natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under the arrangements set up under the Belgian Royal Decree of 8 April 1976 establishing the family allowances scheme for
Na podlagi členov 20(2) in 21 pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Skupnosti (v nadaljevanju: PZDU), kot so določeni s členom 3 Uredbe �t.
Commission, in the name of and on behalf of Adrien’s father, the full allowance payable for Adrien, as a dependent child, under the Staff Regulations and the CEOS.
1965 o družinskem dodatku, ki se podeli določenim kategorijam zaposlenih, ki so na plačilni listi države, z zakonom z dne 20. julija 1971, ki določa zagotovljene družinske dajatve, in z mednarodnimi konvencijami o socialni varnosti, ki veljajo v Belgiji“ 5.
ances for salaried workers, the Royal Decree of 26 March 1965 on family allowances granted to certain categories of salaried State employees, the Law of 20 July 1971 establishing guaranteed family benefits and the international social security conventions in force in Belgium’. 5
sodno odločbo podeljena roditeljska pravica glede Adriena – v imenu in za račun Adrienovega očeta od Komisije prejema celoten znesek dodatka, do katerega je upravičen Adrien kot vzdrževani otrok, v skladu s Kadrovskimi predpisi za uradnike in s PZDU.
III — Facts and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
III – Dejansko stanje in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
By letter of 22 February 2002, Ms Gysen informed the Caisse that from 1 December 2001 she had been receiving allowances for Adrien from the Commission.
Z dopisom z dne 22. februarja 2002 je S. Gysen obvestila zavod, da od 1. decembra 2001 prejema otro�ki dodatek za Adriena od Komisije.
The Caisse therefore ceased to pay Ms Gysen allowances for her son Adrien but continued to pay her the allowances for Augustin and Elise as second and third children.
Zavod je zato S. Gysen prenehal izplačevati otro�ki dodatek za sina Adriena, vendar pa je nadaljeval z izplačevanjem dodatka za Augustina in Elise kot otroka drugega in tretjega reda.
Ms Gysen’s first husband, the father of Adrien, entered the service of the Commission of the European Communities as a temporary agent on 1 December 2001.
Prvi zakonski partner S. Gysen, Adrienov oče, se je kot začasni uslužbenec zaposlil pri Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti 1. decembra 2001.
From March 2003 onwards, however, the Caisse deducted from the monthly family allowances paid to Ms Gysen a total of EUR 2 284.84, being the difference between
Z marcem 2003 pa je zavod zadržal plačilo mesečnih družinskih dodatkov, izplačanih S. Gysen v skupnem znesku 2284,84 EUR kot neupravičeno izplačane
5 — Unofficial translation of the original text in French.
5 – Neuradni prevod originalnega besedila v francoskem jeziku.
(b) dependent child allowance; the allowances already paid for Augustin and Elise as second and third children and the allowances which, according to the Caisse, should have been paid for them as first and second children.
259/68] in njena Priloga VII: Osebni prejemki in povračilo stro�kov, Oddelek 1, Družinski dodatki, člen 67(1), ki zajemata: a) gospodinjski dodatek, razlike med že izplačanimi dodatki za Augustina in Elise kot otroka drugega in tretjega reda in dodatki, ki bi po mnenju zavoda morali biti izplačani za ta otroka kot otroka prvega in drugega reda. Od tega dne je zavod S.
From then onwards the Caisse paid allowances to Ms Gysen for Augustin and Elise as first and second children, as it considered that children receiving family allowances from the European Communities cannot be taken into account for the purposes of determining the group of beneficiary children referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976.
Gysen izplačal dodatke za Augustina in Elise kot otroka prvega in drugega reda. Zavod je namreč presodil, da otrok, ki prejemajo otro�ki dodatek od Evropskih skupnosti, ni mogoče upo�tevati pri oblikovanju skupine upravičenih otrok iz člena 16(1), prvi pododstavek, kraljevega odloka z dne 8. aprila 1976.
(c) education allowance; be regarded as constituting what the national rules in question describe as an “… international social security convention in force in Belgium”?’
b) otro�ki dodatek, c) dodatek za �olanje, to, kar sporni nacionalni predpis �teje za ‚[…] mednarodno konvencijo o socialni varnosti, ki velja v Belgij‘“.
That court decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Za re�itev spora o glavni stvari mora predložitveno sodi�če ugotoviti, ali je v skladu z določbami kraljevega odloka z dne 8. aprila 1976 pri oblikovanju skupine otrok samozaposlene osebe, ki so upravičeni do družinskega dodatka, potrebne za določitev reda
‘May, or must, Article 67(1) of Regulation [No 259/68] and Annex VII thereto, entitled “Remuneration …”, Section 1: Family allowances, which comprise
Navedeno sodi�če je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
GYSEN without allowing account to be taken of a child receiving family allowances under the legislation of a Member State of the European Union declared to be applicable by Community law’.
GYSEN prej navedenih usklajenih zakonov, ne da bi omogočal upo�tevanje otroka, ki prejema družinske dodatke na podlagi ureditve države članice Evropske unije, za katero je bilo s pravom Skupnosti ugotovljeno, da se lahko uporablja.“ 9.
9 the purposes of determining the group of children of a selfemployed worker receiving family allowances, an exercise that is necessary to ascertain the ranking of each child and hence the amount of allowance to be paid.
vsakega izmed njih in s tem vi�ine dodatka, ki ga je treba izplačati za posameznega otroka, treba upo�tevati otroke, za katere institucije Skupnosti plačujejo družinski dodatek v skladu z določbami Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike in s PZDU, ali jih ni treba upo�tevati.
The parties to the main proceedings presented arguments before the referring court regarding the scope of the concept of international social security convention in force in Belgium, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the abovementioned Royal Decree.
Stranke v postopku v glavni stvari so pred predložitvenim sodi�čem razpravljale o obsegu izraza mednarodna konvencija o socialni varnosti, ki velja v Belgiji, navedene v členu 16(1), prvi podostavek, zgoraj navedenega kraljevega odloka.
As is apparent from the order for reference, the reference to ‘international social security conventions in force in Belgium’ was added to that provision by the Royal Decree of 7 September 2003 in the wake of the judgment of the Belgian Cour d’Arbitrage 6 No 106/2001 7 of 13 July 2001, which held that Article 42 of the Belgian statutes on family allowances for salaried workers, consolidated by the Royal Decree of 19 December 1939, 8 was contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution on the principles of equal treatment and nondiscrimination, ‘in that it permit[ted] only children receiving that benefit under the abovementioned consolidated statutes to be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the ranking that determines the amount of family allowances payable,
Kot izhaja iz predložitvene odločbe, je bilo sklicevanje na „mednarodne konvencije o socialni varnosti, ki veljajo v Belgiji“ v zgoraj navedeni predpis vstavljeno s kraljevim odlokom z dne 8. septembra 2003 zaradi sodbe Cour d’arbitrage (arbitražno razsodi�če) 6Belgije z dne 13. julija 2001 �t. 106/2001 7, v kateri je bilo ugotovljeno, da člen 42 belgijskih zakonov o družinskih dodatkih za zaposlene, urejenih s kraljevim odlokom z dne 19. decembra 1939 8, ni v skladu s členoma 10 in 11 belgijske ustave o načelih enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije, „ker je za izračun reda za določitev zneskov družinskih dodatkov, upo�tevanje otrok, ki so upravičeni do tega dodatka, omejil na otroke, ki prejemajo ta dodatek na podlagi
The Caisse, by contrast, maintained that the extension of the scope of the abovementioned provision by the Royal Decree of 7 September 2003 applied only to countries with which Belgium has concluded multilateral or bilateral international social security conventions.
Zavod pa je nasprotno trdil, da se raz�iritev področja uporabe zgoraj navedenega predpisa, do katere je pri�lo s kraljevim odlokom z dne 7. septembra 2003, uporablja le za države, s katerimi je Belgija za področje socialnega varstva sklenila večstranske ali dvostranske mednarodne sporazume.
It pointed out that there is no convention between Belgium and the European institutions or international institutions which pay family allowances to their staff.
Opozoril pa je, da med Belgijo in evropskimi in mednarodnimi institucijami, ki plačujejo družinske dodatke svojim zaposlenim, ne obstaja noben sporazum.
6 — On 7 May 2007, by an amendment to the Belgian Constitution, the name of the Cour d’Arbitrage was changed to that of Cour Constitutionnelle/Grondwett-elijk Hof/Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court) (Moniteur Belge/Belgisch Staatsblad of 8 May 2007, pp. 25101 and 25102).
6 – 7. maja 2007 je bilo z amandmajem k Belgijski ustavi ime Cour d’arbitrage spremenjeno v Cour constitutionnelle/Grondwettelijk Hof/Verfassungsgerichtshof (ustavno sodi�če) (Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblad z dne 8. maja 2007, str. 25101 in 25102).
The Caisse noted that although the Treaties establishing the European Communities are international conventions in force in Belgium, and certain legal rules established by those international organisations are directly applicable in the Member States, the Staff Regulations, while conferring rights on Community officials which they may enforce against their employer, are not directly and immediately applicable in the Belgian legal system.
Zavod je poudaril, da čeprav so pogodbe o ustanovitvi Skupnosti mednarodni sporazumi, ki veljajo v Belgiji, in se nekatera izmed pravil teh mednarodnih organizacij neposredno uporabljajo v državah članicah, se pravila Kadrovskih predpisov, čeprav podeljujejo uradnikom Skupnosti pravice, ki jih ti lahko uveljavljajo v razmerju do delodajalca, ne uporabljajo takoj in neposredno v nacionalni belgijski ureditvi.
It is clear that the question referred for a preliminary ruling, as formulated in the order for reference, would not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Očitno je, da vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, kot je bilo oblikovano v predložitveni odločbi, ne spada v pristojnost Sodi�ča.
In asking whether the Staff Regulations and Annex VII thereto constitute an ‘international social security convention in force in Belgium’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976, the referring court is seeking from the Court an interpretation of a provision of Belgian law.
Pri vpra�anju, ali so Kadrovski predpisi in Priloga VII „mednarodna pogodba o socialni varnosti, ki velja v Belgiji“ v smislu člena 16(1), prvi pododstavek, kraljevega odloka z dne 8. april 1976, predložitveno sodi�če napro�a Sodi�če za razlago belgijske določbe 11.
11 As is well known, under the system of judicial cooperation established by Article 234 EC, the interpretation of national rules is a matter for the national courts and not for the Court of Justice. 12
V okviru sistema sodelovanja med sodi�či, določenega v členu 234 ES, pa morajo nacionalne določbe razlagati nacionalna sodi�ča in ne Sodi�če 12.
The order for reference then reports the opinion delivered by the Ministère Public (Public Prosecutor) in the main proceedings, according to which Regulation No 259/68 must be considered to fall within the concept of an international social security convention in force in Belgium for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976, since it cites as its legal basis two international treaties ratified by Belgium — the EC Treaty and the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 10— and since, under Article 11 thereof, it is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
V predložitveni odločbi je nato navedeno mnenje, ki ga je v postopku v glavni stvari podalo državno tožilstvo in v skladu s katerim je Uredbo �t. 259/68, ki ima pravno podlago v dveh mednarodnih pogodbah, ki ju je ratificirala Belgija – Pogodba ES in Protokol o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 10–, in ki je v smislu člena 11 zavezujoča v celoti in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah, za namene člena 16(1), prvi pododstavek, kraljevega odloka z dne 8. aprila 1976, treba obravnavati, kot da spada v koncept mednarodne konvencije o socialne varnosti, ki velja v Belgiji.
Thus it is for the referring court itself to ascertain what is to be understood by ‘international social security convention in force in Belgium’ within the meaning of the
Kaj je treba razumeti z „mednarodn[o] konvencij[o] o socialni varnosti, ki velja v Belgiji“ v smislu navedenega nacionalnega predpisa, mora torej določiti predložitveno sodi�če. Prav tako je le v njegovi pristojnosti
After reporting the positions of the parties and of the Ministère Public (as set out above) and having noted that where the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976 refers to ‘international social security conventions in force in Belgium’, it is worded differently from other national provisions — which in the distinct field of pensions make explicit reference to the ‘staff regulations of an institution governed by international public law’ — the
Predložitveno sodi�če je, po predstavitvi stali�č strank in državnega tožilstva, kot so navedena zgoraj, in po ugotovitvi, da je navedeni predpis pri sklicevanju na
11 — It should be noted that although the text of that national provision is not reproduced in the order for reference but is contained in the file relating to the national proceedings sent with the reference for a preliminary ruling, the order for reference nevertheless makes it possible to understand the content of that provision.
11 – Poudariti je treba, da čeprav besedilo tega nacionalnega predpisa ni del predložitvene odločbe, temveč izhaja iz spisa v zvezi z nacionalno zadevo, predloženega s predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, je na podlagi predložitvene odločbe vendarle mogoče razumeti vsebino samega predpisa.
12 — Case C-37/92 Vanacker and Lesage [1993] ECR I-4947, paragraph 7, and Case C-511/03 Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal and Others [2005] ECR I-8979, paragraph 25 and the caselaw cited.
12 – Sodbi z dne 12. oktobra 1993 v zadevi Vanacker in Lesage (C-37/92, Recueil, str. I-4947, točka 7), in z dne 20. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal in drugi (C-511/03, ZOdl., str.
GYSEN national provision cited. The application of that provision and, accordingly, the assessment whether the Staff Regulations and the CEOS fall within the above concept, are also reserved to the jurisdiction of the referring court.
GYSEN uporaba te določbe in torej presoje, ali Kadrovski predpisi in PZDU spadajo v okvir te določbe.
The Court of Justice may merely provide clarification as to the legal nature of those acts in order to enable the referring court to make that assessment.
Sodi�če lahko le pojasni pravno naravo teh aktov, da tako omogoči predložitvenemu sodi�ču uporabo te presoje.
the CEOS constitutes implementation by the Council of the provision of the EC Treaty (now Article 283 EC) that empowers that institution to lay down, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other institutions concerned, the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities.
določeno, da Svet, na predlog Komisije in po predhodnem posvetovanju z drugimi zainteresiranimi institucijami, določi kadrovske predpise za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti in pogoje za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev teh skupnosti 13.
13Specific provisions of the Staff Regulations and the CEOS are, in turn, the means of implementing certain rules contained in the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, in particular Articles 7 and 12 to 16 thereof, and since the Protocol is annexed to the Treaties establishing the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, it is of equal status and rank to those treaties.
Določene določbe Kadrovskih predpisov uradnikov in PZDU pomenijo torej način uresničevanja nekaterih določb, ki jih vsebuje Protokol o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti, zlasti člena 7 in členov od 12 do 16, ki ima, ker je povezan s pogodbama o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in Evropske skupnosti za atomsko energijo, enako naravo in rang kot te pogodbe.
Such clarification, even though it does not raise doubts or complications, is all the more appropriate in the light of certain statements made before the referring court.
Ta pojasnila so, čeprav ne predstavljajo dvomov ali zapletenosti, toliko bolj primerna ob upo�tevanju nekaterih trditev, navedenih pred predložitvenim sodi�čem.
I note in particular that the Caisse contended in the course of the main proceedings that the provisions of the Staff Regulations, while granting Community officials rights that they can enforce against their employer, are not directly and immediately applicable in the Belgian legal system.
Zlasti ugotavljam, da je zavod v postopku v glavni stvari sklepal, da se določbe Kadrovskih predpisov, čeprav podeljujejo uradnikom Skupnosti pravice, ki jih lahko uveljavljajo v razmerju do delodajalcev, vendarle ne uporabljajo takoj in neposredno v belgijskem pravnem redu.
In addition, it should be noted that, as the Court has already had occasion to point out, the Staff Regulations and the CEOS were adopted by means of Regulation No 259/68 and that, by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 249 EC), that regulation has general application, is binding in its entirety and is directly applicable in all Member States, 14as moreover is stated in
Zato menim, da bi bilo mogoče vpra�anje, ki ga je zastavilo predložitveno sodi�če, oblikovati z izrazi, katerih namen bi bil pojasniti pravno naravo Kadrovskih predpisov in PZDU in njuno morebitno neposredno uporabo v belgijskem pravnem redu.
I therefore consider that the question submitted by the referring court may be reformulated in such a way as to seek clarification concerning the legal nature of the Staff Regulations and the CEOS and their possible direct applicability in the Belgian legal system.
259/68 in na podlagi člena 189, drugi odstavek, Pogodbe EGS (ki je postal člen 249, drugi odstavek, ES), se ta uredba splo�no uporablja, je zavezujoča v celoti in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah 14, kot je bilo sicer pojasnjeno v členu 11 te uredbe.
2), which repealed the existing Article 212 of the EEC Treaty, the wording of which was incorporated into Article 283 EC.
2), člen, ki razveljavlja prej veljaven člen 212 Pogodbe EGS in po katerem je povzeto besedilo člena 283 ES.
In this regard it should first be observed that the adoption of the Staff Regulations and
Glede tega predvsem opozarjam, da sprejetje Kadrovskih predpisov in PZDU pomeni uresničevanje s strani Sveta določbe Pogodbe ES (danes člen 283 ES), v kateri je
According to the Court, it follows that, in addition to having effects within the Community administration, the Staff Regulations and the CEOS are also binding on Member States wherever their cooperation is necessary in order to give effect to those measures.
MENGOZZIJA – ZADEVA C-449/06 uprave Skupnosti, Kadrovski predpisi in PZDU zavezujejo tudi države članice v vseh primerih, kjer je potrebno njihovo sodelovanje za uresničevanje navedenih ukrepov.
15 present case on the ground that the Court has also stated that Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations does not impose ‘any obligations on the Member States in the sphere of family allowances where the spouse of an official, retired official or other Community servant carries on within the territory of a Member State an activity as a selfemployed person’. 17
15 organi obstajala v tem primeru, ker je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da člen 67 Kadrovskih predpisov ne nalaga „obveznosti državam članicam glede družinskih dodatkov v primerih, v katerih zakonec zaposlenega, biv�ega zaposlenega v pokoju ali drugega uslužbenca Skupnosti, na ozemlju države članice opravlja samostojno dejavnost.“ 17
For example, the Court — noting that Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations makes it possible to resolve conflicts between the Community scheme and the various national schemes, as the family allowances provided for by the Staff Regulations are paid to those entitled to them only in so far as they exceed the amount of the comparable allowances paid under a scheme established by the legislation of a Member State — has observed that ‘since it is based on Article 67(2) itself, that is to say, on a provision contained in a regulation adopted pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, the supplementary effect of allowances payable under the Staff Regulations is binding on the Member States and cannot be disregarded by national legislation’. 16
Tako je na primer Sodi�če – ko je poudarilo, da člen 67(2) Kadrovskih predpisov omogoča razre�itev sporov med ureditvijo Skupnosti in različnimi nacionalnimi ureditvami, ker se družinski dodatki, ki jih upo�tevajo ti kadrovski predpisi, dodelijo upravičencu le v delu, v katerem presegajo znesek podobnih dodatkov, ki ustrezajo določbam ureditve, ki jo določajo zakoni države člani- ce – ugotovilo, da „ker temelji na istem čle nu 67(2), torej na določbi, ki se nahaja v uredbi, sprejeti na podlagi člena 189, drugi odstavek, Pogodbe EGS , dopolnilna narava dodatkov Kadrovskih predpisov [za uradnike] zavezuje države članice in ne more pomeniti neupo�tevanja nacionalnih zakonov“ 16.
Thus the Staff Regulations and the CEOS are binding on all the Member States, including Belgium.
Kadrovski predpisi in PZDU torej zavezujejo vse države članice in med njimi tudi Belgijo.
Moreover, it cannot be maintained that such a binding effect on the Belgian authorities does not exist in the
Vendar pa ni mogoče trditi, da bi taka obvezna učinkovitost v sporih z belgijskimi
That observation by the Court simply means that a Member State remains free to refuse family allowances provided for under its own laws, citing in support of that view the possibility for those entitled to them to receive, for the same child, the family allowances paid under the Staff Regulations and the CEOS where the spouse of the official or servant of the Communities carries on an activity as a selfemployed person within its territory.
Ta ugotovitev Sodi�ča pomeni le, da državi članici ni prepovedano, da odreče družinske dodatke, ki jih določajo njeni zakoni, tako da v podporo navaja možnost upravičencev, da za istega otroka prejmejo družinske dodatke, izplačane na podlagi Kadrovskih predpisov za uslužbence in PZDU, v položajih, kjer zakonec uradnika ali uslužbenca Skupnosti na ozemlju Skupnosti opravlja samostojno dejavnost 18.
18Indeed, as the Court has observed, ‘the allowances of like nature which, according to the aforesaid provision, must be deducted from the family allowances payable under the Staff Regulations and thus relieve the Community institutions of the obligation to pay the last-mentioned allowances, are only those paid in connection with paid employment’.
Kot je namreč ugotovilo Sodi�če, „so dodatki iste vrste, ki se v skladu z zgoraj navedeno določbo od�tejejo od družinskih dodatkov iz Kadrovskih predpisov [za uradnike] in dajejo torej institucijam obveznost, da jim jih izplača, le tisti, izplačani za zaposlene osebe“ 19.
19 The inapplicability of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations in those situations does not, however, in any way diminish the binding nature and direct
Nezmožnost uporabe člena 67(2) Kadrovskih predpisov v zgoraj navedenih položajih pa v ničemer ne vpliva na obvezni
15 — Case 137/80 Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 8, and Case 186/85 Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 21.
15 – Sodba z dne 20. oktobra 1981 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji, navedena v točki 8, in z dne 7. maja 1987 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji, navedena v točki 21.
16 — Case 186/85 Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 23.
16 – Sodba z dne 7. maja 1987 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji, navedena v točki 23.