natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In those circumstances, the difference in treatment thereby created does not constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment or of the freemovement of capital.
Prav tako je treba omeniti zadevo Truck Center (sodba z dne 22. decembra 2008, C-282/07), v kateri je Sodišče odgovorilo na predlog za razlago določb Pogodbe v zvezi s prostim pretokom kapitala glede na belgijsko zakonodajo na področju davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
In relation to the freemovement of workers, the Court ruled on the recognition of diplomas obtained following education and training provided within the framework of ‘homologation agreements’.
Na podlagi te zakonodaje so obresti, ki jih nakaže družba rezidentka družbi prejemnici, ki je rezidentka druge države članice, predmet davčnega odtegljaja (imenovanega pri viru odtegnjeni davek na dohodke iz premoženja), medtem ko se ta davek ne odtegne pri obrestih, ki se nakažejo družbi prejemnici rezidentki.
In Case C-274/05 Commission v Greece (judgment of 23 October 2008), the Commission complained that the Hellenic Republic was failing to recognise diplomas awarded by the competent authorities of other Member States following education and training provided within the framework of agreements pursuant to which education and training provided by a private body in Greece is homologated by those authorities, and that it was entrusting to the Council Responsible for Recognising Professional Equivalence of Higher Education Qualifications power to verify whether the conditions necessary for the award of diplomas were fulfilled and the nature of the establishment in which the holder received his education and training. In the
Sodišče je razsodilo, da določbe Pogodbe v zvezi s svobodo ustanavljanja in prostim pretokom kapitala ne nasprotujejo taki davčni ureditvi. Potem ko je spomnilo, da na področju neposrednih davkov položaja rezidentov in nerezidentov praviloma nista primerljiva, je ugotovilo, da se zadevno različno obravnavanje z uporabo različnih tehnik obdavčenja glede nato, ali
Court of Justice light of the provisions of Directive 89/48 (22), as amended by Directive 2001/19 (23), the Court held, first, that it follows from the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of that directive that the expression‘mainly in the Community’covers both education and training received entirely in the Member State which awarded the formal qualification in question and that received partly or wholly in another Member State.
Sodišče imajo zadevne družbe sedež v Belgiji ali drugi državi članici, nanaša na položaje, ki jih objektivno ni mogoče primerjati.
Second, although themethod of recognition of higher education diplomas as laid down by that directive does not lead to automatic and unconditional recognition of the diplomas and professional qualifications concerned, particularly as regards the possibility provided for under Article 4 of the directive for the Member States to impose compensatory measures, the Court held that the choice of the type of compensatory measures is a matter for the applicant for recognition of the diploma, not only so far as concerns the professions which require knowledge of national law, but also in respect of all the other professions covered by various specific provisions.
Pomnenju Sodišča se namreč stališče belgijske države, vrsti obdavčenja obresti, ki temeljita na različnih pravnih podlagah, ter položaji, v katerih so družbe prejemnice obresti z vidika pobiranja davkov, razlikujejo glede nato, ali so družbe prejemnice navedenih obresti rezidentke ali ne.
Third, the Court confirmed that, under Article 8(1) of the directive, it is for the authorities awarding diplomas alone to verify, in the light of the rules applicable in their professional education and training systems, whether the conditions necessary for their award are fulfilled and the nature of the establishment in which the holder received his education and training.
Sodišče je prav tako razsodilo, da različno obravnavanje, ki izhaja iz zadevne ureditve, ne da je nujno prednosti družbam prejemnicam rezidentkam, ker so, prvič, zavezane k plačilu akontacije davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb in je, drugič, stopnja pri viru odtegnjenega davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, pobranega od obresti, nakazanih družbi nerezidentki, bistveno nižja od davka od dohodka pravnih oseb, ki se pobira od dohodkov družb rezidentk prejemnic obresti.
By contrast, the host Member State cannot examine the basis on which the diplomas have been awarded.
V teh okoliščinah tako nastalo različno obravnavanje ne pomeni omejitve svobode ustanavljanja in prostega pretoka kapitala.
Finally, the Court held that, under Article 3 of the directive, the host Member State must allow, in the public sector, the reclassification in a higher grade of persons recruited at a level lower than that to which they would have been entitled if their diplomas had been recognised by the competent authority.
Na področju prostega gibanja delavcev se je Sodišče izreklo o priznavanju diplom, pridobljenih po izobraževanju in usposabljanju v okviru„sporazumov o potrditvi“.
In addition, the Court developed its case-law in relation to social security for migrant workers in two cases concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 1408/71(24).
V zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (sodba z dne 23. oktobra 2008, C-274/05) je Komisija očitala Helenski republiki, da ne priznava diplom, ki so jih izdali pristojni organi drugih držav članic po izobraževanju in usposabljanju v okviru sporazuma, na podlagi katerega so izobraževanje in usposabljanje, ki ga izvaja zasebna ustanova v Grčiji, potrdili navedeni organi, in da da je svetu, ki je odgovoren za priznavanje strokovne enakovrednosti nazivov v visokošolskem izobraževanju, pristojnost, da preverja pogoje za izdajo teh diplom in za vrsto ustanove, v kateri je imetnik opravil izobraževanje in usposabljanje.
Case C-212/06 Gou- vernement del a Communauté française and Gouvernement wallon (judgment of 1 April 2008) concerned a care insurance scheme implemented by the Flemish Government of the Kingdom of Belgium in the Dutch-speaking region and in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital.
Glede na določbe Direktive 89/4822, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2001/1923, je Sodišče razsodilo, prvič, da iz člena 1(a), prvi odstavek, navedene direktive izhaja, da izraz„v prevladujoči meri […] v Skupnosti“ zajema tako izobrazbo in usposobljenost, ki je bila vceloti pridobljena v državi članici, ki je izdala dokazilo o formalnih k v ali ê ka cija h , kot tudi izobrazbo in usposobljenost, ki je bila deloma ali vceloti pridobljena v drugi državi članici.
That scheme provided, subject to certain conditions and up to amaximum amount, for an insurance fund to take responsibility for the paying of certain costs occasioned by a state of dependence for health reasons.
Drugič, čeprav način priznavanja visokošolskih diplom, kot je predviden z navedeno direktivo, ne vodi do avtomatičnega in brezpogojnega priznavanja zadevnih diplom in poklicnih k v ali ê ka ci j , zlasti če gre za možnost držav članic, predvideno v členu 4 te direktive, da naložijo dopolnilne ukrepe, je Sodiščemenilo, da pripada izbira vrste dopolnilnega ukrepa kandidatu za priznanje diplome, in sicer ne samo glede poklicev, za katere se predvideva poznavanje nacionalnega prava, ampak tudi glede vseh drugih poklicev, za katere veljajo posebne določbe.
Affiliation to the scheme was open only to persons resident in the two regions referred to and to persons working in the territory of those regions and residing in a Member State other than Belgium.
Tretjič, Sodišče je potrdilo, da so na podlagi člena 8(1) te direktive le organi, ki izdajajo diplome, pristojni, da ob upoštevanju pravil, ki se uporabljajo v okviru njihove ureditve poklicnega izobraževanja in usposabljanja, preverijo pogoje za izdajo in za vrsto ustanove, v kateri je imetnik opravil izobraževanje in usposabljanje.
Persons who, although working in the Dutch-speaking region or in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, were living in another part of Belgium were thus excluded from the scheme.
Nasprotno, država članica gostiteljica nemore presojati podlage za izdajo diplom.
After confirming that the benefits provided under a scheme such as the care insurance scheme in question fall within the scope rationemateriae of Regulation No 1408/71, the Court observed that Articles 39 EC and 43 EC militate against any national measure which, even though applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is
Nazadnje je Sodišče razsodilo, da mora država članica gostiteljica v javnem sektorju na podlagi člena 3 navedene direktive dovoliti
Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).
Direktiva Sveta 89/48/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o splošnem sistemu priznavanja visokošolskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta (UL L 19, str. 16).
Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1).
Direktiva 2001/19/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 14. maja 2001 o spremembah Direktiv Sveta 89/48/EGS in 92/51/EGS o splošnem sistemu priznavanja poklicnih k v ali ê ka ciji n Direktiv Sveta 77/452/EGS, 77/453/EGS, 78/686/EGS, 78/687/EGS, 78/1026/EGS, 78/1027/EGS, 80/154/EGS, 80/155/EGS, 85/384/EGS, 85/432/EGS, 85/433/EGS in 93/16/EGS v zvezi s poklicimedicinske sestre, odgovorne za splošno zdravstveno nego, zobozdravnika, veterinarja, babice, arhitekta, farmacevta in zdravnika (UL L 206, str. 1).
Proceedings capable of hindering or rendering less attractive the exercise by Community nationals of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
Razvoj in dejavnost premestitev v višji naziv osebam, ki so se zaposlile na nižji stopnji od tiste, do katere bi imele pravico, če bi jim pristojni organ priznal diplome.
Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005 (25), provides that a person employed in the territory of one Member State is to be subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State.
Ta sistem je pod določenimi pogoji in za znesek, za katerega je določena zgornja meja, predvideval, da zavarovalni sistem povrne stroške, nastale zaradi odvisnega položaja iz zdravstvenih razlogov.
In Case C-352/06 Bosmann (judgment of 20 May 2008), the Court considered the situation of a worker who found herself ineligible for child benefits in her Member State of residence because she took up employment in another Member State.
Vstop v ta sistem je bil omogočen samo osebam, ki so stalno prebivale v dveh zgoraj navedenih regijah, ter osebam, ki so delale na ozemlju navedenih regij in niso imele stalnega prebivališča v Belgiji, ampak v drugi državi članici.
The Court stated that Article 13(2)(a) must be interpreted in the light of Article 42 EC which aims to facilitate freedomofmovement for workers and entails, in particular, that migrant workers must not lose their right to social security benefits or have the amount of those benefits reduced because they have exercised the right to freedomofmovement conferred on them by the Treaty.
Osebe, ki so delale v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji glavnegamesta Bruselj, vendar so imele stalno prebivališče v drugem delu nacionalnega ozemlja, so bile torej izključene iz tega sistema.
The Court concluded from this that the Member State of residence cannot be deprived of the right to grant child benefit to those resident within its territory and that Article 13(2)(a) of the regulation does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.
Sodišče je po tem, ko je potrdilo, da dajatve, izplačane iz sistema, kot je zadevni sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, spadajo na stvarno področje uporabe Uredbe št. 1408/71, spomnilo, da člena 39 ES in 43 ES nasprotujeta vsakemu nacionalnemu ukrepu, ki bi, tudi če se uporablja brez diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo, za državljane Skupnosti lahko pomenil oviro pri izvajanju temeljnih svoboščin, zagotovljenih s Pogodbo, oziroma bi bilo njihovo izvajanje zaradi njega manj privlačno.
It is for the national court to determine whether the circumstances of the case are relevant for the purposes of deciding whether the worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of such child benefit pursuant to the legislation of the Member State in question.
Zato je treba člena 39 ES in 43 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta predpisom zvezne enote države članice, kot so predpisi, ki urejajo zdravstveno zavarovanje, ki vstop v sistem socialne varnosti in prejemanje ugodnosti iz tega omejujejo na osebe, ki ali stalno prebivajo na ozemlju, za katero je pristojna ta enota, ali opravljajo poklicno dejavnost na tem istem ozemlju in stalno prebivajo v drugi državi članici, če taka omejitev prizadene državljane drugih držav članic ali domače državljane, ki so uporabili pravico do prostega gibanja v Evropski skupnosti.
There are four particularly noteworthy cases relating to transport.
Sodišče je v zadevi Bosmann (sodba z dne 20. maja 2008, C-352/06) preučevalo položaj delavca, ki mu država članica stalnega prebivališča ni dodelila družinskega dodatka, ker se je zaposlil v drugi državi članici.
With regard to road transport, the Court stated in Joined Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06 Wiedemann and Funk (judgment of 28 May 2008), concerning a refusal to recognise driving licences obtained in the CzechRepublic after the administrative withdrawal of the drivers’German driving licences for consumption of drugs or alcohol, that Directive 91/439 on driving licences (26) is to be interpreted as preventing one Member State from refusing to recognise in its territory the validity of a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State, so long as the
Sodišče je iz tega sklepalo, da državi članici stalnega prebivališča ne sme biti odvzeta pristojnost, da odobri družinske dodatke osebam, ki stalno prebivajo na njenem ozemlju, in da navedena določba uredbe ne nasprotuje temu, da delavec migrant, za katerega velja sistem socialne varnosti države članice zaposlitve, prejema družinske dajatve v državi članici stalnega prebivališča na podlagi nacionalne
Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 2005 L 117, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti (UL L 149, str. 2).
Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 284, p. 1).
Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 647/2005 z dne 13. aprila 2005 o spremembi uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe, samozaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti, in (EGS) št. 574/72 o določitvi postopka za izvajanje Uredbe (EGS) št. 1408/71 (UL L 117, str. 1).
Court of Justice licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence.
V zvezi s cestnim prometom je Sodišče glede voznikov, ki jima ni bilo priznano vozniško dovoljenje, pridobljeno v Češki republiki, potem ko jima je bilo zaradi uživanja droge oziroma alkohola odvzeto nemško vozniško dovoljenje, v združenih zadevah Wiedemann in Funk (sodba z dne 28. maja 2008, C-329/06 in C-343/06) navedlo, da je treba Direktivo 91/439 o vozniških dovoljenjih26 razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da država članica na svojem ozemlju ne prizna veljavnosti vozniškega dovoljenja, ki ga je pozneje izdala druga država članica, dokler njegov imetnik ne izpolni pogojev, ki veljajo v prvi državi članici za izdajo novega dovoljenja po odvzemu prejšnjega, med katerimi je preizkus sposobnosti za vožnjo, ki dokazuje, da ni več razlogov, ki so upravičevali navedeni odvzem.
However, it is not contrary to that directive for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.
Vendar pa ta direktiva ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica na svojem ozemlju ne prizna pravice do vožnje, ki izhaja iz vozniškega dovoljenja, ki ga je pozneje izdala druga država članica, če se na podlagi navedb v tem dovoljenju ali drugih nespornih informacij države članice izdajateljice dokaže, da imetnik tega dovoljenja, ki mu je bilo na ozemlju prve države članice odvzeto prejšnje dovoljenje, v času, ko je bilo izdano novo dovoljenje, ni imel običajnega prebivališča na ozemlju države članice izdajateljice.
Moreover, it is contrary to that directive for a Member State temporarily to suspend the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State while the latter Member State investigates the procedure followed in the issuing of that licence.
Poleg tega navedena direktiva nasprotuje temu, da država članica začasno odvzame pravico do vožnje, ki izhaja iz vozniškega dovoljenja, ki ga je izdala druga država članica, kadar zadnjenavedena država članica preverja način izdaje tega dovoljenja.
With regard to air transport, the Court stated in Case C-173/07 Emirates Airlines (judgment of 10 July 2008), in the context of a dispute between a passenger and an airline company which refused to pay compensation to the passenger following the cancellation of a flight departing from Manila (Philippines), that a journey out and back cannot be regarded as a single‘flight’ for the purposes of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers (27).
V zvezi z zračnim prevozom v okviru spora med potnikom in letalsko družbo, ki je zavrnila izplačilo odškodnine zaradi odpovedi leta ob vrnitvi iz Manile (Filipini), je Sodišče v zadevi Emirates Airlines (sodba z dne 10. julija 2008, C-173/07) odločilo, da povratnega leta ni mogoče obravnavati kot enega in istega„leta“ v smislu Uredbe št. 261/2004 o določitvi skupnih pravil glede odškodnine in pomoči potnikom27.
Consequently, Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, which provides that the regulation applies to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, is to be interpreted as not applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies travel back to that airport on a flight departing from an airport located in a non-member country.
Zato je treba člen 3(1)(a) navedene uredbe, ki določa, da se ta uredba uporablja za potnike, ki odhajajo z letališča na ozemlju države članice, za katero se Pogodba uporablja, razlagati tako, da se ne uporabi v primeru povratnega leta, ko potniki, ki prvotno odletijo z letališča na ozemlju države članice, za katero veljajo določbe Pogodbe, priletijo nato letališče v okviru leta z odhodom z letališča v tretji državi.
The fact that the outward and return flights are the subject of a single booking does not affect the interpretation of that provision.
Okoliščina, da je povratni let predmet ene rezervacije, ne vpliva na razlago te določbe.
The Court stated that the Montreal Convention is not decisive for the interpretation of that concept.
Direktiva Sveta 91/439/EGS z dne 29. julija 1991 o vozniških dovoljenjih (UL L 237, str.
Finally, the Court held that the fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1882/2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. septembra 2003 (UL L 284, str. 1).
Regulation(EC)No261/2004oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof11February2004establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Uredba (ES) št. 261/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. februarja 2004 o določitvi skupnih pravil glede odškodnine in pomoči potnikom v primerih zavrnitve vkrcanja, odpovedi ali velike zamude letov ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (EGS) št. 295/91 (UL L 46, str. 1).
Proceedings on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken‘all reasonable measures’within the meaning of that provision and, therefore, to relieve the carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of the regulation.
Razvoj in dejavnost na izplačilo odškodnine potnikom v primeru odpovedi leta in pojem„izredne razmere“.
Since not all extraordinary circumstances therefore confer exemption but simply those which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, the onus is on the party seeking to rely on them to establish that they could not have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking.
Sodišče je odločilo, da tehnična napaka na letalu, zaradi katere je let odpovedan, ne spada med„izredne razmere“ v smislu te določbe, razen če je ta napaka posledica dogodkov, ki zaradi svojih značilnosti ali izvora niso neločljivo povezani z običajnim opravljanjem dejavnosti zadevnega letalskega prevoznika in ki jih ta ne opazi pri dejanskemu nadzoru.
With regard to maritime transport, the Court stated in Case C-308/06 The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners andOthers (judgment of 3 June 2008) that Article 4 of Directive 2005/35 on ship-source pollution (28), read in conjunction with Article 8 of that directive, which obliges Member States to punish ship-source discharges of polluting substances if committed ‘with intent, recklessly or by serious negligence’, without, however, defining those concepts, does not infringe the general principle of legal certainty insofar as it requires the Member States to punish ship-source discharges of polluting substances committed by ‘serious negligence’.
Čeprav se tehnična napaka na letalu lahko uvršča med nepredvidene pomanjkljivosti, ki lahko prizadenejo varnost leta, pa teh okoliščin ni mogoče opredeliti kot „izredne“, medtem ko je treba tehnično napako, ki je posledica pomanjkljivega vzdrževanja letala, obravnavati kot neločljivo povezano z običajnim opravljanjem dejavnosti letalskega prevoznika.
Moreover, those concepts are fully integrated into, and used in, the Member States’ respective legal systems.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da za razlago tega pojma ni odločilna Montrealska konvencija.