natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While the former benefit from the principle of equal treatment only as regards access to employment, the latter may, on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, claim the same social and tax advantages as national workers.
Ker Uredba 1612/86 pojma „delavec“ ne uporablja enotno, je Sodišče pozvalo nacionalno sodišče, naj preizkusi, ali se je zakon Združenega kraljestva res skliceval na navedeni pomen.
With regard to Directive 68/360, the Court first pointed out that the Treaty itself confers a right of residence, which may be limited in time, on nationals of Member States who are seeking employment in other Member States.
Glede Direktive 68/360 je Sodišče najprej opozorilo, da sama Pogodba državljanom držav članic, ki iščejo zaposlitev na ozemlju drugih držav članic, priznava pravico do prebivanja, ki je lahko časovno omejena.
The right to reside in a Member State which Directive 68/360 confers is reserved for nationals who are already employed in that Member State.
Pravico do prebivanja v državi članici, priznano z Direktivo 68/360, imajo le tisti državljani, ki so v tej državi članici že zaposleni.
Mr Collins was not in that position and he could therefore not rely on that directive.
Ker v primeru g. Collinsa ni tako, se ta na predmetno direktivo ne more sklicevati.
The Court concluded by examining the United Kingdom legislation in the light of the fundamental principle of equal treatment.
Sodišče je nazadnje presojalo ureditev v Združenem kraljestvu z vidika temeljnega načela enakega obravnavanja.
Nationals of one Member State who are seeking employment in another Member State come in that regard, the Court held, within the scope of application of Article 48 of the EC Treaty and are thus entitled to benefit from the right to equal treatment set out in Article 48(2).
Sodišče je potrdilo, da se za državljane države članice, ki iščejo zaposlitev v drugi državi članici, v tej zvezi uporablja člen 48 Pogodbe in imajo posledično ti državljani pravico do enakega obravnavanja, ki je določena v odstavku 2 navedene določbe.
However, does that right to equal treatment extend to benefits of a financial nature such as the jobseeker’s allowance?
Ali se predmetna pravica do enakega obravnavanja vendarle razteza tudi na dajatve finančne narave, kot je pomoč iskalcem zaposlitve?
In principle the answer must be in the negative in the light of the case-law previously cited of the Court, which states that equality of treatment in regard to social and financial benefits applies only to persons who have already entered the employment market, while others specifically benefit from it only as regards access to employment.
A priori je odgovor glede na zgoraj navedeno sodno prakso Sodišča, v skladu s katero je enako obravnavanje, glede socialnih in davčnih ugodnosti, zagotovljeno le osebam, ki so že na trgu delovne sile, medtem ko so druge osebe upravičene samo do enakega obravnavanja pri dostopu do zaposlitve, negativen.
The Court considered, however, that, in view of the establishment of citizenship of the Union and the interpretation in the case-law of the right to equal treatment enjoyed by citizens of the Union, it was no longer possible to exclude from the scope of Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty, which is an expression of equal treatment, a benefit of a financial nature intended to facilitate access to employment in the labour market of a Member State.
Kljub temu je Sodišče menilo, upoštevaje uvedbo državljanstva Unije in sodno razlago pravice do enakega obravnavanja, ki ga uživajo državljani Unije, s področja uporabe člena 48(2) Pogodbe, ki je izraz enakega obravnavanja, da ni več mogoče izključiti dajatve finančne narave, s katero se olajša dostop do trga delovne sile določene države članice.
In the present case, the residence condition imposed by the United Kingdom legislation was likely to be more easily satisfied by United Kingdom nationals.
V konkretnem primeru pogoju o prebivališču, ki ga je postavil britanski zakon, lažje zadostijo domači državljani.
It could be justified only if it was based on objective considerations that were independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national law.
Upravičiti bi ga bilo mogoče samo, če bi temeljil na objektivnih ugotovitvah, neodvisnih od državljanstva prizadetih oseb, in hkrati sorazmernih z legitimnim ciljem, ki ga zasleduje nacionalno pravo.
It was, the Court pointed out, legitimate for the national legislature to wish to ensure that there was a genuine link between an applicant for the allowance and the employment market, in particular by establishing that the person concerned was, for a reasonable period, in fact genuinely seeking work.
Sodišče opozarja na legitimnost želje nacionalnega zakonodajalca po tem, da bi se prepričal o resnični povezavi med prosilcem pomoči in trgom delovne sile, predvsem z ugotovitvijo, da je zadevna oseba v določenem razumnem časovnem obdobju učinkovito in resnično iskala zaposlitev.
However, if it is to be proportionate, a period of residence required for that purpose may not exceed what is necessary in order to enable the national authorities to be satisfied that the person concerned is genuinely seeking work.
Vendar pa, če naj bo sorazmerno, zahtevano obdobje prebivanja ne sme preseči tistega obdobja, ki je nujno potrebno, da se lahko nacionalni organi prepričajo o tem, da zadevna oseba resnično išče zaposlitev.
The second case, Case C-456/02 Trojani (judgment of 7 September 2004, not yet published in the ECR), involved a destitute French national who had been given
Druga zadeva, Trojani (sodba z dne 7. septembra 2004, C-456/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), se je nanašala na francoskega državljana brez sredstev (za preživljanje), sprejetega v zatočišče, sprejemni center v Bruslju, v katerem je v zameno za nastanitev in žepnino 30 ur na teden opravljal različna dela v okviru individualnega projekta vključitve.
Page 25
Dejavnost
Proceedings accommodation in a Salvation Army hostel in Brussels where, in return for his board and lodging and a small amount of pocket money, he performed a variety of jobs for about 30 hours per week as part of a personal socio-occupational reintegration programme.
Glede pravice do prebivanja je Sodišče najprej opozorilo na pomen, ki ga ima pojem „delavec“ v Skupnosti. Značilnost delovnega razmerja je v okoliščini, da določena oseba določen čas v korist in pod vodstvom druge osebe opravi določeno delo, za katero prejme določeno plačilo.
The question which arose was whether he could claim a right of residence as a worker, a selfemployed worker or a person providing or receiving services within the terms of Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.
Pravna narava sui generis delovnega razmerja glede na nacionalno pravo, večja ali manjša produktivnost zadevne osebe, izvor sredstev za plačilo ali celo omejena raven slednjega so v tem oziru brez pomena.
If not, could he benefit from that right by direct application of Article 18 EC in his capacity merely as a citizen of the Union?
Vendar je treba odločiti, ali je narava teh del resnična in učinkovita; če so, nasprotno, te dejavnosti tako omejene, da jih je mogoče šteti za postranske in pomožne, je treba lastnost delavca izključiti.
It was in fact in respect of the right of residence that the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) questioned the Court, even though the case had been brought before it following the refusal by the Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS) to grant Mr Trojani the minimum subsistence allowance (‘minimex’).
Sodišče izključuje možnost uporabe določb o svobodi ustanavljanja, saj je v konkretnem primeru potrjen obstoj dejavnosti, ki se opravlja za plačilo, kot tudi določb o prostem opravljanju storitev, ker izključujejo dejavnosti, ki se opravljajo na trajni podlagi oziroma katerih trajanje v nobenem primeru ni vnaprej časovno omejeno.
On the issue of the right of residence as a worker, the Court first pointed out the Community scope of the concept of ‘worker’. The essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.
Glede pravice do prebivanja, ki jo imajo državljani Unije, določene v členu 18 ES, Sodišče opozarja na neposredni učinek navedene določbe, vendar takoj pojasni, da se nanjo ni mogoče brezpogojno sklicevati: mogoče jo je omejiti ali pogojevati, med drugim s pogoji iz člena 1 Direktive 90/3647, ki državam članicam dopušča, da zavrnejo pravico do prebivanja državljanom Unije brez zadostnih sredstev.
Neither the sui generis nature of the employment relationship under national law, nor the level of productivity of the person concerned, the origin of the funds from which the remuneration is paid or the limited amount of that remuneration can have any consequence in that regard.
Predmetne omejitve in pogoje pa je treba v vsakem primeru uporabljati tako, da se spoštuje pravo Skupnosti in predvsem načelo sorazmernosti.
However, it remained to be determined whether those services were real and genuine or whether, on the contrary, they were on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, with the result that the person concerned could not be classified as a worker.
V konkretnem primeru Sodišče poudarja, da so ravno nezadostna sredstva prizadeto osebo prisilila k temu, da je zaprosila za minimex, kar upravičuje uporabo Direktive 90/364 in ji odvzema možnost sklicevanja na člen 18 ES.
In that connection the Court left it to the national court to determine whether those services were real and genuine.
Kljub temu je Sodišče ugotovilo, da ima prizadeta stranka dovoljenje za prebivanje.
It did, however, provide some guidelines: the national court had, in particular, to ascertain whether the services performed were capable of being treated as forming part of the normal labour market, regard being had to the status and practices of the hostel, the content of the social reintegration programme, and the nature and details of performance of the services.
Prav tako iz lastnega nagiba pojasnjuje, da se lahko prizadeta stranka glede dajatve socialne pomoči, kot je minimex, sklicuje na člen 12 ES, da bi tako dosegla obravnavanje, enako tistemu, ki je pridržano domačim državljanom.
The Court also rejected the argument that the provisions governing the right of establishment might be applicable inasmuch as it had been established in the case that the activities performed were in the nature of employment.
Tretja zadeva, Baldinger (sodba z dne 16. septembra 2004, C-386/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), se je nanašala na uporabo avstrijskega zakona o odškodnini vojnim ujetnikom, sprejetega leta 2000, ki je za nekdanje vojne ujetnike določil mesečno denarno dajatev, s pogojem, da imajo avstrijsko državljanstvo.
The Court likewise ruled out the applicability of the provisions on the freedom to provide services, which exclude any activity carried out on a permanent basis or, at least, without a foreseeable limit to its duration.
Na Sodišče je bil naslovljen predlog za sprejem predhodne odločbe o skladnosti navedene zakonodaje z določbami s področja prostega gibanja delavcev.
With regard to the right of residence of citizens of the Union under Article 18 EC, the Court pointed out that this provision is directly effective but stated immediately that the right to rely on it is not unconditional: it may be subject to limitations and conditions, including Article 1 of Directive 90/364, 7 which allows Member States to refuse a right of residence to citizens of the Union who do not have sufficient resources. Those limitations and
V konkretnem primeru je bila predmetna dajatev zavrnjena nekdanjemu avstrijskemu državljanu, vojnemu ujetniku v Sovjetski zvezi med letoma 1945 in 1947, ki pa je leta 1967 dobil švedsko državljanstvo in zaradi tega izgubil avstrijsko državljanstvo.
Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26).
Direktiva Sveta 90/364/EGS z dne 18. junija 1990 o pravici do prebivanja (UL 1990, L 180, str. 26).
Page 26
Sodišče
In the present case, the Court found that it was the lack of resources which led Mr Trojani to seek the minimex, a fact which justified application of Directive 90/364 and ruled out reliance on Article 18 EC.
Sodišče je zakonodajo v konkretni zadevi presojalo glede na Uredbo št. 1408/718
The Court did, however, note that Mr Trojani had a residence permit.
, Uredbo št. 1612/689 in člen 39(2) ES, v tem vrstnem redu.
The third case, Case C-386/02 Baldinger (judgment of 16 September 2004, not yet published in the ECR), concerned application of the Austrian Law on Compensation for Prisoners of War, adopted in 2000, which provides for the grant of a monthly financial benefit to former prisoners of war but which is also subject to the condition that the recipient is an Austrian national.
Glede Uredbe št. 1408/71 je Sodišče ugotovilo, da se na navedeno dajatev ne nanaša, in sicer glede na določbo člena 4(4), v skladu s katero se Uredba ne uporablja „za sisteme dajatev za žrtve vojne ali njenih posledic“.
In this case, the allowance in question had been refused to a former Austrian national who had been a prisoner of war in the USSR from 1945 to 1947, but who had acquired Swedish nationality in 1967, at the same time forfeiting his Austrian nationality.
Sodišče dejansko ugotavlja, da je priznanje predmetne dajatve nekdanjim vojnim ujetnikom, ki izkažejo podaljšano ujetništvo, znak nacionalnega priznanja za prestane preizkušnje in se izplača kot nadomestilo za služenje lastni državi.
Regulation No 1612/68 9 and Article 39(2) EC.
Nazadnje je Sodišče sklenilo enako glede člena 39(2) ES, ki določa pogoje zaposlitve, plačila in druge delovne pogoje.
With regard to Regulation No 1408/71, the Court stated that an allowance of this kind was excluded from its scope as it was covered by Article 4(4), which provides that the regulation does not apply to ‘benefit schemes for victims of war or its consequences’.
Četrta zadeva, Merida (sodba z dne 16. septembra 2004, C-400/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), izhaja iz pravde pred nemškim sodiščem. V Nemčiji je kolektivna pogodba za civilne uslužbence tujih oboroženih sil, ki se nahajajo na državnem ozemlju, določila, da Nemška država delavcem, ki jim je bila odpovedana pogodba o zaposlitvi, izplača predvsem „začasno pomoč“. G.
The Court finally reached the same conclusion with regard to Article 39(2) EC, which covers conditions of employment, remuneration and other working conditions.
Ob zgoraj navedeni določbi Pogodbe ES se je Sodišče, da bi odgovorilo na to vprašanje, sklicevalo na prepoved diskriminacije, določeno v členu 7(4) Uredbe št. 1612/6810
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1).
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, kot jo spreminja in posodablja Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 118/97 z dne 2. decembra 1996 (UL 1997, L 28, str. 1).
The fourth case, Case C-400/02 Merida (judgment of 16 September 2004, not yet published in the ECR), was a reference in a dispute brought before a German court.
Dejavnost ker je ena država članica izbrala drugačen sistem varstva kot druga država.
In Germany, the collective agreement applicable to civilians employed by foreign armed forces stationed in Germany provides, inter alia, for the payment by the German State of ‘interim assistance’ to those workers in the case where their contract of employment has been terminated.
Povedano drugače, Nemčija lahko prepove tisto, kar je dopustno v Združenem kraljestvu, če se prepovedni ukrep izkaže za potrebnega in sorazmernega, kar se po ugotovitvi Sodišča v konkretnem primeru je.
Mr Merida, a French resident who worked until 1999 for the French forces stationed in Baden-Baden, received that allowance with effect from that time. However, the method by which it was calculated induced him to bring an action against the German State.
Po eni strani prepoved gospodarskega izkoriščanja razvedrilnih iger, v katerih so zaigrana nasilna dejanja nad osebami, predvsem pa ponazorjena dejanja umorov ljudi, dejansko ustreza ravni varovanja človekovega dostojanstva, ki ga je nameravala nacionalna ustava zagotoviti na ozemlju Zvezne republike Nemčije.
That allowance was calculated on the basis of remuneration from which, however, German wage tax had been notionally deducted, even where, as in Mr Merida’s case, the remuneration was subject to tax in the country of residence, in casu France, under a double taxation agreement between the two countries.
Po drugi strani pa sporna prepoved, ki se je omejila na prepoved različice laserske igre, v kateri se strelja na človeške tarče, ni prekoračila tistega, kar je potrebno za dosego zastavljenega cilja.
The German Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court) asked the Court whether the method of calculation in question was compatible with Article 39 EC.
Sodišče sklene, da na navedeni ukrep ni mogoče gledati kot na kršitev prostega opravljanja storitev, ki ni upravičena.
Apart from Article 39 EC, the Court, in order to reply to the question submitted, referred to the prohibition of discrimination set out in Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1612/68.
3.6 Na področju prostega pretoka kapitala omenjamo zadevo Manninen (sodba z dne 7. septembra 2004, C-319/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), v kateri je bila obravnavana finskaureditev obdavčenja dividend.
10 After pointing out that, unless it was objectively justified and proportionate to its aim, a provision of national law was indirectly discriminatory if it was intrinsically liable to affect migrant workers more than national workers and if there was a consequent risk that it would place the former at a particular disadvantage, the Court went on to hold that, in the case before it, the notional deduction of German wage tax in order to determine the basis of assessment of the interim allowance placed frontier workers such as Mr Merida at a disadvantage.
Ta je določila, da lahko delničar nacionalne družbe poleg dividende pridobi tudi davčni dobropis, sorazmeren z davkom od dobička pravnih oseb, ki ga je plačala navedena družba.
While application of that method of assessment ensured that German residents would, for the first year following the end of their contract of employment, receive an income equivalent to that of an active worker, that was not the case with regard to French residents, whose allowance, in the same way as their remuneration, was subject to tax in France.
Pri obdavčenju dividende se davčni dobropis odšteje, tako da delničar dejansko ni dolžan plačati drugih davkov na izplačano dividendo. Pravica do davčnega dobropisa je nasprotno izključena, če ima družba sedež v drugi državi članici.
With a view, however, to justifying the manner in which the disputed method of assessment was applied to frontier workers, the German Government put forward grounds of simplified administration and limitation of financial charges.
Tak sistem, ki določa, da se dividende, ki jih prejme delničar, na koncu ne obdavčijo, po mnenju Sodišča ne pušča nobenega dvoma o obstoju ovire pri prostem pretoku kapitala v smislu člena 56 ES, kolikor se uporablja samo za dividende, ki jih izplačajo družbe s sedežem na Finskem, in to tudi, če je, opozarja Sodišče, neposredno obdavčenje v pristojnosti držav članic.
The Court unequivocally dismissed those objections, which could not in any event justify noncompliance with the obligations under the EC Treaty.
Sistem dejansko postavlja v slabši položaj tiste osebe, ki pridobijo dividende družb s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, in jih odvrača od vlaganja v te družbe ter ima prav tako omejevalni učinek do teh družb, saj jim postavlja oviro pri zbiranju kapitala na Finskem.
Omega, a company established under German law, operated an installation in Bonn (Germany) for the practice of a sport – ‘laser sport’ – inspired by the film Star Wars and using modern laser technology.
Navedena izjema, ki jo je treba po mnenju Sodišča razlagati strogo, je omejena z odstavkom 3 iste določbe, v kateri sta prepovedana samovoljna diskriminacija in prikrito omejevanje.
That installation featured machine-gun-type laser targeting devices and sensory tags installed either in the firing corridors or on the jackets worn by players.
Da bi lahko šlo za različno obravnavanje, ki ga dopušča odstavek 1, in ne za samovoljno diskriminacijo, ki jo prepoveduje odstavek 3, morajo biti položaji, na katere se nanaša, objektivno različni ali upravičeni z višjim razlogom v splošnem interesu, kot je na primer nujnost po ohranitvi skladnosti davčnega sistema.
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 podporo predmetni ureditvi vlade, ki so predložile stališča – v konkretnem primeru finska pa tudi francoska vlada in vlada Združenega kraljestva –, prav tako navajajo
Court of Justice thus constituted a danger to public order, the police authorities issued a prohibition order against the company enjoining it to cease operating equipment intended for firing on human targets.
Sodišče nujnost po ohranitvi skladnega davčnega sistema. Odkar je bila ta načeloma dopuščena v sodbah Bachmann (sodba z dne 28. januarja 1992, C-204/90, Recueil, str. I-249) in Komisija proti Belgiji (sodba z dne 28. januarja 1992, C-300/90, Recueil, str.
In support of its appeal Omega submitted, inter alia, that the contested order infringed the freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC as the installation in question had to use equipment and technology supplied by a British company.
Sodba Manninen je Sodišču dala novo priložnost, v kateri je lahko opozorilo, da je mogoče navedeni razlog, s katerim se upravičuje omejitev, uspešno uveljavljati le, če se dokaže neposredna povezava med zadevnim davčnim dobropisom in izravnavo te ugodnosti z določeno davčno dajatvijo.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht acknowledged in this regard that, while the commercial exploitation of a ‘killing game’ did indeed, as the lower court had ruled, constitute an affront to human dignity contrary to the Grundgesetz (German Basic Law), its prohibition did, none the less, infringe the freedom to provide services guaranteed under Article 49 EC.
Tako trditev je treba poleg tega presoditi tudi glede na zastavljeni cilj, ki ga ima predmetna davčna ureditev. V konkretnem primeru je namen ureditve preprečiti dvojno obdavčenje; tudi če resnično obstaja povezava med davčno ugodnostjo (davčnim dobropisom) in izravnalno davčno dajatvijo (davek od dobička pravnih oseb, ki ga plača družba s sedežem na Finskem), pa ta ureditev ni potrebna za ohranitev skladnosti davčnega sistema.
It accordingly decided to ask the Court, by way of a reference under Article 234 EC, whether, inter alia, the prohibition of a commercial activity that was at variance with the fundamental values enshrined in the national constitution was compatible with Article 49 EC.
Priznanje davčnega dobropisa delničarju družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, odgovarjajočega davku od dobička pravnih oseb, ki ga slednja plača v tej državi članici, pomeni po mnenju Sodišča manj omejevalni ukrep, medtem ko sočasno ne ogroža davčne ureditve.
However, it continued, as both the Community and its Member States are required to respect fundamental rights, the protection of those rights was a legitimate interest which could, in principle, justify a derogation from the obligations imposed by Community law, even under a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty such as the freedom to provide services.
Sodišče nadaljuje, da je treba v navedenih okoliščinah pri izračunu delničarju dodeljenega davčnega dobropisa, ki mu je bila izplačana dividenda družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, upoštevati davek, ki ga je slednja v tej državi članici dejansko plačala.