natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, account should be taken of the changes introduced by Directive 2004/38.
Nazadnje je treba upo�tevati tudi nove razmere, nastale s sprejetjem Direktive 2004/38.
Even if the approach in Akrich had a scope which was not limited to the specific circumstances of the case (abuse of rights), it was adopted under and in pursuance of Regulation No 1612/68.
Čeprav bi imela re�itev iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Akrich neomejen obseg v posebnem kontekstu obravnavane zadeve (zloraba pravice), je treba upo�tevati, da je bila ta sodba sprejeta na podlagi in zaradi uporabe Uredbe �t. 1612/68.
As stated in recital 3 in the preamble thereto, Directive 2004/38 seeks not only to codify but also to review the existing legislative instruments in order to ‘strengthen’ the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens.
Kot je namreč navedeno v uvodni izjavi 3 Direktive 2004/38, namen te direktive ni le uzakoniti, ampak tudi pregledati obstoječe zakonodajne instrumente Skupnosti zaradi „krepitve“ pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja vseh državljanov Unije.
Furthermore, whereas Regulation No 1612/68 concerned, to cite its title, only ‘freedom of movement’ for workers within the Community, Direct- ive 2004/38 relates, in line with the right set out in Article 18 EC, to the right of Union citizens not only to ‘move’ but also to ‘reside’ freely within the territory of the Member States.
Poleg tega se je Uredba �t. 1612/68, kot pove že njen naslov, nana�ala le na „prosto gibanje“ delavcev v Skupnosti, medtem ko se Direktiva 2004/38 v skladu s pravno usmeritvijo iz člena 18 ES ne nana�a samo na pravico državljanov Unije do prostega „gibanja“, ampak tudi do „prebivanja“ na ozemlju držav članic.
In other words, freedom of movement for workers and the rules adopted pursuant thereto were essentially intended to remove obstacles to mobility for workers.
Drugače povedano, namen prostega gibanja delavcev in zato sprejete zakonodaje je bil predvsem odstraniti ovire za mobilnost delavcev.
Emphasis was therefore placed on the deterrent effect on leaving or entering a Member State which could be caused by the measures taken by the Member States.
Poudarek je bil torej na odvračalnem učinku ob izhodu iz države članice ali vstopu vanjo, ki bi ga lahko povzročili sprejeti ukrepi držav članic.
It is ultimately this view which inspired the ratio decidendi in Akrich.
In navsezadnje je bila zgoraj navedena sodba Akrich izrečena prav na podlagi tega vidika.
After pointing out that the scheme of the Community law provisions seeks to secure freedom of movement for workers within the Community, whose exercise must not penalise the migrant worker and his family, the Court in fact inferred from this that where a citizen of the Union, established in a Member State and married to a national of a nonmember country without the right to remain in that Member State, moves to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person, the fact that that person’s spouse has no right under Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 to install himself with that person in the other Member State cannot constitute treatment which is less favourable than that which they enjoyed before the Union citizen made use of the opportunities afforded by the Treaty as regards movement of persons and,
Sodi�če je – potem ko je opozorilo, da je namen splo�ne sistematike določb Skupnosti zagotoviti prosto gibanje delavcev v Skupnosti ter da delavec migrant in njegova družina ne bi smela biti kaznovana zaradi izvajanja te svobo�čine – namreč na podlagi tega menilo, da v okoli�činah, ko se državljan Unije, ki prebiva v državi članici in je v zakonski zvezi z državljanom tretje države, ki nima pravice do prebivanja v tej državi članici, preseli v drugo državo članico, da bi tam opravljal dejavnost kot zaposlena oseba, dejstvo, da njegov zakonec na podlagi člena 10 Direktive �t. 1612/68 nima pravice, da bi se z njim preselil v zadevno drugo državo članico, ne sme pomeniti manj ugodnega obravnavanja, kot sta ga bila zakonca deležna, preden je zadevni državljan Unije uporabil možnosti, ki jih dopu�ča
METOCK AND OTHERS whether they hinder the freedom of a Union citizen to move to another Member State or the freedom to reside in another Member State.
METOCK IN DRUGI zadeva prebivanje v drugi državi članici. Ker je torej treba Direktivo 2004/38 podobno kot Uredbo �t.
Therefore, since Directive 2004/38 must, like Regulation No 1612/68, 23also be interpreted in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life, it must be concluded that the benefit of the right of residence granted by Directive 2004/38 to nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen cannot be made contingent on the prior lawful residence of those nationals in another Member State.
1612/68 23razlagati tudi ob upo�tevanju temeljne pravice do spo�tovanja družinskega življenja, je treba ugotoviti, da uživanje pravice do prebivanja, ki je državljanom tretje države, družinskim članom državljana Unije, podeljena z Direktivo 2004/38, ni more biti odvisno od predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja zadevnih državljanov tretje države v drugi državi članici.
Finally, it hardly needs to be pointed out that the fact that the right of residence conferred by Directive 2004/38 on nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen includes a right of access to the territory of the Community does not mean that that latter right may not be subject to limitations by the Member States.
Naj nazadnje opozorim �e na to, da dejstvo, da pravica do prebivanja, ki je državljanom tretje države, družinskim članom državljana Unije, priznana z Direktivo 2004/38, vključuje pravico do vstopa na ozemlje Skupnosti, ne pomeni, da države članice te pravice ne morejo omejiti.
Those limitations are explicitly provided for.
Take omejitve so izrecno določene.
Article 27 of the directive refers to the traditional public policy restriction on the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality.
V členu 27 zadevnega besedila je naveden tradicionalni pridržek glede javnega reda, s katerim se omejita svoboda gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov ne glede na državljanstvo.
Article 35 imposes restrictions in cases of abuse of rights or fraud.
V členu 35 je naveden pridržek ob zlorabi pravic ali prevari.
This is obviously aimed at the possibility of marriages of convenience, but abuse of rights may also be deemed to cover the accordingly, is not such as to deter the citizen of the Union from exercising the rights in regard to freedom of movement conferred by Article 39 EC; conversely, where a citizen of the Union, established in a Member State and married to a national of a nonmember country with a right to remain in that Member State, moves to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person, that move must not result in the loss of the opportunity lawfully to live together, which is the reason why Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 confers on such a spouse the right to install himself in that other Member State.
Pogodba glede prostega gibanja oseb, in zato to dejstvo državljana Unije ne more odvrniti od izvajanja pravic do prostega gibanja, ki so mu priznane na podlagi člena 39 ES; nasprotno, če se državljan Unije, ki prebiva v državi članici in je v zakonski zvezi z državljanom tretje države s pravico do prebivanja v tej državi članici, preseli v drugo državo članico z namenom opravljanja dejavnosti kot zaposlena oseba, zakonca zaradi selitve ne smeta izgubiti možnosti zakonitega skupnega življenja, zato je s členom 10 Uredbe �t. 1612/68 zadevnemu zakoncu podeljena pravica do prebivanja v navedeni drugi državi članici.
22 At present Directive 2004/38 places equal emphasis on the right to reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
22 Zdaj je z Direktivo 2004/38 enako poudarjena tudi pravica do prostega prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic.
It is therefore no longer only the mobility but also the stability and permanence of residence in another Member State that is intended to be secured.
Torej ne gre več le za mobilnost, ampak bi radi zagotovili tudi stabilnost in stalnost prebivanja v drugi državi članici.
From this new standpoint, it is easy to see how requiring nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen to satisfy a condition of prior lawful residence in order to benefit from the right of residence conferred by Directive 2004/38 might affect continued residence in the Member State which a Union citizen has freely chosen.
S tega novega zornega kota je mogoče zlahka ugotoviti, da bi z omejitvijo uživanja pravice do prebivanja, ki je z Direktivo 2004/38 podeljena državljanom tretje države, družinskim članom državljana Unije, s pogojem o predhodnem zakonitem prebivanju vplivali na ohranitev prebivanja v državi članici, ki jo je prosto izbral državljan Unije.
If his family life changes and a family member is unable to rely on Community law in order to join him because he has not been lawfully resident in another Member State, the Union citizen will be induced to leave the territory of the Member State in which he had chosen to establish himself in favour of a State, whether a Member State or not, in which he will be able to reunite the family unit.
Če se družinsko življenje spremeni in se družinski član ne more sklicevati na pravo Skupnosti, da bi se pridružil zakoncu, ker prej ni zakonito prebival v drugi državi članici, bo to za državljana Unije spodbuda, da zapusti ozemlje države članice, v kateri se je odločil prebivati, in odide v drugo državo (državo članico ali tretjo državo), v kateri mu bo omogočena vnovična združitev družinske celice.
Thus, the infringement of the right to lead a normal family life that would be caused by the requirement of prior lawful residence in another Member State would, as can be seen, affect the effectiveness of the right of residence.
Tako bi s kr�itvijo pravice do normalnega družinskega življenja, ki bi jo povzročila zahteva po predhodnem prebivanju v drugi državi članici, vplivali tudi na učinkovitost pravice do prebivanja.
There is no reason to treat infringements of family life differently depending on
Nobenega razloga ni, da bi različno obravnavali poseganje v družinsko življenje glede na to, ali gre za omejevanje svobode državljana Unije, kar zadeva selitev v drugo državo članico ali kar
23 — See Case 249/86 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 1263, paragraph 10, and Baumbast and R, paragraph 72.
23 – Glej sodbo z dne 18. maja 1989 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (249/86, Recueil, str. 1263, točka 10) ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Baumbast in R (točka 72).
22 — See Akrich, paragraphs 51 to 54.
22 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Akrich (točke od 51 do 54).
It should be noted that these limitations permitted by Directive 2004/38 mirror those which the Court authorised the Member States to impose, in connection with the freedom to provide services, on the right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-127/08 zajete z omejitvami pravice do spo�tovanja družinskega življenja v smislu člena 8 EKČP, ki jih je Sodi�če dovolilo državam članicam na podlagi svobode opravljanja storitev.
24 because Article 3(1) of the directive reserves the benefit of the directive to Union citizens and ‘to their family members … who accompany or join them’.
24 vpra�anje se postavlja, ker je v členu 3(1) Direktive določeno, da se določbe te direktive uporabljajo le za državljane Unije in „družinske člane […], ki jih spremljajo ali se jim pridružijo“.
Should this wording not be considered to require the national of a nonmember country to have obtained the status of family member before coming to the host Member State?
Ali ne bi bilo treba zato �teti, da mora državljan tretje države pridobiti status družinskega člana �e pred prihodom v državo članico gostiteljico?
Ireland believes that it should.
Tako meni irska vlada.
Otherwise, how could the national of a nonmember country be regarded as accompanying or joining the Union citizen as a family member?
Kako bi sicer za državljana tretje države lahko trdili, da kot družinski član spremlja državljana Unije ali se mu pridruži?
Therefore, the answer to the first question should be that Directive 2004/38 does not authorise a Member State to make the benefit of the right of residence which it grants to nationals of nonmember countries who are the family members of a Union citizen subject to the condition that those nationals must have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti, da Direktiva 2004/38 državi članici ne omogoča, da bi kot pogoj za uživanje pravice do prebivanja, ki je s to direktivo podeljena državljanom tretjih držav, družinskim članom državljana Unije, določila predhodno zakonito prebivanje navedenih državljanov tretjih držav v drugi državi članici.
B — Effect of the date of the marriage on the benefit of the right of residence conferred by Directive 2004/38
B – Vpliv datuma sklenitve zakonske zveze na uživanje pravice do prebivanja, podeljene z Direktivo 2004/38
The second and third questions essentially ask the Court to rule on whether a national of a nonmember country can rely on the provisions of Directive 2004/38 to obtain the right to reside in the host Member State with the Union citizen who is his spouse even if he entered the host Member State before marrying or even before the Union citizen came there.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim in tretjim vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje Sodi�ču v bistvu predlaga, naj odgovori na vpra�anje, ali se lahko državljan tretje države sklicuje na določbe Direktive 2004/38, da bi pridobil pravico do prebivanja v državi članici gostiteljici skupaj z zakoncem, ki je državljan Unije, čeprav je v državo članico gostiteljico vstopil �e pred sklenitvijo zakonske zveze ali celo pred prihodom državljana Unije.
The question arises
Navedeno
However, the wording of Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 does not really support the argument of the respondent in the main proceedings.
Vendar z besedilom člena 3(1) Direktive 2004/38 resnično ni mogoče podpreti teze države članice, tožene stranke v postopku v glavni stvari.
The word ‘accompany’, in particular, can indicate a movement and be understood as meaning to go with but can also have a static connotation and mean to be with.
Zlasti pojem „spremljati“ sicer res pomeni gibanje in ga je tako mogoče razumeti v smislu „iti z“, vendar ima lahko tudi statičen podton in pomeni „biti z“.
This double meaning is to be found in the equivalent of the English term ‘accompany’ used in the other language versions, whether it be the French word ‘accompagner’, the Spanish word ‘acompañar’, the Italian word ‘accompagnare’, or the Portuguese word ‘acompanhar’.
Ta dvojni pomen zasledimo tudi v drugih jezikovnih različicah: v angle�čini „accompany“, v �pan�čini „acompañar“, v italijan�čini „accompagnare“ ali v portugal�čini „acompanhar“.
In order to remove the ambiguity in the wording it is therefore again necessary to develop a functional interpretation.
Da bi razjasnili dvoumnost formulacije, je treba torej spet razviti funkcionalno razlago.
In this regard, if the emphasis were placed solely on the mobility of EU nationals, that is to say on their freedom to move to another Member State, it could be claimed, quite aptly, that Community law does not guarantee a family member a right of residence in the host Member State of a migrant Union citizen where the family relationships
Če bi bil glede tega edini poudarek na mobilnosti državljanov Unije in torej njihovi svobo�čini, da odidejo v drugo državo članico, bi lahko z nekaj verodostojnosti trdili, da je s pravom Skupnosti družinskemu članu zagotovljena pravica do prebivanja v državi članici gostiteljici državljana Unije, ki se je preselil, le če so sorodstvene vezi obstajale že pred izvajanjem svobode gibanja. V tem primeru
24 — See Carpenter.
24 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Carpenter.
METOCK AND OTHERS are not established until after the freedom of movement was exercised. In that case the fact that family reunification was prevented could have had no deterrent effect on the EU national’s freedom of movement.
METOCK IN DRUGI namreč dejstvo, da je bila preprečena združitev družine, ne bi moglo imeti odvračalnega učinka na svobodo gibanja državljana Unije.
In the context of the right of residence attached to the fundamental freedom of movement for workers, the Court has ruled that a Member State is unable, without infringing the right of residence conferred on Community workers and, thus, the members of their families by Directives 68/360/EEC 25and 73/148, to refuse to issue a residence permit to a national of a nonmember country who has married a Community worker in the host country after entering it unlawfully.
Sodi�če je že pri pravici do prebivanja, povezani s temeljno pravico do prostega gibanja delavcev, razsodilo, da država članica ne more zavrniti izdaje dovoljenja za prebivanje državljanu tretje države, ki je sklenil zakonsko zvezo z delavcem Skupnosti v državi gostiteljici, potem ko je v to državo vstopil nezakonito, ne da bi s tem kr�ila pravico do prebivanja, ki je bila delavcem Skupnosti – in torej tudi njihovim družinskim članom – priznana z direktivama 68/360/EGS 25in 73/148.
26What was true under the legislation prior to Directive 2004/38 is all the more true now.
26Kar je veljalo na podlagi besedil, sprejetih pred Direktivo 2004/38, zdaj velja �e toliko bolj.
Again, that directive seeks to ‘strengthen’ the right of residence of all Union citizens.
Naj �e enkrat ponovim, da je namen te direktive „krepitev“ pravice do prebivanja vseh državljanov Unije.
It must therefore be concluded that nationals of nonmember countries can claim the benefit of the rights conferred by Directive 2004/38 on family members who ‘accompany’ the Union citizen within the meaning of Article 3 of that dir -ective, irrespective of the date on which they became members of that citizen’s family.
Iz tega je torej mogoče sklepati, da lahko državljani tretjih držav zahtevajo zagotovitev pravic, ki so z Direktivo 2004/38 podeljene družinskim članom, ki „spremljajo“ državljana Unije v smislu člena 3 zadevne direktive, ne glede na to, kdaj so postali družinski člani zadevnega državljana.
Therefore, the answer to the second and third questions should be that Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 applies to a national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in the host Member State, irrespective of when or where their marriage took place and irrespective of when or how the national of the nonmember country entered the host Member State.
Na drugo in tretje vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje je treba torej odgovoriti, da se člen 3(1) Direktive 2004/38 uporablja za državljana tretje države, zakonca državljana Unije, ki prebiva v državi članici gostiteljici, ne glede na datum in kraj sklenitve zakonske zveze ter datum in način njegovega vstopa v državo članico gostiteljico.
25 — Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485).
25 – Direktiva Sveta 68/360/EGS z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o odpravi omejitev gibanja in prebivanja v Skupnosti za delavce držav članic in za njihove družine (UL L 257, str. 13).
However, as is known, the rights attached to the status of Union citizen by Article 18 EC also include the right to reside freely within the Member States.
Vendar je, kot vemo, med pravicami, ki so na podlagi člena 18 ES povezane s statusom državljana Unije, tudi pravica do prostega prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic.
Logically, Dir -ective 2004/38, which seeks to regulate the exercise of Union citizens’ fundamental right of movement and residence, applies, by virtue of Article 3 thereof, to all Union citizens ‘who move to or reside’ in a Member State other than that of which they are nationals.
V skladu s tem se Direktiva 2004/38, katere namen je urediti izvajanje temeljne pravice do gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije, na podlagi člena 3 te direktive uporablja za vse državljane Unije, „ki se preselijo ali prebivajo“ v državi članici razen v tisti državi, katere državljani so.
As I have already pointed out in replying to the first question, the permanence of the Union citizen’s residence in the host Member State would be undermined if he were unable to live there with the members of his family.
Kakor sem poudaril že v odgovoru na prvo vpra�anje, bi bil državljan Unije odvrnjen od stalnega prebivanja v državi članici gostiteljici, če tam ne bi mogel živeti skupaj z družinskimi člani.
The point at which a person became a member of his family is of little importance as regards the effectiveness of his right of residence.
Z vidika učinkovitosti njegove pravice do prebivanja ni bistveno, kdaj je zadevna oseba postala družinski član.
The fact that the person who became a member of his family was already within the territory of the host Member State before the Union citizen arrived is likewise of little importance.
Prav tako ni bistveno, ali je bila oseba, ki je postala njegov družinski član, na ozemlju države članice gostiteljice že pred prihodom državljana Unije.
Even if, as in the cases in the main proceedings, the national of a nonmember country married the Union citizen only during the latter’s residence in the host Member State, and even if he had already entered the host Member State at the time of the marriage, the refusal by that Member State to grant him a residence card as the spouse of a Union citizen, in preventing family life, would not have any less of an effect on the Union citizen’s residence within its territory.
Čeprav je državljan tretje države – kakor v postopkih v glavni stvari – sklenil zakonsko zvezo z državljanom Unije �ele med prebivanjem zadnjega v državi članici gostiteljici ali je ob sklenitvi zakonske zveze že vstopil v državo članico gostiteljico, bi dejstvo, da je zadevna država članica tej osebi kot zakoncu državljana Unije zavrnila izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje in tako ovirala družinsko življenje, prizadelo tudi prebivanje državljana Unije na njenem ozemlju.
26 — See MRAX, paragraphs 63 to 80.
26 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo MRAX (točke od 63 do 80).
In the light of the above considerations, I propose that the Court should give the following answers to the questions referred by the High Court:
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anja, ki jih je postavilo High Court, odgovori:
(1) Directive 2004/38/EC does not authorise a Member State to make the benefit of the right of residence which it grants to nationals of nonmember countries who are the family members of a Union citizen subject to the condition that those nationals must have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State.
1) Direktiva 2004/38 državi članici ne omogoča, da bi kot pogoj za uživanje pravice do prebivanja, ki je s to direktivo podeljena državljanom tretjih držav, družinskim članom državljana Unije, določila predhodno zakonito prebivanje navedenih državljanov tretjih držav v drugi državi članici.
(2) Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 applies to a national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in the host Member State, irrespective of when or where their marriage took place and irrespective of when or how the national of a nonmember country entered the host Member State.
2) Člen 3(1) Direktive 2004/38 se uporablja za državljana tretje države, zakonca državljana Unije, ki prebiva v državi članici gostiteljici, ne glede na datum in kraj sklenitve zakonske zveze ter datum in način njegovega vstopa v državo članico gostiteljico.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 25. julija 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court (Ireland), made by decision of 14 March 2008, received at the Court on 25 March 2008, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-127/08, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo High Court (Irska) z odločbo z dne 14. marca 2008, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 25. marca 2008, v postopku