natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This forms the subject of the first question referred.
Na to se nana�a prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje.
Even if the answer were no, it would remain to be determined whether the nationals of nonmember countries could, in the present case, nevertheless be refused the benefit of the provisions of Directive 2004/38, since Article 3(1) thereof reserves the right to rely on its provisions to family members who ‘accompany’ or ‘join’ a Union citizen, and the nationals in question did not marry until after they arrived in Ireland.
Če bi bil odgovor na prvo vpra�anje nikalen, bi bilo treba kljub temu opredeliti, ali bi bilo državljanom tretjih držav v obravnavanem primeru kljub temu mogoče zavrniti prednost, ki izhaja iz določb Direktive 2004/38, ker je v členu 3(1) te direktive določeno, da se lahko na njene določbe sklicujejo le družinski člani, ki „spremljajo“ državljana Unije ali se mu „pridružijo“, medtem ko so prosilci v obravnavanem primeru zakonsko zvezo sklenili �ele po prihodu na irsko ozemlje.
Hence the second and third questions referred which essentially concern the effect of the date of the marriage on the applicability of Directive 2004/38.
Iz tega izhajata drugo in tretje vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki se v bistvu nana�ata na vpliv datuma sklenitve zakonske zveze na uporabo Direktive 2004/38.
I will examine these two points in turn.
V nadaljevanju bom preučil navedena vidika.
METOCK AND OTHERS with Community law and, in particular, the fundamental freedoms of movement.
METOCK IN DRUGI ti – in zlasti temeljne svobo�čine v zvezi z gibanjem – izvajati ob upo�tevanju prava Skupnosti.
5 It has thus been expressly ruled that requirements relating to compliance with Union citizens’ right to freedom of movement and residence could constrain the Member States’ exercise of their powers, 6 in particular those which they have in relation to immigration control.
5 Tako je bilo že izrecno odločeno, da je mogoče z zahtevami po upo�tevanju svobode gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije omejiti izvajanje pristojnosti držav članic, 6zlasti pristojnosti, ki jih imajo glede nadzora nad priseljevanjem. 7
7 within the territory of the Member States’ conferred on Union citizens directly by Article 18 EC.
Direktive 2004/38 je zagotoviti „temeljno in individualno pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic“, ki je državljanom Unije podeljena neposredno s členom 18 ES.
3It is therefore in the light of the fundamental right of Union citizens to move and reside that the provisions of that directive must be interpreted.
3Torej je treba določbe zadevne direktive razlagati ob upo�tevanju temeljne pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja, ki je zagotovljena državljanom Unije.
The rights that it provides for must be understood in functional terms in such a way that they are given the full scope necessary to ensure the effectiveness of Union citizens’ right to move and reside, but no more.
Pravice iz zadevne direktive je treba razumeti funkcionalno, torej tako, da se jim prizna le obseg (vendar celoten obseg), ki je potreben, da se državljanom Unije zagotovi učinkovitost pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja.
In other words, it is a question of determining whether full and complete enjoyment by a Union citizen of his right of residence means that the right of residence of non-EU national members of a Union citizen’s family, which is a right consequential to and dependent on that of the Union citizen, 4includes a right to enter the territory of the Union.
Z drugimi besedami, treba je ugotoviti, ali polno in neomejeno izvr�evanje pravice do prebivanja, ki je podeljena državljanu Unije, pomeni, da pravica do prebivanja družinskih članov državljana Unije, ki niso državljani Unije – ki je sekundarna pravica in je torej odvisna od pravice državljana Unije 4 – zajema tudi pravico do vstopa na ozemlje Unije.
In order to contest the applicability of Directive 2004/38 to the entry of non-EU national members of the family of a Union citizen into the territory of the Community, it is equally not possible to refer legitimately to the organisation of Community powers under the various legal bases provided for in the EC Treaty.
Zato se za izpodbijanje uporabe Direktive 2004/38 glede vpra�anja vstopa družinskih članov državljana Unije, ki niso državljani Unije, na ozemlje Skupnosti ni mogoče sklicevati na ureditev pristojnosti Skupnosti, kot izhaja iz različnih pravnih podlag, določenih s Pogodbo ES.
Admittedly, only Title IV of the EC Treaty permits the adoption of Community legislation on immigration and external border controls, 8whilst Dir -ective 2004/38 is based on Title III of the EC Treaty.
Res je sicer, da je mogoče zakonodajne akte Skupnosti glede priseljevanja in nadzora nad zunanjimi mejami sprejemati le na podlagi naslova IV Pogodbe ES, 8 medtem ko Direktiva 2004/38 temelji na naslovu III Pogodbe ES.
However, the directive directly governs only the rights of Union citizens, and those of their family members are covered only in so far as they are accessories to the former rights.
Vendar so s to direktivo neposredno urejene le pravice državljanov Unije, medtem ko so pravice družinskih članov zajete le v delu, v katerem dopolnjujejo prve pravice.
The fact that the directive may thereby have an effect on immigration
Dejstvo, da lahko zadevna direktiva s tem vpliva na področje nadzora nad priseljevanjem, �e ne pomeni vme�avanja v pristojnost, ki temelji na naslovu IV, če je njen bistveni namen omejen le na zagoto-
5 — See Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraph 29. 6.
5 – Glej sodbo z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, ZOdl., str. I-10837, točka 29). 6.
The intervening Member States cannot validly invoke against this approach, and the response which may result from it, the vertical constitutional division of competences.
Države članice intervenientke takemu pristopu in odgovoru, ki lahko iz njega izhaja, ne morejo učinkovito nasprotovati s sklicevanjem na ustavno določeno navpično razdelitev pristojnosti.
Although it is true that in principle the Member States remain competent for immigration control, and thus the admission of nationals of nonmember countries from outside the territory of the Community, it cannot consequently be deduced that Directive 2004/38 relates only to the movement between Member States of Union citizens and their family members and not to the access of those family members to the territory of the Union.
Čeprav so države članice načeloma �e naprej pristojne za področje nadzora nad priseljevanjem in torej tudi za področje vstopa državljanov tretjih držav, ki prihajajo iz držav zunaj ozemlja Skupnosti, pa na podlagi tega ni mogoče sklepati, da se Direktiva 2004/38 nana�a le na gibanje državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov med državami članicami, in ne tudi na vstop zadevnih družinskih članov na ozemlje Unije.
It is established caselaw that the Member States must exercise their national competences consistently
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse namreč izhaja, da morajo države članice nacionalne pristojnos-
7 — See Case C-459/99 MRAX [2002] ECR I-6591.
7 – Glej sodbo z dne 25. julija 2002 v zadevi MRAX (C-459/99, Recueil, str. I-6591).
3 — See Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, paragraph 84.
3 – Glej sodbo z dne 17. septembra 2002 v zadevi Baumbast in R (C-413/99, Recueil, str.
8 — For an example, see Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p.
4 – Glej sodbo z dne 11. decembra 2007 v zadevi Eind (C-291/05, ZOdl., str.
12), which confers a right to family reunification on nationals of nonmember countries.
I-10719, točke 23, 24 in 30).
4 — See Case C-291/05 Eind [2007] ECR I-10719, paragraphs 23, 24 and 30.
8 – Za primer glej Direktivo Sveta 2003/86/ES z dne 22. septembra 2003 o pravici do združitve družine (UL L 251, str.
VIEW OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-127/08 control does not encroach upon the power under Title IV since its main purpose is merely to guarantee the exercise of the right of Union citizens to move and reside.
STALIŠČE M. POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-127/08 vitev izvajanja pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije.
It therefore remains to determine whether the full effect of the rights attached to Union citizenship means that the right of residence conferred on the family members of a Union citizen by Directive 2004/38 may, under certain circumstances, include a right of access to Community territory.
Treba je torej �e opredeliti, ali poln učinek pravic, povezanih z državljanstvom Unije, pomeni, da lahko pravica do prebivanja, ki je družinskim članom državljana Unije podeljena z Direktivo 2004/38, v nekaterih primerih vključuje tudi pravico do vstopa na ozemlje Skupnosti.
To that end it is firstly necessary to point out the repeated emphasis which both the legislature 9and the Court 10place on the importance of protecting the family lives of nationals of the Member States in order to eliminate obstacles to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
Zato je treba najprej opozoriti, da sta zakonodajalec 9 in Sodi�če 10že večkrat poudarila pomen za�čite družinskega življenja državljanov držav članic, da bi se odstranile ovire za izvajanje temeljnih svobo�čin, zagotovljenih s Pogodbo.
This connection of purpose established between the right to respect for family life and the freedoms of movement has in particular led the Court to hold that Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43
Sodi�če je zaradi take povezave med pravico do spo�tovanja družinskega življenja in pravico do prostega gibanja med drugim menilo, da je treba določbe člena 52 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 43 ES) in določbe
EC) and Directive 73/148/EEC 11must be construed as requiring a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC), and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the territory of his or her State of origin; in the view of the Court, a national of a Member State might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity as an employed or selfemployed person in the territory of another Member State if, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national in order to pursue an activity there as an employed or selfemployed person, his spouse and children were not also permitted to enter and reside in the territory of his Member State of origin under conditions at least equivalent to those granted them by Community law in the territory of another Member State.
Direktive 73/148/EGS 11razlagati tako, da država članica mora dovoliti vstop na svoje ozemlje in prebivanje na njem zakoncu, ne glede na narodnost, državljana te države, ki je z zakoncem od�el na ozemlje druge države članice zaradi zaposlitve v smislu člena 48 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 39 ES) in se je vrnil – v smislu člena 52 Pogodbe – na ozemlje države izvora; Sodi�če je menilo, da bi lahko državljana države članice od odločitve, da zapusti državo izvora zaradi opravljanja dela kot zaposlena ali samozaposlena oseba v drugi državi članici, odvrnila možnost, da ob vrnitvi v državo članico, katere državljan je, da bi tam opravljal delo kot zaposlena ali samozaposlena oseba, njegovemu zakoncu in otrokom ne bi bilo dovoljeno vstopiti na ozemlje te države in prebivati v njej pod pogoji, ki so vsaj enaki tistim, ki jim jih pravo Skupnosti priznava v drugi državi članici.
12 This connection of purpose also explains why the Court has ruled that Article 49 EC, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life, is to be construed as precluding a refusal, by the Member State of origin of a provider of ser -vices established in that State who provides services to recipients established in other Member States, of the right to reside in its territory to that provider’s spouse, who is a national of a nonmember country.
12 Z zadevno povezavo je mogoče pojasniti tudi odločitev Sodi�ča, da je treba člen 49 ES ob upo�tevanju temeljne pravice do spo�tovanja družinskega življenja razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da država članica izvora ponudnika storitev s sedežem v tej državi, ki storitve opravlja za naročnike s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, zavrne prebivanje na svojem ozemlju zakoncu tega ponudnika, ki je državljan tretje države.
13Even in Akrich, 14in which the Court refused to grant, under Regulation No 1612/68, a right of residence in the Member State of origin to which a Union citizen had returned to
1612/68 ni priznalo pravice do prebivanja v državi članici izvora, v katero se je vrnil državljan Unije, da bi tam prebival, ker zadevni državljan tretje države pred tem ni zakonito prebival v nobeni od držav članic – pristojnim organom države članice izvora naložilo, naj pro�njo zakonca za vstop na njeno ozemlje in prebi-
9 — After pointing out, in the fifth recital in the preamble thereto, that ‘the right of freedom of movement, in order that it may be exercised, by objective standards, in freedom and dignity, requires … that obstacles to the mobility of workers shall be eliminated, in particular as regards the worker’s right to be joined by his family’, 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.
9 – Že v peti uvodni izjavi Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 1612/68 z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti (UL L 127, str.
475), lays down, in Article 10 thereof, the right of family members, irrespective of their nationality, to install themselves with a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State.
2) je navedeno, da „po objektivnih normah svobodno in dostojanstveno uresničevanje pravice do prostega gibanja zahteva, da je […] treba odstraniti ovire za mobilnost delavcev, predvsem v zvezi s pravico delavca, da se mu pridruži družina“, nato pa je v členu 10 te uredbe določena �e pravica družinskih članov, da se ne glede na državljanstvo pridružijo državljanu države članice, ki je zaposlen v drugi državi članici.
Recital 5 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38 points out, in very similar terms, that ‘[t]he right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, be also granted to their family members, irrespective of nationality’.
Zelo podobno je besedilo uvodne izjave 5 Direktive 2004/38: „Pravica vseh državljanov Unije do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic bi morala biti zagotovljena tudi njihovim družinskim članom, ne glede na državljanstvo, če naj bi se uresničevala v objek -tivnih pogojih svobode in dostojanstva.“
11 — Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14).
11 – Direktiva Sveta 73/148/EGS z dne 21. maja 1973 o odpravi omejitev gibanja in bivanja v Skupnosti za državljane držav članic v zvezi z ustanavljanjem in opravljanjem storitev (UL L 172, str. 14).
12 — See Case C-370/90 Singh [1992] ECR I-4265.13 — See Carpenter.14 — Case C-109/01 [2003] ECR I-9607.
14 – Sodba z dne 23. septembra 2003 (C-109/01, Recueil, str. I-9607).
METOCK AND OTHERS in a Member State other than his State of origin requires that the consequential right of residence conferred on non-EU national members of his family by Directive 2004/38 must be construed as entailing the right to join him, including directly from outside the Union.
METOCK IN DRUGI vanje na njem preučijo ob upo�tevanju temeljne pravice do spo�tovanja družinskega življenja v smislu člena 8 EKČP 15, pri čemer je �lo za pravico državljana Unije do prostega gibanja.
establish herself with her spouse who was a national of a nonmember country, since he had not previously been lawfully resident in a Member State, it nevertheless required the competent authorities of the Member State of origin to assess the application by the spouse to enter and remain in their territory in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention, 15as the freedom of movement of the Union citizen was at issue.
prihaja neposredno iz države zunaj Unije. Iz tega izhaja, da država članica od takih družinskih članov ne more utemeljeno zahtevati, da morajo predhodno zakonito prebivati v drugi državi članici, da se lahko zanje uporabljajo določbe zadevne direktive.
Such an interpretation of Direct- ive 2004/38 is disputed by Ireland and the intervening Member States on the basis of the approach taken in Akrich, 16according to which the benefit of the right of residence conferred by Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 on a national of a nonmember country, who is the spouse of a Union citizen and moves to a Member State to which the Union citizen has migrated, is subject to the condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State, since that regulation relates solely to freedom of movement within the Community and says nothing about the rights of that national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a Union citizen as regards access to the territory of the Community.
Irska vlada in države članice intervenientke glede take razlage Direktive 2004/38 nasprotujejo re�itvi, ki izhaja iz sodbe Akrich 16, da mora državljan tretje države, zakonec državljana Unije, za pridobitev pravic iz člena 10 Uredbe �t. 1612/68, ko se seli v državo članico, v katero se je preselil državljan Unije, prej zakonito prebivati v drugi državi članici, saj se ta uredba nana�a le na prosto gibanje v Skupnosti, ne pa tudi na pravice zadevnega državljana tretje države, zakonca državljana Unije glede vstopa na ozemlje Skupnosti.
If this approach is followed, then it must be acknowledged that interpreting Direct- ive 2004/38 as meaning that the right of residence which it confers on nationals of nonmember countries, who are members of the family of a Union citizen in the host Member State, does not guarantee them a right of access to the territory of the Community, that is to say applies only if they have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State, would infringe the right of the Union citizen to lead a normal family life and, therefore, his right to reside in the host Member State.
Na podlagi takega pristopa je treba torej ugotoviti, da bi – če bi Direktivo 2004/38 razlagali, kakor da s pravico do prebivanja v državi članici gostiteljici, ki se z zadevno direktivo podeli državljanom tretje države, ki so družinski člani državljana Unije, tem ni zagotovljena pravica do vstopa na ozemlje Skupnosti in da se torej uporablja le, če so zadevni državljani tretjih držav pred tem zakonito prebivali v drugi državi člani - ci – posegli v pravico državljana Unije do normalnega družinskega življenja in torej tudi v njegovo pravico do prebivanja v državi članici gostiteljici.
In the cases in the main proceedings, the fact that Union citizens established in Ireland are unable to have their spouses join them from outside the Community is such as to undermine their free choice to reside in that Member State since it will tend to induce them to leave Ireland and go to a State, whether a Member State or not, where they will be able to live together with their spouses.
V postopkih v glavni stvari se lahko zaradi dejstva, da se državljanom Unije, ki živijo na Irskem, ne morejo pridružiti zakonci, ki živijo zunaj Skupnosti, dvomi o možnosti teh državljanov, da se svobodno odločijo za prebivanje v zadevni državi članici, saj bi jih lahko taka okoli�čina pripeljala do odločitve, da zapustijo irsko ozemlje in odidejo v državo (državo članico ali tretjo državo), v kateri bodo lahko živeli skupaj z zakoncem.
Consequently, the effectiveness of the right of a Union citizen to reside
Zato je treba – da se zagotovi učinkovitost pravice državljana Unije do prebivanja v državi članici, ki ni njegova država izvora – sekundarno pravico do prebivanja, ki se z Direktivo 2004/38 prizna njegovim družinskim članom, ki niso državljani Unije, zasnovati tako, kakor da je vanjo vključena pravica, da se družinski član zadevnemu državljanu Unije pridruži, tudi če
However, for a number of reasons, the approach taken in Akrich cannot have the general scope that the Member States ascribe to it.
Vendar re�itve iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Akrich iz več razlogov ni mogoče razumeti tako splo�no, kot predlagajo države članice.
It conflicts with a trend in caselaw, which makes the right of residence conferred by Community legislation on a national of a nonmember country who is the family member of a Union citizen conditional solely on the existence of a ‘family relationship’.
Taka re�itev se ne ujema z usmeritvijo sodne prakse, na podlagi katere je pravica do prebivanja, ki je z zakonodajo Skupnosti podeljena državljanu tretje države, družinskemu članu državljana Unije, odvisna le od ugotovitve obstoja „sorodstvene vezi“.
16 — Paragraphs 49 to 51.
16 – Zgoraj navedena sodba (točke od 49 do 51).
That was the judgment of the Court before 2003.
Sodi�če je tako menilo že pred letom 2003.
18It has inferred from this right of residence conferred directly by Community law solely on the basis of a family relationship that a Member State is unable to adopt measures to expel a non-EU family member of a Union citizen solely on the basis of a failure to comply with legal formalities concerning the control of aliens 19and that the issue of a residence permit to that member serves purely to acknowledge rights already conferred. 20
Sodi�če je iz pravice do prebivanja, ki se s pravom Skupnosti neposredno podeljuje zgolj na podlagi sorodstvene vezi, sklepalo, da država članica ne more sprejeti ukrepov za izgon državljana tretje države, družinskega člana državljana Unije, samo zaradi neizpolnjevanja zakonskih formalnosti v zvezi z nadzorom nad tujci 19in da je izdaja dovoljenja za prebivanje zadevnemu družinskemu članu le priznavanje. 20
Furthermore, in Jia, 21the Court itself explicitly linked the condition of previous lawful residence formulated in Akrich to the specific factual circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, in which a national of a nonmember country who was the spouse of a Union citizen had been residing unlawfully in a Member State and was seeking to evade national immigration legislation illicitly.
Poleg tega je tudi samo Sodi�če v sodbi v zadevi Jia 21pogoj o predhodnem zako- nitem prebivanju iz sodbe Akrich izrecno povezalo s posebnimi dejanskimi okoli�činami v postopku v glavni stvari, ko je državljan tretje države, zakonec državljana Unije, nezakonito bival v državi članici in se je nezakonito posku�al izogniti nacionalni zakonodaji s področja priseljevanja. Ker H.
Mr Akrich, who was married to a British national and did not have the right to remain in the United Kingdom, had in fact agreed to be deported to Ireland, where he joined his wife who had installed herself there shortly before, and intended to return to the United Kingdom with his wife by taking advantage of the right of residence conferred by Community law as the spouse of a citizen of the Union who had exercised her right to free movement.
Akrich, zakonec britanske državljanke, ni imel pravice do bivanja v Združenem kraljestvu, se je strinjal s svojim izgonom na Irsko, kjer se je pridružil svoji ženi, ki se je na Irsko preselila malo prej, in se je nameraval skupaj z njo vrniti v Združeno kraljestvo, pri čemer bi se kot zakonec državljanke Unije, ki je uporabila pravico do prostega gibanja, skliceval na pravico do prebivanja, ki jo priznava pravo Skupnosti.
17 — See MRAX, paragraph 59.18 — See Case C-157/03 Commission v Spain, paragraph 28.19 — See MRAX, paragraphs 73 to 80.20 — See Case C-157/03 Commission v Spain, paragraph 28.21 — Case C-1/05 [2007] ECR I-1.
20 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Španiji z dne 14. aprila 2005 (točka 28).