natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Foreign foundations recognised as having charitable status in their Member State of origin which satisfy the requirements imposed for that purpose by the law of another Member State and whose object is to promote the very same interests of the general public as those promoted in the latter State are in a situation comparable to that of resident foundations of the same kind.
Sodišče je sklicujoč se na vrsto precedensov navedlo, da je v takem primeru treba preizkusiti, kako navedeni ukrep vpliva na izvajanje teh temeljnih svoboščin, in ali je kot v okoliščinah postopka v glavni stvari ena od njiju drugotnega pomena v razmerju do druge in se ji lahko pridruži.
In the absence of justication, unfavourable treatment of non-resident foundations is consequently contrary to Community law.
V tem primeru se preizkus zadevnega ukrepa načeloma opravi zgolj glede na eno od teh dveh svoboščin.
In FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen, the Court was once again confronted with the question of the deductibility of business expenses incurred by a non-resident provider of services.
V obravnavanem primeru je Sodišče ugotovilo, da sporna ureditev dovoljenja odločilno posega v svobodo opravljanja storitev, saj je zahteva po stalni enoti dejansko zanikanje tudi te svoboščine.
With regard to business expenses directly linked to the economic activity that has generated the taxable income, residents and non-residents are in a comparable situation.
Nasprotno so morebitni omejitveni učinki take ureditve na prosti pretok kapitala zgolj neizogibna posledica omejitve opravljanja storitev.
The Court had therefore held in Case C-234/01 Gerritse [2003] ECR I-5933 that a national provision which refuses to allow non-residents to deduct business expenses, where residents are allowed to do so, risks operating mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States and therefore constitutes indirect discrimination contrary to the Treaty.
Direktiva 98/5/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. februarja 1998 za olajšanje trajnega opravljanja poklica odvetnika v drugi državi članici kakor tisti, v kateri je bila kvalikacija pridobljena (UL L 77, str. 36).
Lastly, in Case C-520/04 Turpeinen (judgment of 9 November 2006, not yet published in the ECR) the Court held that Article 18 EC, relating to freedom of movement of citizens of the Union, is infringed by legislation of a Member State under which a retirement pension paid by an institution of that State to a non-resident is taxed, in certain cases, more heavily than a pension paid to a resident would be, where that pension constitutes all or nearly all of the non-resident’s income.
Na področju socialne varnosti namenjamo pozornost trem sodbam o razlagi Uredbe št. 1408/71 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti, kot je bila spremenjena15.
In such a case, the situation of a non-resident taxpayer is, so far as concerns income tax, objectively comparable to that of a resident taxpayer.
Prvič, v okviru tega, kar včasih imenujemo „prosto gibanje pacientov“, opozarjamo na pomembno sodbo z dne 16. maja 2006 v zadevi Watts (C-372/04, ZOdl., str. I-4325).
With regard to freedom of establishment, the Court held in two parallel cases, one of which (Case C-506/04 Wilson) resulted from a reference for a preliminary ruling while the other (Case C-193/05 Commission v Luxembourg) was an action for failure to full obligations (judgments of 19 September 2006, neither yet published in the ECR), that the provisions of Luxembourg law making the registration of lawyers who have obtained their professional qualication in another Member State subject to a prior test to establish prociency in the three national languages were incompatible with the directive on practice of the profession of lawyer under the home-country professional title 14.
Člen 22(2), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe št. 1408/71 določa, da pristojni nosilec pacientu ne sme zavrniti odobritve, da odide na ozemlje druge države članice, da bo prejel zdravljenje, v praksi to pomeni obrazec E 112,„če ji ob upoštevanju njenega sedanjega zdravstvenega stanja in verjetnega razvoja bolezni ni mogoče ponuditi takega zdravljenja v časovnem obdobju, ki je v državi, v kateri prebiva, za tako zdravljenje običajno potreben“.
The Court explained that presentation of a certicate attesting to registration in the home Member State, in accordance with Article 3 of the directive, is the only condition to which registration in the host Member State may be subject, enabling the person concerned to practise in the latter State under his home-country professional title.
Ker je bolnišnično zdravljenje brezplačno v okviru NZS, vendar je pogojeno s sorazmerno dolgimi čakalnimi listami za manj nujna zdravljenja, se je zastavilo vprašanje, koliko je dovoljeno upoštevati čakalno dobo v državi, v kateri prebiva, za presojo„časovnega obdobja, običajno potrebnega za tako zdravljenje“, ki je določeno v členu 22 navedene uredbe.
The Court pointed out in this regard that the lack of a system of prior testing of knowledge under the directive is accompanied by a set of rules ensuring the protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice, in particular the obligation on the lawyer to practice under his home-country professional title and the obligation of professional conduct not to handle matters for which he lacks competence, for instance owing to lack of linguistic knowledge.
Sodišče je v tej točki priznalo zakonitost sistema čakalnih list in presodilo, da mora pristojni nosilec, da lahko odobritev upravičeno zavrne iz razloga obstoja čakalne dobe, ugotoviti, da čakalna doba ne presega obdobja, sprejemljivega z vidika objektivne medicinske presoje kliničnih potreb zadevne osebe glede na njeno zdravstveno stanje, njeno anamnezo, verjeten razvoj njene bolezni, stopnje njenih bolečin in/ali naravo njene prizadetosti ob vložitvi zahteve za odobritev.
In Wilson, the Court also found that the Luxembourg legislation was not compatible with Article 9 of the directive under which, where a decision is made refusing registration, a remedy must be available before a court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of domestic law.
Sodišče je dodalo, da je treba čakalne dobe določevati spremenljivo in prilagodljivo, tako da je čakalno dobo mogoče ponovno preučiti ob upoštevanju morebitnega poslabšanja zdravstvenega stanja pacienta.
The Court considered that a sucient guarantee of impartiality was not ensured since in the case in point decisions refusing registration were subject to review by a body composed exclusively — at first instance — or for the most part — on appeal — of national lawyers, and an appeal to the Court of Cassation enabled judicial review of the law only and not the facts.
V zvezi s svobodo opravljanja storitev je Sodišče odločilo, da se člen 49 ES uporablja v situaciji, v kateri oseba, ki zaradi zdravstvenega stanja potrebuje bolnišnično zdravljenje, odide v drugo državo članico in tam prejme tako zdravljenje proti plačilu, pri čemer ni pomemben način delovanja nacionalnega sistema, ki mu ta oseba pripada in od katerega je naknadno zahtevano kritje teh storitev.
As regards, finally, freedom to provide services, in Case C-452/04 Fidium Finanz (judgment of 3 October 2006, not yet published in the ECR) the Court held that Community law does not preclude national legislation under which the granting of credit on national territory by a company established in a non-member country is subject to prior authorisation and such authorisation can be granted only if that company has its central administration or a branch on national territory.
Dalje je ugotovilo, da nacionalni sistem, kot je NZS, kritje stroškov bolnišničnega zdravljenja, ki je na voljo v drugi državi članici, pogojuje s predhodno odobritvijo, medtem ko brezplačno prejetje storitev, ki so na voljo v okviru tega sistema, nasprotno ni odvisno od take odobritve, pomeni oviro svobode opravljanja storitev.
Since the freedom to provide services, unlike the free movement of capital, cannot be relied upon by a company established in a non-member country, the Court sought to determine which of these fundamental freedoms related to the activity in question.
Zagotovo je mogoče to omejitev upravičiti s potrebami načrtovanja, ki lahko zagotovi zadostno in stalno dostopnost do uravnoteženega visokokakovostnega bolnišničnega zdravljenja, nadzorovanje stroškov in preprečevanje razsipavanja finančnih, tehničnih in človeških virov.
It found in this regard that that activity was in principle covered by both of them.
Sodišče še pripominja, da morajo biti pogoji za izdajo take odobritve utemeljeni z zadevnimi potrebami in morajo ustrezati zahtevi po sorazmernosti.
Relying on a series of precedents, the Court stated that in such cases it is necessary to consider to what extent the exercise of those freedoms is aected and
Sodišče je v zvezi s čakalnimi listami, predvidenimi v okviru NZS, potrdilo, da pristojni nosilec, če čakalna doba, ki izhaja iz takih čakalnih list v posameznem zadevnem primeru, presega obdobje, ki je medicinsko primerno, ne more zavrniti odobritve na podlagi obstoja teh čakalnih list, domnevnega porušenja normalnega vrstnega reda prednosti med posameznimi primeri, brezplačnosti zdravljenja v okviru nacionalnega sistema, obveznosti zagotoviti posebna finančna sredstva za povrnitev stroškov
Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualication was obtained (OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36).
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 je bila spremenjena in posodobljena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 118/97 z dne 2. decembra 1996 (UL 1997, L 28, str. 1).
Court of Justice whether, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it.
Sodišče načrtovanega zdravljenja v drugi državi članici in/ali primerjave stroškov tega zdravljenja s stroški primerljivega zdravljenja v pristojni državi članici.
Where that is the position, the measure at issue is in principle examined in relation to only one of those two freedoms.
Sodišče je v tej točki sklenilo, da morajo nacionalni organi, če zdravljenja ni mogoče zagotoviti v medicinsko sprejemljivem obdobju, predvideti mehanizme finančnega kritja bolnišničnega zdravljenja, ki je zagotovljeno v drugi državi članici.
In the case in point, the Court held that the contested rules governing authorisation aected primarily the freedom to provide services, the requirement of a permanent establishment being the very negation of that freedom.
Drugič, Sodišče je v zadevi Acereda Herrera (sodba z dne 15. junija 2006, C-466/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) glede povrnitve določenih stroškov zavarovanca sistema zdravstvenega varstva države članice, ki so nastali pri bolnišničnem zdravljenju v drugi državi članici, ki ga je predhodno odobril nosilec zavarovanja, presodilo, da člen 22(1)(c) in (2) ter člen 36 Uredbe št. 1408/71, kot je bila spremenjena, zavarovancu ne dajeta pravice do povračila potnih stroškov, stroškov bivanja in prehrane, ki sta jih imela z osebo, ki ga je spremljala, na ozemlju te države članice od nosilca zavarovanja, z izjemo stroškov bivanja in prehrane zavarovanca v bolnišnici.
By contrast, any restrictive eects of such rules on the free movement of capital are merely an inevitable consequence of the restriction imposed on the provision of services.
V tej zvezi je Sodišče opozorilo, da pojem„denarne dajatve“ iz člena 22(1)(c) te uredbe dejansko vključuje stroške zdravniške storitve in stroške, neločljivo povezane z bivanjem in prehrano v bolnišnici, ter izključuje kritje pristojnega nosilca dodatnih stroškov, kot so potni stroški, stroški bivanja in prehrane, ki sta jih imela z osebo, ki ga je spremljala, na ozemlju te države članice.
With regard to social security, attention is drawn to three judgments relating to the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended 15.
V zadevi Nikula (sodba z dne 18. julija 2006, C-50/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) v zvezi z obračunanjem v državi članici socialnih prispevkov od pokojnine, ki jih plačuje nosilec druge države, je Sodišče v tem delu presodilo, da člen 33(1) Uredbe št. 1408/71, kot je bila spremenjena in posodobljena z Uredbo št. 118/97, ne nasprotuje temu, da se pri določitvi osnove za prispevke za zdravstveno zavarovanje, ki veljajo v državi članici stalnega prebivališča upokojenca in so jih plačali nosilci iz te države članice, ki je pristojna za plačevanje dajatev na podlagi člena 27 navedene uredbe, poleg pokojnine, ki jo plačuje država članica stalnega prebivališča, upoštevajo tudi pokojnine, ki so jih plačali nosilci iz druge države članice, če navedeni prispevki ne presegajo višine pokojnin, prejetih v državi članici stalnega prebivališča.
First of all, in the context of what is sometimes called ‘the free movement of patients’, the important judgment delivered in Case C-372/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325 is to be noted.
Vendar člen 39 ES nasprotuje temu, da bi se upošteval znesek pokojnin, ki so jih plačali nosilci iz druge države članice, če so bili prispevki od dohodkov, prejetih v tej drugi državi članici, tam že plačani.
Here, the Court was required to consider the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the light of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and of Article 49 EC.
Zadevne osebe morajo dokazati, da so bili ti prispevki dejansko prej plačani.
The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 provides that the competent institution may not refuse a patient authorisation to go to another Member State to receive treatment there (that is to say, in practice, refuse to issue an E112 form) ‘where he cannot be given such treatment within the time normally necessary for obtaining the treatment in question in the Member State of residence taking account of his current state of health and the probable course of his disease’.
Na podlagi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, ki jo je Komisija vložila zoper Kraljevino Španijo zaradi prakse organov te države članice, ki državljanom tretjih držav, zakoncem državljanov držav članic, zavračajo vstop na ozemlje ali izdajo vizuma le zaradi razpisanega ukrepa v Schengenskem informacijskem sistemu (SIS), je Sodišče v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (sodba z dne 31. januarja 2006, C-503/03, ZOdl., str.
Hospital treatment is free under the NHS but subject to some quite lengthy waiting lists for the least urgent treatment, and the question thus arose as to the extent to which it is permitted to take account of waiting times in the State of residence when assessing the‘time normally necessary for obtaining the treatment’, as referred to in Article 22 of the regulation.
I-1097) natančneje opredelilo razmerja med Konvencijo o izvajanju Schengenskega sporazuma (v nadaljevanju: KISS) in pravom Skupnosti o prostem gibanju oseb.
It then found that a national system, such as that under the NHS, where prior authorisation is a prerequisite for the
Sodišče je v prvem delu razsodilo, da skladnost upravne prakse z določbami KISS omogoča utemeljitev ravnanja pristojnih nacionalnih organov, le če je uporaba zadevnih določb v skladu s Skupnostnimi pravili, ki urejajo prosto gibanje oseb.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed 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 L 28, 30.1.1997, p. 1).
Tako je ugotovilo, da je v skladu s KISS tudi samodejna zavrnitev države članice vstopa in izdaje vizuma tujcu, zoper katerega je razpisan schengenski ukrep zavrnitve
Proceedings assumption of the costs of hospital treatment available in another Member State whilst on the other hand the receipt of free treatment under that system does not depend on such authorisation, constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services.
Razvoj in dejavnost vstopa. Vendar pa je treba, kolikor ta samodejna zavrnitev, določena s KISS, ne razlikuje glede na to, ali zadevni tujec je ali ni zakonec državljana države članice, tudi preučiti, ali je bila glede na okoliščine primera v skladu s pravili, ki urejajo prosto gibanje oseb, zlasti z Direktivo 64/22116.
That restriction may nevertheless be justied by overriding planning objectives of such a kind as to ensure that there is sucient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality hospital treatment, control costs and prevent any wastage of financial, technical and human resources.The Court added that the conditions attached to the grant of such authorisation must be justied in the light of the overriding considerations in question and must satisfy the requirement of proportionality.
Natančneje, Sodišče je menilo, da je vpis v SIS zagotovo pokazatelj obstoja razloga, ki utemeljuje, da se zavrne vstop na schengensko območje.
In this connection, the Court stated with regard to the waiting lists envisaged under the NHS that, where the delay arising from such waiting lists appears to exceed in the individual case concerned a medically acceptable period, the competent institution may not refuse authorisation on the basis of the existence of those waiting lists, an alleged distortion of the normal order of priority of the cases to be treated, the fact that treatment under the national system is free of charge, the duty to make available specic funds to reimburse the cost of treatment provided in another Member State and/or a comparison between the cost of that treatment and that of equivalent treatment in the competent Member State.
Vendar mora biti ta pokazatelj podkrepljen s podatki, ki omogočijo, da se pred zavrnitvijo preveri, da prisotnost zadevne osebe na schengenskem območju pomeni resnično, dejansko in dovolj hudo grožnjo, ki prizadene ključni družbeni interes.
Finally, where treatment cannot be supplied within a medically acceptable period, the national authorities must provide mechanisms for the reimbursement of the cost of hospital treatment in another Member State.
Sodišče je dodalo, da mora v okviru tega preverjanja država, ki pogleda v SIS, ustrezno upoštevati navedbe države razpisnice, slednja pa mora dati prvi na voljo tudi dodatne podatke, ki ji omogočajo, da konkretno presodi pomembnost grožnje, ki bi jo lahko oseba, zoper katero je razpisan ukrep, predstavljala.
Second, the Court held in Case C-466/04 Acereda Herrera (judgment of 15 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR), with regard to the reimbursement of certain costs incurred by a person insured under the social security system of a Member State when receiving, in another Member State, hospital treatment authorised in advance by the insurance institution, that Article 22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended, do not confer on the insured person the right to be reimbursed by that institution for the costs of travel, accommodation and subsistence which he and any person accompanying him have incurred in the territory of that other Member State, with the exception of the costs of accommodation and meals in hospital for the insured person himself.
V zadevi Bot (sodba z dne 3. oktobra 2006, C-241/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče podalo razlago člena 20(1) KISS17, ki določa, da se tujci, za katere se ne zahteva vizum, lahko prosto gibljejo na ozemljih pogodbenic največ tri mesece v obdobju šestih mesecev od prvega vstopa, če izpolnjujejo pogoje za vstop iz člena 5(1)(a), (c), (d) in (e) te konvencije, in odgovorilo na vprašanje za predhodno odločanje Conseil d’État (Francija), ki je odločalo o primeru romunskega državljana, za katerega se vizum dejansko ne zahteva in ki je potem, ko je bilo skupno trajanje njegovih zaporednih bivanj v schengenskem območju daljše kot tri mesece v obdobju šestih mesecev od njegovega povsem prvega vstopa na to območje, ponovno vstopil na to območje po izteku tega prvotnega obdobja šestih mesecev in je bil kontroliran v manj kot treh mesecih po tem novem vstopu.
The Court pointed out that the term ‘cash benets’ in Article 22(1)(c) of the regulation covers the cost of medical services strictly dened and the inextricably linked costs relating to the stay and meals in the hospital, and excludes reimbursement by the competent institution of ancillary costs such as the costs of travel, accommodation and subsistence which the insured person and any person accompanying him have incurred in the territory of that other Member State.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da je treba člen 20(1) KISS razlagati tako, da se izraz„prvi vstop“ iz te določbe nanaša, poleg povsem prvega vstopa na območja držav pogodbenic Schengenskega sporazuma, na prvi vstop na ta območja, ki se opravi po izteku obdobja šestih mesecev, štetega od tega povsem prvega vstopa, kot tudi na kateri koli drug prvi vstop, ki se opravi po izteku katerega koli novega obdobja šestih mesecev, štetega od prejšnjega datuma prvega vstopa.
Finally, in Case C-50/05 Nikula (judgment of 18 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR), concerning the levying in a Member State of social contributions on pensions paid by an institution of another State, the Court held that Article 33(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97, does not preclude, when the basis is determined for calculating sickness insurance contributions applied in the Member State of residence of the recipient of pensions paid by the institutions of that Member State responsible for the payment of benets under Article 27 of that regulation, the inclusion in that basis of calculation, in addition to the pensions paid in the Member State of residence, also of pensions paid by the institutions of another Member State, provided that the sickness insurance contributions do not exceed the amount of pensions paid in the State of residence.
V zadevi Parlament proti Svetu (sodba z dne 27. junija 2006, C-540/03, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče zavrnilo ničnostno tožbo, ki jo je Evropski parlament vložil zoper člen 4(1), zadnji pododstavek, in (6) ter člen 8 Direktive 2003/86 o pravici do združitve družine18. Sodišče je v nasprotju s trditvami Evropskega parlamenta odločilo, da te določbe, ki določajo, da države članice dovolijo vstop in bivanje na podlagi te direktive med drugim mladoletnim otrokom, vključno s posvojenimi, sponzorju in njegovemu zakoncu, če ima sponzor skrbništvo nad otroki in te otroke vzdržuje, oziroma da države članice lahko zahtevajo, da je sponzor na njihovem ozemlju zakonito bival največ dve leti, preden se mu lahko pridružijo družinski člani, spoštujejo temeljne pravice, kot so priznane v pravnem
However, Article 39 EC precludes the amount of pensions received from institutions of another Member State from being taken into account if
Direktiva Sveta 64/221/EGS z dne 25. februarja 1964 o usklajevanju posebnih ukrepov, ki zadevajo gibanje in prebivanje tujih državljanov, utemeljenih z javno politiko, javno varnostjo ali zdravjem prebivalstva (UL 56, str. 850).
It is for the persons concerned to prove that the earlier contributions were in fact paid.
Sodišče je zavrnilo različne trditve Evropskega parlamenta in preverilo, ali glede na način njihove razglasitve ni mogoče šteti, da odstopanja, ki jih dopuščajo izpodbijane določbe, kršijo temeljno pravico do spoštovanja družinskega življenja, obveznost upoštevati največjo korist otroka ali načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti niti kot taka niti s tem, da naj bi državam članicam izrecno ali implicitno dovoljevala, da tako ravnajo.
Visas, asylum and immigration
Pravila o konkurenci