natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The situation described in my example would then effectively be equated with the one envisaged in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, which provides for a person to enjoy his benefits even if he resides ‘in a Member State other than the competent State’, i.e. in casu anywhere outside the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital.
Položaj, opisan v mojem primeru, bi bil potem dosledno izenačen s tistim, ki je predviden v členu 19(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 in zagotavlja osebi uživanje dajatev tudi, če ima stalno prebivali�če „v drugi državi članici od pristojne države“, tj. v tem primeru kjer koli zunaj nizozemsko govoreče regije ali dvojezične regije Bruselj-Capital.
Such a solution also provides consistency in the use of the term ‘State’ within Regulation No 1408/71.
Taka re�itev zagotavlja tudi doslednost pri uporabi pojma „država“ po Uredbi �t. 1408/71.
If the place of work determines the competent State, then references to the competent State in Regulation No 1408/71 are also to be read (where necessary) as references to the competent entity within the competent Member State.
Če kraj delovnega mesta določi pristojno državo, potem je treba sklicevanje na pristojno državo v Uredbi �t. 1408/71 razumeti (kjer je treba) kot sklicevanje na pristojen del znotraj pristojne države članice.
The Flemish Government submits that the residence requirement is inherent in the division of competences within the Belgian Federal State.
Flamska vlada zatrjuje, da je zahteva po stalnem prebivali�ču vgrajena v razdelitev pristojnosti znotraj belgijske federalne države.
The difference in treatment results not from discrimination, but from the fact that the Flemish Community has no competence with respect to persons residing in one of the other linguistic regions of Belgium.
Različno obravnavanje ni rezultat diskriminacije, temveč izvira iz dejstva, da flamska skupnost nima pristojnosti nad osebami s stalnim prebivali�čem v eni od drugih jezikovnih regij Belgije.
According to Belgian constitutional law, such persons come within the competence of the French or Germanspeaking Communities.
Po belgijskem ustavnem pravu sta za te osebe pristojni francoska ali nem�ko govoreča skupnost.
Those communities have chosen not to establish a care insurance scheme similar to the one in Flanders.
Ti skupnosti sta se odločili, da ne bosta uvedli sistema zavarovanja, podobnega tistemu v Flandriji.
To assimilate such differences of treatment to discrimination is to deny Member States the right to opt for a federal structure composed of autonomous federated entities that adopt rules applicable only to that part of the national territory for which they are competent.
Primerjati ta različna obravnavanja z diskriminacijo je zanikanje pravice države članice do izbire federalne strukture, sestavljene iz avtonomnih federalnih delov, ki sprejemajo pravila, veljavna le v delu nacionalnega ozemlja, za katerega so pristojna.
— If the residence requirement is properly to be characterised as an obstacle to freedom
– Če je zahtevo po stalnem prebivali�ču mogoče pravilno označiti kot oviro za prosto gibanje in/ali kot posredno diskriminacijo, ki
I do not accept this argument.
Tega argumenta ne sprejemam.
Therefore, whilst the argument that the Flemish Community lacked the requisite competence to legislate with regard to persons not living in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital is understandable from a domestic perspective, it has no bearing on the question whether the residence requirement does or does not comply with Community law.
Medtem ko je argument, da flamska skupnost nima zahtevanih zakonodajnih pristojnosti glede oseb, ki ne živijo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital, razumljiv z domačega vidika, pa to ne vpliva na vpra�anje, ali je oziroma ni zahteva po stalnem prebivali�ču v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
It is well established that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or situations in its internal legal order, including those resulting from its federal organisation, in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and timelimits laid down in a directive.
Uveljavljeno je, da država članica ne more uveljavljati določb, praks ali položajev notranjega pravnega reda, vključujoč tiste, ki izvirajo iz federalne organiziranosti, da bi upravičila nespo�tovanje obveznosti in časovnih rokov, določenih z direktivo.
57A Member State may indeed allocate internal legislative powers freely as it sees fit.
57Država članica lahko razporedi notranje zakonodajne pristojnosti svobodno, kot ji ustreza.
However, it alone remains responsible under Article 226 EC for complying with its obligations under Community law.
Vendar ostaja odgovorna po členu 226 ES za izpolnjevanje obveznosti po pravu Skupnosti.
58The Court has also made it clear that the validity of a Community measure or its effect within a Member State cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to the principles of a national constitutional structure. 59
58Sodi�če je prav tako pojasnilo, da na veljavnost ukrepov Skupnosti ali na njihov učinek znotraj države članice ne morejo vplivati obtožbe, da so ti v nasprotju z načeli nacionalne ustavne strukture. 59
The same must apply a fortiori to breaches of Treaty provisions 60and of
Enako velja a fortiori za kr�itve določil Pogodbe 60 ter za zakonodajo, ki se uporablja neposredno in izhaja iz uredb.
60 — See, to that effect, Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa [1991] ECR I-4151, paragraph 8.
60 – Glej v zvezi s tem sodbo z dne 25. julija 1991 v zdruŽenih zadevah Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior in Publivia (C-1/90 in C-176/90, Recueil, str. I-4151, točka 8).
Belgium is not the only Member State to have chosen a federal or otherwise decentralised structure.
Belgija ni edina država članica, ki se je odločila za federalno strukturo.
Community law has not made it impossible for other federal Member States, and/or their decentralised authorities, to exercise their competences as defined
Pravo Skupnosti ni onemogočilo drugim federalnim državam članicam in/ali njihovim federalnim delom izvajati svoje pristojnosti, kot so določene z nacionalno zakonodajo.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT ments have, indeed, been made within the Belgian constitutional structure.
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE dejansko primer znotraj belgijske ustavne strukture.
62 by national law. However, a Member State cannot use its decentralised structure as a cloak in order to justify a failure to comply with its obligations under Community law.
62 uporabljati federalne strukture kot krinko, da bi upravičila nespo�tovanje obveznosti po pravu Skupnosti.
The Flemish Community’s presumed lack of competence to legislate with regard to persons not living in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital cannot therefore be invoked by way of objective justification.
Zato ni objektivno utemeljeno sklicevanje na domnevno pomanjkanje zakonodajnih pristojnosti flamske skupnosti glede oseb, ki ne živijo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital.
The Flemish Government further argues that persons working in the Dutchspeaking region but living in the Frenchspeaking region can always apply to the
Flamska vlada v nadaljevanju trdi, da lahko osebe, ki delajo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji, vendar živijo v francosko govoreči
That is a fair point.
To je dopustno stali�če.
This can be achieved, for example, through the first paragraph of Article 203 EC, which implicitly allows regional ministers to represent their Member State in the Council.
Za zagotovitev takega sodelovanja v zakonodajnem procesu Skupnosti se lahko oblikujejo ustrezni institucionalni dogovori. Opažam, da je to
See further P. Van Nuffel, ‘What’s in a Member State?
Za več P. Van Nuffel, „What’s in a Member State? Central and decentralised authorities before the Community courts“, Common Market Law Review, 2001, str. od 894 do 899. S. Weatherill, „The Challenge of the Regional Dimension in the European Union“ v S. Weatherill in U. Bernitz (ur.), The Role of Regions and Sub-national Actors in Europe, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2005, str.
63However, neither the French Community nor the Germanspeaking Community has apparently established an equivalent care insurance.
63Vendar očitno niti francoska skupnost niti nem�ko govoreča skupnost nista uvedli enakovrednega zavarovanja. Ta argument zato odpade.
right on every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to certain limitations.
giba in prebiva na ozemlju držav članic, ob upo�tevanju omejitev.
In relation to freedom of movement for workers, that provision finds specific expression in Article 39 EC.
V povezavi s prostim gibanjem delavcev je ta določba posebno izražena v členu 39 ES.
In respect of persons who have exercised classic economic rights of freedom of movement, it is accordingly unnecessary to rule separately on the interpretation of Article 18 EC. 64
Za osebe, ki so uveljavile klasično gospodarsko pravico do prostega gibanja, zato o razlagi člena 18 ES ni treba presojati ločeno. 64
Belgian citizens who have not made use of their freedom of movement rights
Belgijski državljani, ki niso izkoristili pravic do prostega gibanja
Is this group to be regarded as being in a ‘purely internal situation’ that falls outside the scope of Community law?
Ali gledamo na to skupino, kot da je v „samo notranjem položaju“, ki ne sodi v obseg prava Skupnosti?
In so far as nationals of other Member States working in Belgium and Belgian nationals who have exercised rights of freedom of movement are concerned, the second and third questions referred should therefore be answered to the effect that Articles 39 and 43 EC and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude an autonomous Community of a federal Member State from adopting provisions which, in the exercise of its powers, allow only persons residing in the territory for which that autonomous Community is competent or in another Member State to be insured under and covered by a social security scheme within the meaning of that regulation, to the exclusion of persons, whatever their nationality, who reside in a part of the territory of the same federal State for which another autonomous Community is competent.
Glede državljanov drugih držav članic, ki delajo v Belgiji, in belgijskih državljanov, ki so uveljavili pravico do prostega gibanja, je treba na drugo in tretje vloženo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da člena 39 in 43 ES ter člen 3 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 preprečujejo avtonomni skupnosti federalne države članice, da pri izvr�evanju svojih pristojnosti sprejema določbe, ki dovoljujejo samo osebam s stalnim prebivali�čem na ozemlju, za katero je avtonomna skupnost pristojna, ali v drugi državi članici, da so zavarovane po sistemu socialne varnosti in krite z njim po Uredbi, proti izključenim osebam, ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo, s stalnim prebivali�čem na delu ozemlja iste federalne države, za katerega je pristojna druga avtonomna skupnost.
The Court has held on numerous occasions that the Treaty rules governing freedom of movement for persons and measures adopted to implement them cannot be
Sodi�če je ob �tevilnih priložnostih poudarilo, da se pravila Pogodbe o prostem gibanju oseb in ukrepih za njihovo uresničitev ne morejo uporabljati za aktivnosti,
Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to examine whether such persons may also claim rights under Article 18 EC, which confers a general
Po sprejetju te ugotovitve ni treba preučiti, ali lahko te osebe uveljavljajo pravice po členu 18 ES, ki prena�a splo�no upravičenje na vsakega državljana Unije, da se prosto
64 — See, inter alia, Case C-193/94 Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos [1996] ECR I-929, paragraph 22; Case C-258/04 Ioannidis [2005] ECR I-8275, paragraph 37; and Case C-392/05 Alevizos [2007] ECR I-3505, paragraph 80.
64 – Glej med drugim sodbe z dne 29. februarja 1996 v zadevi Skanavi in Chryssanthakopoulos (C-193/94, Recueil, str. I-929, točka 22); z dne 15. septembra 2005 v zdruŽenih zadevah Ioannidis (C-258/04, ZOdl., str.
63 — Paragraph A.3.2.2. of the referring judgment.
63 – Točka A.3.2.2. predložitvene odločbe.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT applied to activities which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by Community law and which are confined in all relevant respects within a single Member State.
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE ki niso povezane z nobenim položajem, ki ga ureja pravo Skupnosti, in so z vseh pomembnih vidikov omejene na eno državo članico.
65 movement between Member States, decentralised authorities of Member States may nevertheless reintroduce barriers through the back door by establishing them within Member States.
65 gibanje med državami članicami, lahko ne glede na to federalne enote držav članic ponovno uvedejo ovire skozi stranska vrata, tako da jih uvedejo znotraj države članice.
One might ask rhetorically, what sort of a European Union is it if freedom of movement is guaranteed between Dunkirk (France) and De Panne (Belgium), but not between Jodoigne and Hoegaarden?
Lahko se retorično vpra�amo, kak�na Evropska unija je to, če je prosto gibanje zagotovljeno med Dunkirkom in De Pannom, ni pa med Jodoignom in Hoegaardnom?
More specifically, in Petit the Court held that Regulation No 1408/71 does not apply to situations which are confined in all respects within a single Member State.
Natančneje, v sodbi Petit je Sodi�če menilo, da Uredba �t. 1408/71 ne velja v položajih, ki so z vseh vidikov omejeni na eno državo članico.
66 The applicant in those proceedings was a Belgian national, had always resided in Belgium and had worked only in the territory of that Member State.
66 Vlagatelj v tem postopku je bil belgijski državljan, ki je imel vedno stalno prebivali�če v Belgiji in je delal samo na ozemlju Belgije.
From what I have said earlier regarding the application of the concepts of lex loci laboris and competent State, it may be that the entities between which barriers actually need to be abolished are not necessarily always the Member States, but the entities that have the relevant regulatory authority (be these Member States or decentralised authorities within a single Member State). 67
Iz tega, kar sem prej povedala v zvezi z uporabo konceptov lex loci laboris in pristojne države, lahko izhaja, da enote, med katerimi je dejansko treba odpraviti ovire, niso nujno vedno države članice, temveč enote, ki imajo ustrezno upravno oblast (naj bodo države članice ali federalne enote znotraj ene države članice) 67.
When analysed in terms of the classic economic freedoms, the situation of Belgians who have never exercised a right of freedom of movement appears to be purely internal.
Glede na klasične ekonomske svobo�čine se zdi med analiziranjem položaj Belgijcev, ki niso nikoli uveljavili pravice do prostega gibanja, samo notranji.
Does that mean that it remains wholly unaffected by the application of EC law?
Ali to pomeni, da nanj nič ne vpliva uporaba prava ES?
I must confess to finding something deeply paradoxical about the proposition that, although the last 50 years have been spent abolishing barriers to freedom of
Priznavam, da odkrivam globok paradoks v predlogu, da čeprav se je zadnjih 50 let porabilo za odpravljanje ovir za prosto
The beneficial effects of dismantling barriers to freedom of movement between Member States can easily be undermined if decentralised authorities of Member States have the relevant competences and are free to establish such barriers between themselves.
Koristni učinki odstranjevanja ovir za prosto gibanje med državami članicami so lahko enostavno spodkopani, če imajo federalne enote držav članic ustrezne pristojnosti in uvedejo take ovire med seboj. To je resno vpra�anje ob upo�tevanju trendov v več državah članicah po prenosu pristojnosti navzdol.
In the light of trends towards regional
Kakor koli, prenos pristojnosti
66 — See Petit, paragraph 10, and Khalil, paragraph 70, both cited in previous footnote.
I-3171, točka 16) in z dne 11. oktobra 2001 v zdruŽenih zadevah Khalil in drugi (od C-95/99 do C-98/99 in C-180/99, Recueil, str.
67 — In the context of state aid, the Court has indeed been prepared to examine the impact of such aid by specific reference to the area in which an autonomous infra-State body exercised its competences: see Case C-88/03 Portugal v Commission (Azores) [2006] ECR I-7115, paragraphs 54 to 78 and the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed, at points 48 to 62.
67 – V okviru državne pomoči je bilo Sodi�če dejansko pripravljeno preučiti vpliv take pomoči posebej glede območij, kjer so avtonomni državni organi izvr�evali svojo pristojnost: glej sodbo z dne 6. septembra 2006 v zadevi Portugalska proti Komisiji (Azoren, C-88/03, Recueil, str. I-7115, točke od 54 do 78) in sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Geelhoeda, točke od 48 do 62.
However beneficial devolution may be from the perspective of subsidiarity 68 and democratic accountability, it must not come at the cost of (de facto) endangering the area of freedom of movement or the effet utile of Community law.
pa na račun (de facto) ogrožanja območja prostega pretoka ali načela effet utile prava Skupnosti.
This case therefore presents an occasion for the Court to reflect on the nature and rationale behind its doctrine in respect of purely internal situations.
Zato je ta primer priložnost za Sodi�če, da se opredeli o naravi in utemeljitvi svoje doktrine o samo notranjih položajih.
Moreover, the situation that arises in the present case is a rather curious version of a ‘purely internal situation’.
Poleg tega je položaj, ki se kaže v tem primeru, presenetljivej�a različica ,,samo notranjega položaja“.
The Government of the French Community and the Walloon Government argue that freedom of movement for persons should be aligned, so far as possible, with free movement of goods.
Vlada francoske skupnosti in vlada Valonije trdita, da moramo prosto gibanje oseb uskladiti do največje mogoče mere s prostim pretokom blaga.
Since the Belgian Communities and Regions act as autonomous legislators within their spheres of competence, their position is, in that respect, equivalent to that of a Member State.
Ker belgijske skupnosti in regije ravnajo kot avtonomni zakonodajalec znotraj svojih pristojnosti, je v tem pogledu njihov položaj enakovreden položaju države članice.
By analogy, the Flemish care insurance should be regarded as equivalent to an internal tariff barrier with regard to freedom of movement for persons.
Če bi bila Flandrija neodvisna država članica Unije, bi nezmožnost vstopa v sistem flamskega
In order to evaluate that argument, it is necessary to examine the reasoning
Da bi presodili ta argument, je treba preučiti, zakaj bi raz�iritev prepovedi na
69 — Case C-163/90 [1992] ECR I-4625.
69 – Sodba z dne 16. julija 1992 v zadevi Legros in drugi (C-163/90, Recueil, str. I-4625).
70 — Joined Cases C-363/93, C-407/93 to C-411/93 [1994] ECR I-3957.
70 – Sodba z dne 9. avgusta 1994 v zdruŽenih zadevah Lancry in drugi (C-363/93, C-407/93, od C-408/93 do C-411/93, Recueil, str. I-3957).
68 — See Article 1 EU, stipulating that decisions in the Union have to be taken ‘as closely as possible to the citizen’.
68 – Glej člen 1 EU, ki določa, da morajo biti odločitve v Uniji sprejete ,,kar najbližje državljanom“. To je treba razumeti v �ir�em smislu, kot je v členu 5 ES.
135: ‘The doctrine of subsidiarity requires decision-making to be distributed to the most appropriate level.
135: ,,Doktrina subsidiarnosti zahteva, da odločanje poteka na najustreznej�i ravni.
In that context, the best democracy — and the best interpretation of popular sovereignty — is one that insists on levels of democracy appropriate to levels of decision-making.’
V tem smislu je najbolj�a demokracija – in najbolj�a razlaga javne suverenosti – tista, ki vztraja na stopnji demokracije, primerni za stopnjo odločanja.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE tarifne ovire vplivala na prosti pretok blaga v notranjih položajih.
In that regard, the Court’s caselaw invokes both practical and conceptual considerations.
O tem sodna praksa sledi praktičnim in vsebinskim premislekom.
In Carbonati, the Court recalled that the justification for prohibiting customs duties and charges having equivalent effect is that any pecuniary charges imposed on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier constitute an obstacle to free movement.
V sodbi Carbonati je Sodi�če spomnilo, da je utemeljitev za prepovedane carine in dajatve z enakim učinkom, da vsaka denarna dajatev, uvedena na blago, zato ker to prečka mejo, predstavlja oviro za prosti pretok.
73 It went on to hold, more broadly, that the very principle of a customs union, as provided for by Article 23 EC, requires free movement of goods to be ensured throughout the territory of the customs union.
73V nadaljevanju je splo�neje izpostavilo, da ključno načelo carinske unije, kot ga določa člen 23 ES, zahteva zagotovitev prostega pretoka blaga na celotnem ozemlju carinske unije.
If Articles 23 and 25 EC refer expressly only to trade between Member States, that is because the framers of the Treaty took it for granted that no charges exhibiting the features of a customs duty were in existence within individual Member States.
Če se člena 23 in 25 ES sklicujeta izključno na trgovino med državami članicami, je to zato, ker so avtorji Pogodbe �teli za gotovo, da v posamični državi članici ne bodo obstajale dajatve v smislu carin.
In Lancry, the Court pointed out that charges such as those at issue in that case were imposed on all goods alike.
V sodbi Lancry je Sodi�če poudarilo, da so bile v tistem primeru uvedene dajatve, ki so, kot so zadevne, dajatve na vse podobno blago.
It would be virtually impossible in practice to distinguish between products of domestic origin and those from other Member States.
V praksi praktično ne bi bilo mogoče razlikovati med domačimi izdelki in tistimi iz drugih držav članic.
Verifying in every case whether a particular product in fact originated in another Member State would give rise to administrative procedures and further delays that would themselves constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods. 72
Preverjanje vsakega primera, ali določen proizvod dejansko prihaja iz druge države članice, bi okrepilo administrativne postopke in povzročilo dodatne zamude, ki bi predstavljale oviro prostega pretoka blaga 72.
The Court then concluded its reasoning with a more general statement.
Sodi�če je utemeljitev zaključilo s splo�nej�o izjavo.
It pointed out that Article 14(2) EC, in defining the internal market as ‘an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured’, draws no distinction between inter-State frontiers and frontiers within a single State.
Poudarilo je, da člen 14(2) ES, ko opredeljuje notranji trg kot „območje brez notranjih meja, na katerem je zagotovljen prosti pretok blaga, oseb, storitev in kapitala“, ne razlikuje med mejami med državami članicami in mejami znotraj ene države.
Article 23 EC should be read together with Article 14(2) EC.
Člen 23 ES je treba razlagati skupaj s členom 14(2) ES.
It follows that the absence
Iz tega izhaja, da je neobstoj dajatev med
The provisions on freedom of movement for persons do not contain a prohibition equivalent to that on tariff barriers in Article 25 EC.
Sodi�če je prav tako pripravilo vsebinsko razlago sodne prakse na področju notranjih tarifnih ovir.
73 — Case C-72/03 Carbonati [2004] ECR I-8027, paragraph 22; see further Joined Cases 2/69 and 3/69 Brachfeld and Chougol [1969] ECR 211, point 14; and Lancry, cited in footnote 70, paragraph 25.
73 – Sodba z dne 9. septembra 2004 v zadevi Carbonati Apuani (C-72/03, ZOdl., str. I-8027, točka 22), glej tudi sodbo z dne 1. julija 1969 v zdruŽenih zadevah Brachfeld in Chougol (2/69 in 3/69, Recueil, str.
72 — Lancry, cited in footnote 70, paragraph 31.
72 – V opombi 70 navedena sodba Lancry, točka 31.