.
More specically, in relation to social security the Court had to rule on the compatibility of certain provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 with freedom of movement for persons and with Article 42 EC in particular.
Sodišče pa je povsem v skladu s sodbo Gambelli in drugi (sodba z dne 6. novembra 2003, C-243/01, Recueil, str.
Thus, in its judgment of 18 December 2007 in Joined Cases C-396/05, C-419/05 and C-450/05 Habelt, Möser and Watcher, concerning payment of an old-age pension to displaced persons of German nationality or origin, the Court declared incompatible with freedom of movement for persons the authorisation given to the Federal Republic of Germany to make the taking into account of contribution periods completed outside the Federal Republic subject to the condition that the recipient resides in Germany.
I-13031) presodilo, da nacionalna ureditev – ki ob neobstoju koncesije ali dovoljenja policije, ki ju izdaja zadevna država članica, prepoveduje opravljanje dejavnosti pobiranja, sprejemanja, vpisa in prenosa stavnih predlogov, zlasti pri športnih dogodkih, sicer predpisuje kazenske sankcije – pomeni omejitev pravice do ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev, vendar da je ta omejitev lahko upravičena, če je, kadar omejuje število subjektov, ki delujejo v sektorju iger na srečo, dejansko skladna s ciljem preprečiti izkoriščanje dejavnosti v tem sektorju v kriminalne ali goljuve namene, kar morajo preveriti nacionalna sodišča.
To allow the competent Member State to rely on grounds of integration into the social environment of that Member State in order to impose a residence clause would run directly counter to the fundamental objective of the Union, which is to encourage the movement of persons within the Union and their integration into the society of other States.
Prav tako je presodilo, da nacionalna ureditev, ki izključi iz sektorja iger na srečo subjekte, ki so organizirani v obliki kapitalskih družb, katerih delnice kotirajo na organiziranem trgu, pomeni tudi oviro za pravico do ustanavljanja in za svobodo opravljanja storitev, saj taka izključitev presega to, kar je nujno za dosego cilja, to je preprečiti, da bi bili subjekti, ki delujejo v sektorju iger na srečo, vpleteni v kriminalne ali goljuve dejavnosti.
Accordingly, the refusal of the national authorities to take account, for the purposes of calculating old-age benets, of the contributions made abroad by a worker makes manifestly more dicult or even prevents the exercise by those concerned of their right to freedom of movement within the Union and therefore constitutes an obstacle to that freedom.
Na koncu po mnenju Sodišča pomeni tudi omejitev teh svobod ureditev, ki določa kazensko sankcijo za osebe, ki so opravljale organizirano dejavnost pobiranja stav brez koncesije ali dovoljenja policije, ki ga zahteva nacionalna zakonodaja, če te osebe niso mogle pridobiti koncesij ali dovoljenj, ker jim jih zadevna država članica, v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, ni odobrila.
With regard to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, the Court, first, claried the scope of the Treaty provisions in relation to situations involving an extraCommunity element and, second, dealt with various restrictions.
Čeprav načeloma kazenska zakonodaja spada v pristojnost držav članic, pravo Skupnosti to pristojnost vseeno omejuje s pravilom, da taka zakonodaja ne sme omejevati temeljnih svoboščin, ki jih zagotavlja pravo Skupnosti.
In Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, concerning the legislation of a Member State relating to the deduction by a resident company, for tax purposes, of interest paid on loan finance granted by a parent company or a company controlled by a parent company, the Court held that relations between a company resident in one Member State and a company which is resident in another Member State or a non-member country and which does not itself control the first company, but which are both controlled, directly or indirectly, by a common parent company resident in a non-member country, are not covered by Article 43 EC.
V zvezi s šolninami in stroški bolnišničnega zdravljenja, plačanimi ustanovam v drugi državi članici, je treba omeniti zgoraj navedeni zadevi Schwarz in Gootjes-Schwarz ter Komisija proti Nemčiji in zadevo Stamatelaki (sodba z dne 19. aprila 2007, C-444/05). V omenjenih zadevah Schwarz in Gootjes-Schwarz ter Komisija proti Nemčiji so bile predmet sporov davčne olajšave, priznane nemškim davčnim zavezancem za šolnine, plačane zasebnim šolam, ki v Nemčiji izpolnjujejo določene pogoje in ki jih obiskujejo njihovi otroci.
Also, in its judgment of 24 May 2007 in Case C-157/05 Holböck the Court held the provisions of the chapter of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment to be inapplicable to a situation where a shareholder receives dividends from a company established in a non-member country.
Vendar pa se ta olajšava ni uporabljala za šolnine, plačane zasebni šoli s sedežem v drugi državi članici. Preden se je Sodišče izreklo o združljivosti te zakonodaje s členom 49 ES, je, prvič, pojem storitev razširilo na šole, ki se pretežno nancirajo z zasebnimi sredstvi.
That chapter does not include any provision extending its application to situations which involve the establishment in a non-member country of a Member State national or of a company incorporated under the legislation of a Member State.
Ker je cilj, ki mu sledijo te šole, ponudba storitev za plačilo, se lahko sklicujejo na svobodo opravljanja storitev. Ni pa potrebno, da bi jih nancirali učenci ali njihovi starši, saj člen 50 ES ne zahteva, da bi storitev plačal tisti, ki jo uporablja.
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
Nasprotno pa pojem storitev ne zajema šol, ki se pretežno ne nancirajo z zasebnimi sredstvi, zlasti javnih šol, ker država z vzpostavitvijo in ohranjanjem javnega izobraževalnega sistema, ki ga na splošno nancira javni proračun, ne pa učenci ali njihovi starši, uresničuje svoje poslanstvo do svojih prebivalcev na socialnem, kulturnem in izobraževalnem področju.
Proceedings
Razvoj in dejavnost šolam s sedežem v drugih državah članicah.
As regards restrictions, the first judgment to be mentioned was delivered in Case C-338/04 Placanica [2007] ECR I-1891 relating to the organisation of games of chance. The dispute before the national court concerned domestic legislation on the organisation of games of chance and the collection of bets that had been adopted in order to combat clandestine gaming and betting.
Končno pa taka ureditev pomeni tudi oviranje svobode ustanavljanja zaposlenih ali samozaposlenih oseb, ki so svoje stalno prebivališče prenesle ali ki delajo v zadevni državi članici in katerih otroci še naprej obiskujejo šolo, za katero se plačuje šolnina, s sedežem v drugi državi članici.
Under the legislation, organisation of gaming and betting required, on pain of criminal penalties, prior grant of a licence and of a police authorisation.
Ti delavci namreč niso upravičeni do davčne olajšave, medtem ko bi bili do nje upravičeni, če bi njihovi otroci obiskovali šolo s sedežem v Nemčiji.
In addition, when awarding licences the competent national authorities excluded certain tenders, in particular from operators in the form of companies whose shares were quoted on the regulated markets.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Stamatelaki je Sodišče presodilo, da pomeni oviro svobodi opravljanja storitev nacionalna ureditev, ki izključuje, da bi nacionalni nosilec socialne varnosti povrnil kakršne koli stroške bolnišničnega zdravljenja svojih zavarovancev v zasebni zdravstveni ustanovi v drugi državi članici, razen stroškov za zdravljenje otrok, mlajših od 14 let.