natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2008 — CASE C-228/07 particular, Paragraph 23(1) to (3), that, as the Advocate General points out, in substance, in points 58 and 59 of his Opinion, the purpose of the benefit in question is to provide an applicant for invalidity benefit who is unemployed or has no income, when the circumstances indicate that the pension should be granted, with the financial means to meet his needs until a definitive decision is adopted on his application and, consequently, during a period in which it is still uncertain whether the applicant can return to professional life.
2008 – ZADEVA C-228/07 kot je ugotovil generalni pravobranilec v točkah 58 in 59 sklepnih predlogov, da je namen tega prejemka zagotoviti prosilcu invalidske pokojnine, ki nima zaposlitve in ne prejema nobenega dohodka, in če okoli�čine omogočajo predvideti dodelitev te pokojnine, finančna sredstva, ki mu omogočajo zadovoljiti potrebe, dokler ni izdana dokončna odločba o njegovi pro�nji, torej v času, v katerem obstaja negotov položaj glede možnosti tega prosilca, da se vrne v poklicno življenje.
As the German Government pointed out in its observations, the benefit at issue in the main proceedings thus seeks to permit the person applying for an invalidity pension to remain in the employment market during the period of uncertainty so as to avoid making a subsequent return more difficult if the application for an invalidity pension is rejected.
Namen prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, je, kot je navedla nem�ka vlada v svojih pisnih stali�čih, omogočiti prosilcu invalidske pokojnine, da ostane na trgu dela v času te negotovosti, da bi se izognil, da bi mu bil kasnej�i vstop na ta trg otežen, če bi bilo treba pro�njo za invalidsko pokojnino zavrniti.
It is clear from the foregoing that, like all unemployment benefits, the benefit at issue in the main proceedings, which is also paid by the authorities competent in the matter of unemployment, is essentially to replace the remuneration lost by reason of unemployment and thereby provide for the maintenance of the unemployed person (Case C-102/91 Knoch v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [1992] ECR I-4341, paragraphs 44 and 45; Acciardi, cited above, paragraphs 16 and 17; and Case C-57/96 Meints [1997] ECR I-6689, paragraph 27).
Iz tega sledi, kot velja za vse prejemke za brezposelnost, da je prejemek, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari in ki ga prav tako izplačajo organi, pristojni za področje brezposelnosti, v bistvu namenjen nadomestitvi plače, izgubljene zaradi brezposelnosti, da se krijejo stro�ki brezposelnega delavca (glej sodbo z dne 8. julija 1992 v zadevi Knoch, C-102/91, Recueil, str. I-4341, točki 44 in 45, zgoraj navedeno sodbo Acciardi, točki 16 in 17, in sodbo z dne 27. novembra 1997 v zadevi Meints, C-57/96, Recueil, str.
If the invalidity pension is refused, the benefit at issue is, in regard to the duration thereof and to the amount granted, regarded as unemployment benefit pursuant to Paragraph 23(7) of the AlVG.
I-6689, točka 27). Če pa se zavrne dodelitev invalidske pokojnine, �teje sporni prejemek na podlagi člena 23(7) AlVG �teje za nadomestilo za brezposelnost za odobreno obdobje in v odobrenem znesku.
It is true that the benefit at issue in the main proceedings is also linked to an application for an invalidity pension and, if the pension is subsequently granted, the authorities competent in regard to invalidity pensions are required to refund the amounts paid by way of the above benefit to the authorities competent in regard to unemployment.
Dodelitev prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, je povezana tudi s pro�njo za dodelitev invalidske pokojnine in, če bi bila ta pokojnina dodeljena, bi morali organi, pristojni za področje invalidske pokojnine povrniti zneske, plačane na podlagi navedenega prejemka, organom, pristojnim za področje brezposelnosti.
However, it must be stated, as the Austrian Government pointed out, that although, for the purposes of granting the benefit at issue in the main proceedings, entitlement to such an invalidity pension must, pursuant to Paragraph 23(2)(2) of the AlVG, be
Vendar je treba ugotoviti, kot je poudarila avstrijska vlada, da če mora biti zaradi dodelitve prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, upravičenje do take invalidske
PETERSEN probable, the lack of paid employment must, on the other hand, be established, since unemployment is an essential condition for the grant of the benefit.
PETERSEN pokojnine v skladu s členom 23(2)(2) AlVG verjetno, mora biti nasprotno dokazan neobstoj plačanega dela, saj je brezposelnost nujen pogoj za dodelitev tega prispevka.
The consequence, in particular, is that if the recipient of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings obtains employment, he loses the right to the benefit.
Iz tega sledi predvsem, da če upravičenec do prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, pridobi plačano delo, izgubi pravico do tega prejemka.
The Court has already decided that a benefit granted if the risk of loss of employment materialises and which is no longer payable if that situation ceases to exist as a result of the claimant’s engaging in paid employment must be regarded as constituting an un -employment benefit (De Cuyper, cited above, paragraph 27).
Sodi�če je že presodilo, da je treba prejemek, dodeljen ker je pri�lo do izgube zaposlitve, ki zadevni osebi ob prenehanju tega položaja zaradi opravljanja pridobitne dejavnosti ne pripada več, �teti za prejemek za brezposelnost (zgoraj navedena sodba De Cuyper, točka 27).
In addition, with regard to the basis on which the benefit at issue in the main proceedings is calculated, it must be pointed out that the amount thereof is determined, pursuant to Paragraph 23(4) of the AlVG, in the same way as unemployment benefit.
Dalje, kar zadeva osnovo za izračun prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba ugotoviti, da se njen znesek določi na podlagi člena 23(4) AlVG na enak način kot znesek za nadomestilo za brezposelnost.
It is true that, under that provision, the amount of the benefit is limited to that of the invalidity pension applied for.
V skladu s to določbo je najvi�ji znesek tega prejemka res omejen z zneskom zapro�ene invalidske pokojnine.
However, as the German Government has indicated, that ceiling is intended solely to avoid the beneficiary having to refund amounts unduly paid if the invalidity pension is granted.
Vendar pa je namen te zgornje omejitve, kot je navedla nem�ka vlada, le izogniti se položaju, v katerem bi moral upravičenec povrniti neupravičen prejemek, če bi bila invalidska pokojnina dodeljena.
Finally, with regard to the conditions for the grant of the said benefit, it must be noted that, in addition to the fact that the provisions applicable to that benefit are laid down in the rules concerning unemployment benefit and that the benefit is paid by the authorities competent in regard to unemployment, the applicant for an in -validity pension must fulfil the conditions for entitlement to unemployment benefit in terms of length of affiliation; in addition, the period of entitlement to the benefit must not be exhausted.
Nazadnje, kar zadeva pogoje za dodelitev navedenega prejemka, je treba ugotoviti, da razen dejstva, da so določbe, ki veljajo za ta prejemek, določene v zakonodaji o zavarovanju za primer brezposelnosti, in da prejemek dodelijo organi, pristojni za področje brezposelnosti, mora prosilec za invalidsko pokojnino izpolniti pogoje za upravičenost do nadomestila za brezposelnost, ki se nana�ajo na trajanje zavarovalnega razmerja in na neobstoj prekoračitve obdobja upravičenosti do prejemka.
It is common ground that, if the right to unemployment benefit is exhausted during the period in which the benefit at issue in the main proceedings is being paid, the right to the former benefit ceases at the same time, notwithstanding the fact that no definitive decision has been adopted concerning the application for an invalidity pension.
Tako je ugotovljeno, da če pride do izčrpanja pravice do nadomestila za brezposelnost v času prejemanja prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, pravica do tega prejemka preneha od tega trenutka, čeprav ne obstaja dokončna odločba o pro�nji za invalidsko pokojnino.
In the present case, such a dispensation is intended solely to adapt the conditions for the grant of that benefit to the situation of an applicant for an invalidity pension whose capacity and availability for work are, in fact, uncertain during the period in which a definitive decision is being adopted in regard to him (see, by analogy, De Cuyper, paragraphs 30 and 34).
V obravnavanem primeru je namreč namen take oprostitve le prilagoditev pogojev za dodelitev tega prejemka položaju prosilca za invalidsko pokojnino, katerega ravno zmožnost za delo in razpoložljivost sta negotovi, glede na pričakovanje dokončne odločbe v zvezi s tem (glej po analogiji sodbo De Cuyper, točki 30 in 34).
Under those circumstances, it must be held that it is clear both from the purpose and object of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings and from the basis on which it is calculated that, notwithstanding the fact that it is linked to an application for an invalidity pension, such a benefit is directly related to the risk of unemployment referred to in Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71.
V teh okoli�činah je treba ugotoviti, da tako iz predmeta in namena prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, kot iz njegove osnove za izračun in pogojev za njegovo dodelitev izhaja, da se kljub dejstvu, da je vezan na pro�njo za invalidsko pokojnino, tak prejemek nana�a neposredno na tveganje brezposelnosti iz člena 4(1)(g) Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
Consequently, the answer to the first question must be that a benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as an ‘unemployment benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Tako je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba prejemek, kot je ta, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, �teti kot „dajatev za brezposelnost [prejemek za brezposelnost]“ v smislu člena 4(1)(g) Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
In its second question, the national court is asking, essentially, whether Article 39 EC is to be interpreted as preventing a Member State from making the grant of a benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which must be regarded as an ‘unemployment benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71, subject to the condition that the recipients must be resident on the national territory of that State, prohibiting the exportability of such a benefit to another Member State.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 39 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da država članica za dodelitev prejemka, kot je ta, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ga je treba �teti kot „dajatev za brezposelnost [prejemek za brezposelnost]“ v smislu člena 4(1)(g) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, določi pogoj, da imajo upravičenci prebivali�če na nacionalnem ozemlju te države, in da torej prepove, da se tak prejemek izplača v drugo državo članico.
That provision therefore does not preclude the legislation of a Member State from making entitlement to such a benefit conditional on residence in the territory of that State (see, to that effect, De Cuyper, cited above, paragraph 37).
Ta določba torej ne prepoveduje, da zakonodaja države članice za upravičenje do takega prejemka določa pogoj prebivanja na ozemlju te države (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo De Cuyper, točka 37).
In that regard, Regulation No 1408/71 provides, however, for two situations in which the competent Member State is required to allow recipients of an unemployment allowance to reside in the territory of another Member State while retaining their entitlement to benefit.
Vendar pa zvezi s tem Uredba �t. 1408/71 določa dva primera, v katerih morajo pristojne države članice upravičencem do nadomestila za brezposelnost omogočiti, da dejansko bivajo na ozemlju druge države članice, s tem da ohranijo svoje pravice do te ugodnosti.
Firstly, there is the situation provided for in Article 69 of the regulation, allowing unemployed persons who go to a Member State other than the competent State ‘in order to seek employment there’ to retain their entitlement to unemployment benefit.
Na eni strani primer, ki je določen v členu 69 te uredbe, ki brezposelnim osebam, ki odidejo na ozemlje države članice, ki ni pristojna država članica, „da bi si tam poiskal[i] zaposlitev“, omogoča, da ostanejo upravičene do prejemka za brezposelnost.
Secondly, there is the situation referred to in Article 71 of that regulation, relating to unemployed persons who, during their last employment, were residing in the territory of a Member State other than the competent State (De Cuyper, cited above, paragraph 38).
Na drugi strani primer iz člena 71 navedene uredbe, ki se nana�a na brezposelne osebe, ki so med zadnjo zaposlitvijo dejansko bivale na ozemlju države članice, ki ni pristojna država članica (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo De Cuyper, točka 38).
However, it clearly follows from the order for reference that a situation such as that of Mr Petersen is not covered by either of those articles and, consequently, that
Vendar iz predložitvene odločbe jasno izhaja, da položaj, kot je ta v katerem je J. Petersen, in to povrh vsega ni sporno, ni zajet v nobenem od teh členov in tako
Regulation No 1408/71 does not contain any provisions governing cases such as the one which is the subject of the main proceedings.
Uredba �t. 1408/71 ne vsebuje določb, ki urejajo položaje, kot so ti, ki so obravnavani v sporu o glavni stvari.
According to settled caselaw, the aims of Articles 39 EC to 42 EC would not be attained if, as a consequence of the exercise of their right to freedom of movement, workers were to lose the social security advantages guaranteed them by the legislation of one Member State, especially where those advantages represent the counterpart of contributions which they have paid.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso cilja členov od 39 ES do 42 ES ne bi bilo mogoče doseči, če bi delavci zaradi izvr�evanje pravice do prostega gibanja izgubili koristi socialne varnosti, ki jim jih zagotavlja zakonodaja države članice, predvsem kadar so te koristi povračilo prispevkov, ki so jih plačali.
It follows that, contrary to the view of the Austrian and German Governments, it must be considered whether the rules applicable to a benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings are compatible with Article 39 EC.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba v nasprotju s tem, kar sta trdili avstrijska in nem�ka vlada, preučiti, ali je ureditev, ki velja za prejemek, kot je ta, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, skladna z določbami člena 39 ES.
It must be borne in mind in that regard that, according to settled caselaw, the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC of the Treaty has a specific Community meaning and must not be interpreted narrowly.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti po ima ustaljeni sodni praksi pojem delavca v smislu člena 39 ES veljavo po pravu Skupnosti in se ne sme razlagati ozko.
Any person who pursues activities which are real and genuine, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, must be regarded as a ‘worker’.
Kot delavca je treba �teti vsakogar, ki opravlja dejansko in resnično dejavnost, z izjemo dejavnosti, ki imajo tako majhen obseg, da so zgolj podrejene in pomožne.
In the present case, it is clear from the order for reference that, before the facts which gave rise to the dispute in the main proceedings, Mr Petersen worked as an employed person in a Member State and was consequently a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC.
V obravnavani zadevi iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da preden so se zgodila dejstva spora o glavni stvari, je J. Petersen opravljal plačano dejavnost v državi članici in je tako v tistem času bil „delavec“ v smislu člena 39 ES.
A national of a Member State who, like Mr Petersen, leaves his Member State of origin to work as an employed person in another Member State must be regarded as exercising the right of freedom of movement for workers provided for in Article 39 EC.
Tako je treba �teti, da je držav -ljan države članice, ki je, kot J. Petersen, zapustil svojo državo izvora zaradi oprav -ljanja plačane dejavnosti v drugi državi članici, izkoristil pravico do svobodnega gibanja delavcev iz člena 39 ES.
That conclusion is not called into question by the fact that, at the time of the later transfer of his residence to his State of origin after the competent authorities had granted him the benefit at issue in the main proceedings, Mr Petersen was un -employed and had applied for an invalidity pension.
Te ugotovitve ne ogrozi dejstvo, da je bil J. Petersen v trenutku poznej�ega prenosa prebivali�ča v svojo državo izvora, po tem ko so mu pristojni organi dodelili prejemek, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, brezposeln in prosilec invalidske pokojnine.
That is the case in regard to benefits the payment of which is dependent on the prior existence of an employment relationship which has come to an end and is intrinsically linked to the recipients’ objective status as workers (Meints, cited above, paragraph 41, and Case C-43/99 Leclere and Deaconescu [2001] ECR I-4265, paragraph 57).
To velja za prejemke, katerih dodelitev je odvisna od predhodnega obstoja delovnega razmerja, ki je prenehalo in je neločljivo vezano na objektivno lastnost upravičencev, da so delavci (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Meints, točka 41, in sodbo z dne 31. maja 2001 v zadevi Leclere in Deaconescu, C-43/99, Recueil, str. I-4265, točka 57).
In a situation like the one in the main proceedings, where the benefit at issue was intended to provide income for an unemployed applicant for an invalidity pension who had worked as an employed person in the Member State concerned, it must be stated that since, as the Advocate General points out in point 72 of his Opinion, such a benefit is linked to the risks of both unemployment and invalidity, it flows directly from an ‘employment relationship’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC.
V položaju, kot je ta v glavni stvari, v katerem so zadevni prejemki namenjeni zagotoviti dohodek prosilcu invalidske pokojnine, ki je brezposeln in ki je v zadevni državi članici opravljal plačano dejavnost, je treba ugotoviti, da tak prejemek, ker je, kot je ugotovil generalni pravobranilec v točki 72 sklepnih predlogov, istočasno vezan na tveganje brezposelnosti in tveganje invalidnosti, izvira neposredno iz delovnega razmerja v smislu člena 39 ES.
It follows that a national of a Member State in a situation such as that of Mr Petersen must be regarded as continuing to be a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC for the purposes of obtaining the benefit at issue and, consequently, such a national comes within the scope of that article.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba za državljana države članice, ki je v takem položaju kot J. Petersen, �teti, da je ohranil lastnost „delavca“ s smislu člena 39 ES za dodelitev zadevnega prejemka in zato ta člen velja za takega državljana.
It must therefore be considered whether a residence requirement such as that imposed for the grant of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings constitutes an ‘obstacle to the freedom of movement for workers’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC.
Ugotoviti je torej treba ali pogoj bivanja, kot je določen za dodelitev prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni omejitev prostega gibanja delavcev v smislu člena 39 ES.
Unless it is objectively justified and proportionate to the aim pursued, a provision of national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory if it is intrinsically liable to affect migrant workers more than national workers and if there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage (Meints, cited above, paragraph 44; Hartmann, cited above, paragraph 30; and Geven, cited above, paragraph 19).
Določbo nacionalnega prava je treba, razen če je objektivno upravičena in sorazmerna z zastavljenim ciljem, �teti za posredno diskriminatorno, ker lahko že samo zaradi svoje lastnosti bolj vpliva na delavce migrante kot na domače delavce in ker lahko posledično zlasti prve postavi v slab�i položaj (zgoraj navedene sodbe Meints, točka 44; Hartmann, točka 30, in Geven, točka 19).
That is true of a residence condition such as the one to which the grant of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings is subject, which can be more easily met by national workers than by those from other Member States, since the latter workers above all, particularly in the case of unemployment or invalidity, tend to leave the country in which they were formerly employed to return to their countries of origin (see, to that effect, Paraschi, cited above, paragraph 24, and Case C-290/00 Duchon [2002] ECR I-3567, paragraph 38).
Za tak primer gre pri pogoju prebivali�ča, kot je ta, ki pogojuje dodelitev prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ga lažje izpolnijo nacionalni delavci, kot delavci iz drugih držav članic, saj zlasti slednji delavci, predvsem v primeru brezposelnosti ali invalidnosti, težijo k temu, da zapustijo državo v kateri so prej delali zato, da se vrnejo v svojo državo izvora (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Paraschi, točka 24, in sodbo z dne 18. aprila 2002 v zadevi Duchon, C-290/00, Recueil, str. I-3567, točka 38).
The Austrian Government has not sought to explain the objective which is to be achieved by the residence requirement imposed by the national rules for the grant of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings and, consequently, has not put forward any factor whatsoever to justify that condition in relation to the overriding reasons in the general interest protected by Article 39 EC.
Treba je ugotoviti, da avstrijska vlada ni nameravala opisati cilja, ki mu sledi pogoj prebivali�ča, ki je bil v nacionalni ureditvi določen za dodelitev prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, in tako ni navedla niti najmanj�ega elementa, da bi navedeni pogoj utemeljila na podlagi nujnih razlogov v splo�nem interesu, ki jih varuje člen 39 ES.
In addition, it must be pointed out that the residence requirement at issue in the main proceedings seems disproportionate since it is imposed in respect of a social security benefit which, like the benefit at issue in the main proceedings, is intended to be paid to applicants for an invalidity pension for a limited period which, according to the Austrian Government, does not exceed, on average, three to four months during which, while waiting for a definitive decision on the grant of such a pension, they are not required to be capable of working, willing to work and available for work (see, to that effect, Collins, cited above, paragraphs 68 and 69).
Poleg tega je treba ugotoviti, da se zdi sporni pogoj prebivali�ča nesorazmeren, ker je določen v zvezi s prejemkom socialne varnosti, ki se ga, tako kot tega, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, lahko izplača prosilcu invalidske pokojnine, dokler se ne izteče omejeno časovno obdobje, ki po navedbah avstrijske vlade v povprečju traja tri do �tiri mesece, v katerem se v pričakovanju dokončne odločbe o odobritvi take pokojnine ne zahteva, da so zmožni za delo, da so pripravljeni delati ali da so na voljo na trgu dela (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Collins, točki 68 in 69).
If, at the end of that waiting period, the invalidity pension is granted, the competent authorities in the Member State concerned, who must deduct from it the amounts paid by way of the benefit at issue in the main proceedings, will, in any event be required by Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 to pay the pension in question, even if the recipient transfers his residence to another Member State.
Če je invalidska pokojnina po izteku tega čakalnega obdobja dodeljena, bodo pristojni organi zadevne države članice, ki bodo morali od nje odbiti zneske, izplačane iz naslova prejemka, ki je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, morali navedeno pokojnino v vsakem primeru izplačati na podlagi člena 10(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, čeprav upravičenec prenese prebivali�če v drugo državo članico.