natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 18(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 2 December 2005, and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to allow investigations required to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, extends from 60 to 180 days, as from the date of submission of the taxable person’s VAT return, the period available to the national tax office for repayment of excess VAT to a category of taxable persons, unless those persons lodge a security deposit to a value of PLN 250 000.
Člen 18(4) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 2005/92/ES z dne 12. decembra 2005, in načelo sorazmernosti nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je obravnavana v sporu o glavni stvari, ki zaradi omogočanja nadzora, nujnega za preprečevanje davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom, določa, da lahko nacionalni davčni urad določeni skupini davčnih zavezancev vrne preveč plačani DDV v roku od 60 do 180 dni, šteto od dneva, ko je davčni zavezanec vložil napoved DDV, razen če so ti položili varščino v višini 250.000 PLN.
Provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not constitute ‘special measures for derogation’ intended to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2005/92.
Določbe, kot se obravnavajo v sporu o glavni stvari, ne veljajo za „posebne ukrepe, ki odstopajo“, za preprečevanje nekaterih vrst davčnih utaj ali izogibanja davkom v smislu člena 27(1) Šeste direktive 77/388, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2005/92.
Case C-33/07
Zadeva C-33/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Tribunalul Dâmboviţa)
(Citizenship of the Union — Article 18 EC — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States)
„Državljanstvo Unije – Člen 18 ES – Direktiva 2004/38/ES – Pravica državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 10 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 14. febru -arja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Citizenship of the European Union — Provisions of the Treaty — Scope ratione personae (Arts 17(1) EC and 18 EC)
Državljanstvo Evropske unije – Določbe Pogodbe – Področje osebne uporabe (člena 17(1) ES in 18 ES)
Citizenship of the European Union — Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38
Državljanstvo Evropske unije – Pravica do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic – Direktiva 2004/38
(Art. 18 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 27)
(člen 18 ES; Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38, člen 27)
SUMMARY — CASE C-33/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-33/07
Member State on account of his ‘illegal residence’ there, provided that the personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and that the restrict- ive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the object- ive it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.
da osebno obna�anje tega državljana predstavlja resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno nevarnost, ki ogroža temeljne družbene interese, in da je predviden omejitveni ukrep primeren za zagotovitev uresničevanja zastavljenega cilja in ne gre preko tega, kar je potrebno za doseganje le-tega.
It is for the national court to establish, on the basis of the matters of fact and law justifying the request for a restriction on the right to leave the first Member State whether that is so in the case before it.
Predložitveno sodi�če je pristojno, da ugotovi, na podlagi dejanskih in pravnih okoli�čin, ki so bile podlaga za zahtevo do izstopa, ali je to tako v zadevi, o kateri odloča.
A national of a Member State who has been repatriated from another Member State enjoys the status of a citizen of the Union under Article 17(1) EC and may therefore rely on the right pertaining to that status, including against his Member state of origin, and in particular the right conferred by Article 18 EC to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
Oseba, vrnjena z ozemlja ene države član ice v drugo, ima v skladu s čle -nom 17(1) ES status državljana Unije in torej lahko uveljavlja tudi proti svoji državi članici izvora pravice, ki se nana�ajo na tak status, predvsem pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, kot je podeljena s členom 18 ES.
In that regard, the right of freedom of movement includes both the right for citizens of the European Union to enter a Member State other than the one of origin and the right to leave the State of origin.
Pravica do prostega gibanja namreč vključuje tako pravico, da državljani Evropske unije vstopajo v drugo državo članico, kot je njihova država članica izvora, kot tudi pravico slednjo zapustiti.
The fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty would be rendered meaningless if the Member State of origin could, without valid justification, prohibit its own nationals from leaving its territory in order to enter the territory of another Member State.
Temeljnim svobo�činam, zagotovljenim s Pogodbo, bi bila namreč odvzeta vsebina, če bi država članica izvora lahko brez tehtne utemeljitve prepovedala svojim državljanom zapustiti njeno ozemlje zaradi vstopa na ozemlje druge države članice.
(see paras 17, 18)
(Glej točki 17 in 18.)
A measure limiting the exercise of the right of free movement must be adopted in the light of considerations pertaining to the protection of public policy or public security in the Member State imposing the measure.
Glede prvega pogoja velja, da je treba ukrep, s katerim se omejuje izvr�evanje pravice do prostega gibanja, obravnavati glede na ugotovitve o varstvu javnega reda in javne varnosti države članice, ki sprejme ta ukrep.
Thus it cannot be based exclusively on reasons advanced by another Member State to justify a decision to remove a Community national from the territory of the latter State. That does not however rule out the possibility of such reasons being taken into account in the context of the assessment which the competent national authorities undertake for the purpose of adopting the measure restricting freedom of movement.
Ta ukrep torej ne more temeljiti izključno na razlogih, ki jih navede druga država članica, kot v zadevi v glavni stvari, za utemeljitev odločitve o odstranitvi državljana Skupnosti z ozemlja te države, vendar pa to ne izključuje, da lahko pristojni nacionalni organi take razloge upo�tevajo pri presoji glede sprejetja ukrepa, ki omejuje prosto gibanje.
Articles 18 EC and 27 of Direct- ive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 do not preclude national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in par -ticular on the ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter
Člen 18 ES in člen 27 Direktive 2004/38 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki spreminja Uredbo �t. 1612/68 in razveljavlja [d]irektive 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 in 93/96, ne nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, ki dopu�ča omejitev pravice državljana države članice, da potuje na ozemlje druge države članice, predvsem iz razloga, ker je bil predhodno vrnjen iz slednje države članice, ker je v njej bil v „nezakonitem položaju“, pod pogojem,
(see paras 25, 28, 30, operative part)
(Glej točke 25, 28 in 30 ter izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALMAZÁK delivered on 14 February 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÁNA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 14. februarja 2008 1
I — Relevant Community law
I – Upoštevna zakonodaja Skupnosti
Article 18(1) EC provides that ‘[e]very citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect’.
Člen 18(1) ES določa, da „[ima vsak] državljan Unije […] pravico prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic ob upo�tevanju omejitev in pogojev, določenih s Pogodbo ES in ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti za njeno uveljavitev.“
The proceedings before the referring court concern a civil action brought by the Ministry of Administration and Home Affairs — Directorate General for Passports, Bucharest, (‘the Ministry’) on 11 January 2007 for an order imposing a restriction on Mr Gheorghe Jipa’s freedom of movement abroad for a period of up to three years.
Postopek pred predložitvenim sodi�čem se nana�a na civilno tožbo, ki jo je 11. januarja 2007 vložilo Ministrstvo za upravo in notranje zadeve – Generalni direktorat za potne liste iz Bukare�te (v nadaljevanju: ministrstvo) in s katero je predlagalo, naj se G. Jipi odredi omejitev svobode gibanja v tujini za največ tri leta.
The order was sought following Mr Jipa’s repatriation to Romania on 26 November 2006 on foot of a Readmission Agreement concluded between, inter alia, Romania and Belgium.
Tožba je bila vložena po tem, ko je bil G. Jipa 26. novembra 2006 vrnjen v Romunijo na podlagi sporazuma o ponovnem sprejemu, ki je bil med drugim sklenjen med Romunijo in Belgijo.
Article 1(a) of Directive 2004/38 provides that that directive lays down, inter alia, the conditions governing the exercise of the right
Člen 1(a) Direktive 2004/38 navaja, da ta direktiva med drugim določa pogoje, ki urejajo uresničevanje pravice državljanov
Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens … on grounds of public policy, public secur- ity or public health.
Ob upo�tevanju določb tega poglavja lahko države članice omejijo svobodo gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov ne glede na državljanstvo, in sicer zaradi javnega reda, javne varnosti ali javnega zdravja. Na te razloge se ne da sklicevati iz ekonomskih ciljev.
Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 provides:
Člen 3(1) Direktive 2004/38 določa:
Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned.
Ukrepi, sprejeti zaradi javnega reda ali javne varnosti, so v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti in temeljijo izključno na osebnem obna�anju zadevnega posameznika.
Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.
Predhodne kazenske obsodbe same po sebi �e ne predstavljajo razlogov za sprejetje tak�nih ukrepov.
‘This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national …’
„Ta direktiva se upravlja za vse državljane Unije, ki se preselijo ali prebivajo v državi članici razen v tisti državi, katere državljani so […]“
Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38 entitled ‘Right of exit’ provides:
Člen 4(1) Direktive 2004/38 z naslovom „Pravica do izstopa“ določa:
The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
Osebno obna�anje zadevnega posameznika mora predstavljati resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno grožnjo, ki prizadene osnovne interese družbe.
Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted. …’
Utemeljitve, ki niso neposredno povezane s podrobnostmi posameznega primera ali ki se nana�ajo na splo�no preventivo, niso dovoljene […]“
Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport … shall have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State.’
Brez vpliva na določbe o potnih listinah, ki se uporabljajo pri nadzorih državne meje, imajo vsi državljani Unije z veljavno osebno izkaznico ali potnim listom […] pravico, da zapustijo ozemlje države članice zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico.“
Article 1 of the Agreement between the Government of Romania, of the first part, and the Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the other part, on the readmission of persons who are in an illegal situation (the ‘Readmission Agreement’) and which was
Člen 1 sporazuma med vlado Romunije ter vladami Kraljevine Belgije, Velikega vojvodstva Luksemburg in Kraljevine Nizozemske o ponovnem sprejemu oseb, ki so v nezakonitem položaju (v nadaljevanju: sporazum o ponovnem sprejemu), ki je bil ratificiran
Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 entitled ‘General principles’ and which is found in Chapter VI — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, provides:
Člen 27 Direktive 2004/38 z naslovom „Splo�na načela“, ki je v poglavju VI – Omejitve pravice do vstopa in pravice do prebivanja zaradi javnega reda, javne varnosti ali javnega zdravja, določa:
JIPA approved by Romanian Government Decree No 825/1995 3 provides:
JIPA z uredbo romunske vlade �t. 825/1995 3, določa:
Pursuant to Article 38 of Law 248/2005:
Člen 38 zakona 248/2005 določa:
‘The Government of Romania shall readmit to its territory, at the request of the Government of Belgium, the Government of Luxembourg or the Government of the Netherlands, without any formality, any person who does not satisfy or no longer satisfies the conditions for entry or residence applicable to the territory of Belgium, of Luxembourg, or of the Netherlands, where it is established or presumed that the person concerned is a Romanian citizen.’
„Vlada Romunije bo na zahtevo vlade Belgije, Luksemburga ali Nizozemske brez formalnosti ponovno sprejela vsako osebo, ki ne izpolnjuje ali ne izpolnjuje več pogojev za vstop ali prebivanje, ki veljajo na belgijskem, luksembur�kem ali nizozemskem ozemlju, če je dokazano ali se domneva, da je zadevna oseba romunski državljan.“
‘A restriction on the exercise of the right of free movement abroad of Romanian citizens may be imposed for a period not exceeding three years, under the following conditions and only against: provides:
„Omejitev pravice romunskih državljanov, da se prosto gibljejo v tujini, se lahko izreče za največ tri leta pod pogoji in le:
3 — Published in Monitorul Oficial No 241 of 20 October 1995.
241 z dne 20. oktobra 1995.
(b) a person whose presence in the territory of a State would, by reason of the activities which that person carries out or might carry out, seriously harm the interests of Romania or, as the case may be, bilateral relations between Romania and that State.’
b) osebi, katere prisotnost na ozemlju države bi zaradi dejavnosti, ki jih ta oseba opravlja ali bi jih morda opravljala, resno �kodila interesom Romunije ali, odvisno od primera, dvostranskim odnosom med Romunijo in to državo.“
Article 39 of Law 248/2005 provides as follows:
Člen 39 zakona 248/2005 določa:
The referring court considers, inter alia, that the provisions of national law, in particular Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 and Government Decree No 825/1995, are contrary to Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38.
Predložitveno sodi�če med drugim meni, da so določbe nacionalnega prava, predvsem člena 38 in 39 zakona 248/2005 in uredba vlade �t. 825/1995, v nasprotju s členoma 18 ES in 27 Direktive 2004/38.
By decision dated 17 January 2007, the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court:
Tribunalul Dâmboviţa je z odločbo z dne 17. januarja 2007 prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
‘In the situation provided for in Article 38(a), the measure shall be adopted at the request of the Directorate General for Passports, in relation to the State from which the person has been repatriated, by the court in whose territorial jurisdiction he resides or, if that person resides abroad, Tribunalul Bucureşti.’
„V primerih iz člena 38(a) sprejme ukrep na zahtevo Generalnega direktorata za potne liste, sodi�če, na območju katerega ima ta oseba prebivali�če, ali, če ta oseba živi v tujini, Tribunalul Bucureşti, glede države, iz katere je bila oseba repatririrana.“
Must Article 18 EC … be interpreted as meaning that the legislation in force in Romania (Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 on the conditions for the free movement of Romanian citizens abroad) places obstacles in the way of the free movement of persons?
Ali je treba člen 18 ES […] razlagati tako, da veljavno romunsko pravo (člena 38 in 39 zakona 248/2005 o ureditvi prostega gibanja romunskih državljanov v tujini) ovira prosto gibanje oseb?
III — The main proceedings and the order for reference
III – Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
It would appear from the order for reference that Mr Jipa left Romania to go to Belgium on 10 September 2006.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je G. Jipa 10. septembra 2006 zapustil Romunijo in se je odpravil v Belgijo.
He was repatriated to Romania on account of ‘illegal residence’ on 26 November 2006 by the Belgian authorities pursuant to the Readmission Agreement.
Belgijske oblasti so ga 26. novembra 2006 zaradi „nezakonitega prebivanja“ vrnile v Romunijo na podlagi sporazuma o ponovnem sprejemu.
(a) Do Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 … which prevent a person (who is a Romanian citizen and, now, a citizen of the Union) from moving freely in another State (in this case, a Member State of the European Union), constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons upheld by Article 18 EC?
Ali člena 38 in 39 zakona 248/2005 […], ki osebi (ki je romunski državljan in sedaj tudi državljan Unije) preprečujeta, da bi se prosto gibala v drugi državi (v tem primeru v državi članici Evropske unije), pomenita oviro za prosto gibanje oseb iz člena 18 ES?
On 11 January 2007, the Ministry sought an order from the referring court to restrict Mr Jipa’s freedom of movement to Belgium.
Ministrstvo je 11. januarja 2007 zahtevalo, naj predložitveno sodi�če sprejme ukrep in odredi, da se G. Jipi omeji svobo�čina, da odide v Belgijo.
(b) May a Member State of the European Union (in this case Romania) place a limitation on the exercise of the right of freedom of movement of citizens within the territory of another Member State?
Ali sme država članica Evropske unije (v tem primeru Romunija) določiti oviro za uresničevanje pravice do prostega gibanja državljanov na ozemlju druge države članice?
By order dated 3 April 2007, the President of the Court rejected the request by the referring court for an expedited procedure.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 3. aprila 2007 zavrnil predlog predložitvenega sodi�ča za odločanje po hitrem postopku.
The Romanian and Greek Governments and the Commission submitted written observations.
Romunska in gr�ka vlada ter Komisija so predložile pisna stali�ča.
No hearing was requested or held.
Obravnava ni bila ne predlagana ne opravljena.
(a) Does the concept of “illegal residence” used in the national provisions of Government Decree [No 825/1995] approving the Agreement between the Government of Romania, of the first part, and the Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the other part, on the readmission of persons who are in an illegal situation (the provision on the basis of which the readmission of the defendant was ordered, his situation being that of “illegal residence”) fall within the grounds of “public policy” or “public security” provided for in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC, so that a restriction on the freedom of movement of such a person may be imposed?
Ali ‚nezakonito prebivanje‘ v smislu nacionalne vladne uredbe [825/1995] o ratifikaciji sporazuma med vlado Romunije ter vladami Kraljevine Belgije, Velikega vojvodstva Luksemburg in Kraljevine Nizozemske o ponovnem sprejemu oseb, ki so v nezakonitem položaju (na podlagi katerega je bila vrnjena tožena stranka, ki je ‚prebivala nezakonito‘), spada med razloge ‚javnega reda‘ ali ‚javne varnosti‘ iz člena 27 Direktive 2004/38/ES, tako da se sme določiti oviro za prosto gibanje takih oseb?
(b) If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC … be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may impose restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on grounds of “public policy” and “public security” automatically, without that person’s “personal conduct” being examined?’
Ali je – če je odgovor na prej� - nje vpra�anje pritrdilen – treba člen 27 Direktive 2004/38/ES […] razlagati tako, da smejo države članice samodejno in brez presoje ‚osebnega obna�anja‘ določiti omejitve za prosto gibanje ali prebivanje državljana Unije iz razlogov ‚javnega reda‘ ali ‚javne varnosti‘?“
The Romanian Government considers that the reference from the national court is admissible despite the fact that Mr Jipa’s repatriation took place prior to Romania’s accession to the European Union (EU) on 1 January 2007.
Romunska vlada meni, da je predlog nacionalnega sodi�ča dopusten, čeprav je bila vrnitev G. Jipe izvr�ena pred pristopom Romunije k Evropski uniji 1. januarja 2007.
The Romanian Government also maintains that the Court is competent to deal with the present matter given that there is a risk of Mr Jipa’s freedom of movement being limited pursuant to Article 38(a) of Law 248/2005.
Romunska vlada poleg tega trdi, da je Sodi�če pristojno za obravnavo te zadeve glede na to, da obstaja nevarnost, da se G. Jipi omeji pravico prostega gibanja v skladu s členom 38(a) zakona 248/2005.
The Romanian and Greek Governments note that the fact that Mr Jipa has not exercised his right to freedom of movement under the EC Treaty is irrelevant. Romania
Romunska in gr�ka vlada opozarjata, da ni pomembno dejstvo, da G. Jipa ni uresničeval svoje pravice prostega gibanja iz Pogodbe ES.
In its decision dated 17 January 2007, the referring court also requested the Court to give a ruling on the questions referred under an expedited procedure.
Predložitveno sodi�če je z odločbo z dne 17. januarja 2007 predlagalo, naj Sodi�če na zastavljena vpra�anja odgovori po hitrem postopku.
Member State who has not made use of the right to freedom of movement cannot, for that reason alone, be assimilated to a purely internal situation.
da je Sodi�če v zadevi Schempp 5odločilo, da položaj državljana države članice, ki ni uresničeval pravice prostega gibanja, ne more biti le zaradi tega dejstva izenačen s povsem notranjim položajem.