natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 precludes legislation of a Member State which requires a national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from the provisions of that directive.
Direktiva 2004/38 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki spreminja Uredbo �t. 1612/68 in razveljavlja direktive 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 in 93/96, nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, ki od državljana tretje države, zakonca državljana Unije, ki prebiva v tej državi članici in ni njen državljan, zahteva, da je moral, preden se je preselil v državo gostiteljico, zakonito prebivati v drugi državi članici, zato da bi bil upravičen do ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz določb te direktive.
As regards family members of a Union citizen, no provision of Direct- ive 2004/38 makes the application of the directive conditional on their having previously resided in a Member State.
Glede družinskih članov državljana Unije v nobeni določbi Direktive 2004/38 za njeno uporabo ni določen pogoj predhodnega prebivanja v državi članici.
As Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 states,
V skladu s členom 3(1) Direktive 2004/38 se namreč ta uporablja za vse državljane
Moreover, Articles 5, 6(2) and 7(2) of Directive 2004/38 confer the rights of entry, of residence for up to three months, and of residence for more than three months in the host Member State on nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen whom they accompany or join in that Member State, without any
Poleg tega je s členi 5, 6(2) in 7(2) iste direktive državljanom tretjih držav, ki so družinski člani državljana Unije, ki ga spremljajo ali se mu pridružijo v tej državi članici, priznana pravica do vstopa, prebivanja do treh mesecev ter prebivanja, ki je dalj�e od treh mesecev v državi članici gostiteljici, brez navedbe kraja ali pogojev glede njihovega prebiva-
METOCK AND OTHERS reference to the place or conditions of residence they had before arriving in that Member State.
METOCK IN DRUGI morebitnega predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja v drugi državi članici.
does not provide for the possibility of the host Member State asking for documents to demonstrate any prior lawful residence in another Member State.
li�ča pred prihodom v navedeno državo članico.
(see paras 49-53, 70, 80, operative part 1)
(Glej točke od 49 do 53, 70 in 80 ter točko 1 izreka.)
In particular, the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38 provides that nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen are required to have an entry visa, unless they are in possession of the valid residence card referred to in Article 10 of that directive.
Člen 5(2), prvi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/38 določa, da morajo imeti državljani tretjih držav, družinski člani državljana Unije, vstopni vizum, razen če imajo veljavno dovoljenje za prebivanje, navedeno v členu 10 te direktive.
In that, as follows from Articles 9(1) and 10(1) of Directive 2004/38, the residence card is the document that evidences the right of residence for more than three months in a Member State of the family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State, the fact that Article 5(2) provides for the entry into the host Member State of family members of a Union citizen who do not have a residence card shows that Dir -ective 2004/38 is capable of applying also to family members who were not already lawfully resident in another Member State.
Ker je, kot izhaja iz členov 9(1) in 10(1) Direktive 2004/38, dovoljenje za prebivanje dokument, ki dokazuje pravico družinskih članov državljana Unije, ki niso državljani države članice, do prebivanja v državi članici, ki je dalj�e od treh mesecev, okoli�čina, da navedeni člen 5(2) določa pogoje za vstop družinskih članov državljana Unije, ki nimajo dovoljenja za prebivanje, v državo članico gostiteljico, pokaže, da se Direktiva 2004/38 lahko uporablja tudi za družinske člane, ki �e niso zakonito prebivali v drugi državi članici.
The benefit of such rights cannot depend on the prior lawful residence of such a spouse in another Member State.
Pridobitev teh pravic namreč ne more biti odvisna od predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja tega zakonca v drugi državi članici.
(see paras 53, 54, 58, operative part 1)
(Glej točke 53, 54 in 58 ter točko 1 izreka.)
The Community legislature has competence to regulate, as it did by Direct- ive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of
V členu 10(2) Direktive 2004/38 – v katerem so taksativno na�tete listine, ki so jih državljani tretjih držav, družinski člani državljana Unije, lahko dolžni predložiti državi članici gostiteljici za pridobitev dovoljenja za prebivanje – prav tako ni določena možnost za državo članico gostiteljico, da zahteva dokaze
Similarly, Article 10(2) of Directive 2004/38, which lists exhaustively the documents which nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen may have to present to the host Member State in order to have a residence card issued,
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je pristojen za urejanje – kot je to storil z Direktivo 2004/38 o pravici državljanov Unije in
SUMMARY — CASE C-127/08 already lawfully resident in the territory of another Member State.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-127/08 družinski člani �e niso zakonito prebivali na ozemlju druge države članice.
the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96, the entry and residence of nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen in the Member State in which that citizen has exercised his right of freedom of movement, including where the family members were not already lawfully resident in another Member State.
njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki spreminja Uredbo �t. 1612/68 in razveljavlja direktive 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 in 93/96 – vstopa in prebivanja državljanov tretjih držav, ki so družinski člani državljana Unije, v državo članico, v kateri je slednji izvr�eval pravico do prostega gibanja, tudi v primeru, ko družinski člani �e niso zakonito prebivali v drugi državi članici.
Consequently, the interpretation that the Member States retain exclusive competence, subject to Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty, to regulate the first access to Community territory of family members of a Union citizen who are nationals of nonmember countries must be rejected.
Zato je treba zavrniti razlago, da so države članice, z izjemo naslova IV tretjega dela Pogodbe, ostale izključno pristojne za urejanje prvega dostopa družinskih članov državljana Unije, ki so državljani tretjih držav, na ozemlje Skupnosti.
Within the competence conferred on it by Articles 18(2) EC, 40 EC, 44 EC and 52 EC — on the basis of which Direct- ive 2004/38 inter alia was adopted — the Community legislature can regulate the conditions of entry and residence of the family members of a Union citizen in the territory of the Member States, where the fact that it is impossible for the Union citizen to be accompanied or joined by his family in the host Member State would be such as to interfere with his freedom of movement by discouraging him from exercising his rights of entry into and residence in that Member State.
V okviru pristojnosti, ki mu je priznana s členi 18(2) ES, 40 ES, 44 ES in 52 ES, na temelju katerih je bila med drugim sprejeta Direktiva 2004/38, lahko namreč zakonodajalec Skupnosti ureja pogoje za vstop in za prebivanje družinskih članov državljana Unije na ozemlju držav članic, kadar bi dejstvo, da državljana Unije njegova družina ne more spremljati ali se mu pridružiti v državi članici gostiteljici, �kodovalo njegovi svobodi gibanja, s tem da bi ga odvračalo od izvr�evanja njegovih pravic do vstopa in prebivanja v tej državi članici.
Indeed, to allow the Member States exclusive competence to grant or refuse entry into and residence in their territory to nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of Union citizens and have not already resided lawfully in another Member State would have the effect that the freedom of movement of Union citizens in a Member State whose nationality they do not possess would vary from one Member State to another, according to the provisions of national law concerning immigration, with some Member States permitting entry and residence of family members of a Union citizen and other Member States refusing them.
Poleg tega bi priznanje izključne pristojnosti državam članicam, da odobrijo ali zavrnejo vstop ter prebivanje na svojem ozemlju državljanom tretjih držav, družinskim članom državljana Unije, ki �e niso zakonito prebivali v drugi državi članici, pomenilo, da bi se svoboda gibanja državljanov Unije v državi članici, katere državljani niso, med državami članicami razlikovala glede na določbe nacionalnega prava glede priseljevanja, ker nekatere države članice dovoljujejo vstop in prebivanje družinskih članov državljana Unije, druge pa to zavračajo.
The refusal of the host Member State to grant rights of entry and residence to the family members of a Union citizen is such as to discourage that citizen from moving to or residing in that Member State, even if his family members are not
Odločitev države članice gostiteljice, da družinskim članom državljana Unije ne prizna pravic do vstopa in prebivanja, pa lahko tega odvrača od selitve in prebivanja v tej državi članici, čeprav njegovi
That would not be compatible with the objective set out in Article 3(1)(c) EC of an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of
To ne bi bilo združljivo s ciljem, določenim v členu 3(1)(c) ES, in sicer z notranjim trgom, za katerega je značilna odprava ovir pri prostem gibanju oseb med državami članicami. Vzpostavitev
METOCK AND OTHERS or joins that Union citizen benefits from the provisions of that directive, irre -spective of when and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a nonmember country entered the host Member State.
METOCK IN DRUGI tive ne glede na kraj in datum sklenitve zakonske zveze in ne glede na način, kako je ta državljan vstopil v državo članico gostiteljico.
persons. Establishing an internal market implies that the conditions of entry and residence of a Union citizen in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess are the same in all the Member States.
notranjega trga zahteva, da so pogoji za vstop in prebivanje državljana Unije v državi članici, katere državljan ni, enaki v vseh državah članicah.
Freedom of movement for Union citizens must therefore be interpreted as the right to leave any Member State, in particular the Member State whose nationality the Union citizen possesses, in order to become established under the same conditions in any Member State other than the Member State whose nationality the Union citizen possesses.
Zato je treba svobodo gibanja državljanov Unije razlagati kot pravico zapustiti katerokoli državo članico, in zlasti državo članico, katere državljan je državljan Unije, zaradi prebivanja, pod istimi pogoji, v katerikoli drugi državi članici, razen v tisti državi članici, katere državljanstvo ima državljan Unije.
(see paras 63-68)
(Glej točke od 63 do 68.)
First, none of the provisions of Dir -ective 2004/38 requires that the Union citizen must already have founded a family at the time when he moves to the host Member State in order for his family members who are nationals of nonmember countries to be able to enjoy the rights established by that directive.
Prvič, z nobeno od določb Direktive 2004/38 namreč ni zahtevano, da bi moral državljan Unije pred selitvijo v državo članico gostiteljico že ustvariti družino, zato da bi lahko njegovi družinski člani, državljani tretjih držav, pridobili pravice, ki so zagotovljene z navedeno direktivo.
By providing that the family members of the Union citizen can join him in the host Member State, the Community legislature, on the contrary, accepted the possibility of the Union citizen not founding a family until after exercising his right of freedom of movement.
Nasprotno, zakonodajalec Skupnosti je s tem, da je določil, da se lahko družinski člani državljana Unije temu pridružijo v državi članici gostiteljici, dopustil možnost, da lahko državljan Unije ustvari družino �ele po izvr�itvi svoje pravice do prostega gibanja.
That interpretation is consistent with the purpose of Directive 2004/38, which aims to facilitate the exercise of the fundamental right of residence of Union citizens in a Member State other than that of which they are a national.
Taka razlaga je v skladu s cilji Direktive 2004/38, katere namen je olaj�anje uresničevanja temeljne pravice do prebivanja državljanov Unije na ozemlju države članice, ki ni država članica, katere državljani so.
Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96, which provides that the directive is to apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 of the directive who accompany or join them, must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a nonmember country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies
Člen 3(1) Direktive 2004/38 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki spreminja Uredbo �t. 1612/68 in razveljavlja direktive 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 in 93/96 ter določa, da se ta direktiva uporablja za vse državljane Unije, ki se preselijo ali prebivajo v državi članici, razen v tisti državi, katere državljani so, in za njihove družinske člane, kot so opredeljeni v členu 2(2) te direktive, ki jih spremljajo ali se jim pridružijo, je treba razlagati tako, da za državljana tretje države, zakonca državljana Unije, ki prebiva v državi članici, katere državljan ni, ki tega državljana Unije spremlja ali se mu pridruži, veljajo določbe navedene direk-
Second, in the light of the necessity of not interpreting the provisions of Directive 2004/38 restrictively and not depriving them of their effectiveness, the words ‘family members [of Union
Drugič je treba glede na zahtevo, da se določbe Direktive 2004/38 ne razlagajo restriktivno in da se jim ne odvzame njihovega učinka, izraz „družinske člane [državljana Unije], ki [tega] spremljajo“
Third, neither Article 3(1) nor any other provision of Directive 2004/38 contains requirements as to the place where the marriage of the Union citizen and the national of a nonmember country is solemnised.
Tretjič, niti člen 3(1) niti nobena druga določba Direktive 2004/38 ne vsebuje zahteve v zvezi s krajem sklenitve zakonske zveze med državljanom Unije in državljanom tretje države.
(see paras 87-90, 93, 98, 99, operative part 2) citizens] who accompany … them’ in Article 3(1) of that directive must be interpreted as referring both to the family members of a Union citizen who entered the host Member State with him and to those who reside with him in that Member State, without it being necessary, in the latter case, to distinguish according to whether the nationals of nonmember countries entered that Member State before or after the Union citizen or before or after becoming his family members.
iz člena 3(1) navedene direktive razlagati tako, da hkrati zajema družinske člane državljana Unije, ki so z njim vstopili v državo članico gostiteljico, in družinske člane, ki z njim prebivajo v tej državi članici, ne da bi bilo treba v drugem primeru razlikovati med tem, ali so državljani tretjih držav vstopili v navedeno državo članico pred državljanom Unije ali za njim oziroma preden so postali njegovi družinski člani ali pozneje.
METOCK AND OTHERS
METOCK IN DRUGI
VIEW OF ADVOCATE GENERALPOIARES MADURO of 11 June 2008 1 cases thus provide the Court with a good opportunity to clarify this matter.
STALIŠČE GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAM. POIARESA MADURA, predstavljeno 11. junija 2008 1 navanih zadevah, ponuja lepa priložnost, da to področje razjasni.
I — The facts in the main proceedings and the questions referred
I – Dejansko stanje v sporu o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The present reference, which is being dealt with under the accelerated procedure provided for in Article 104a of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, concerns the scope of the right of residence of nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of a Union citizen.
Ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki se obravnava po hitrem postopku na podlagi člena 104a Poslovnika Sodi�ča, se nana�a na obseg pravice do prebivanja državljanov tretje države, ki so družinski člani državljana Unije.
The issue is a sensitive one because it involves drawing a dividing line between what is covered by the provisions on Union citizens’ freedom of movement and residence and what comes under immigration control, a matter over which the Member States retain competence in so far as and to the extent that the European Community has not brought about complete harmonisation.
Vpra�anje je občutljivo, ker zahteva razmejitev med področji, za katera se uporabljajo določbe v zvezi s svobodo gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije, in področji, povezanimi z nadzorom nad priseljevanjem, ki so v delu, ki �e ni popolnoma usklajen na ravni Evropske skupnosti, �e naprej v pristojnosti držav članic, dokler Evropska skupnost ne doseže popolne uskladitve.
The constitutional significance of the subject explains the liveliness of the debate, with no less than 10 Member States intervening in support of the respondent in the main proceedings to challenge the interpretation put forward by the applicants in the main proceedings and the Commission of the European Communities.
Z ustavnim pomenom tega vpra�anja je mogoče pojasniti tudi živahnost razprave, v katero se je vključilo kar deset držav članic, ki so podprle toženo vlado v postopku v glavni stvari in izpodbijale razlago, ki jo zagovarjajo tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti.
It is also true that the positions adopted previously by the Court have helped fuel the debate since there does not appear to be clear consistency in the line taken in case-law.
Poleg tega je s predhodnimi stali�či olja na ogenj prililo tudi Sodi�če, saj iz sodne prakse glede tega ne izhajajo jasno izrisane in skladne smernice.
The questions on the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC 2 which have been referred in the present
Tako se Sodi�ču z vpra�anji v zvezi z razlago Direktive 2004/38/ES 2, ki so mu bila predložena v predhodno odločanje v obrav-
2 — Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).
2 – Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki spreminja Uredbo (EGS) �t. 1612/68 in razveljavlja Direktive 64/221/EGS, 68/360/EGS, 72/194/EGS, 73/148/EGS, 75/34/EGS, 75/35/EGS, 90/364/EGS, 90/365/EGS in 93/96/EEC (UL L 158, str. 77).
VIEW OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-127/08
STALIŠČE M. POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-127/08
Directive 2004/38. The applicants therefore challenged those ministerial decisions to refuse them residence cards, claiming that the condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State imposed by the Irish legislation, noncompliance with which was the reason for the contested refusals, is contrary to Directive 2004/38.
II – Presoja o zavrnitvi izdaje dovoljenja za prebivanje, pri čemer so trdili, da je pogoj predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja v drugi državi članici, ki se zahteva na podlagi irske zakonodaje in s katerim so bile utemeljene izpodbijane zavrnitve, v nasprotju z določbami Direktive 2004/38.
A — Compatibility of the requirement of prior lawful residence in another Member State with Directive 2004/38
A – Združljivost zahteve za predhodno zakonito prebivanje v drugi državi članici z Direktivo 2004/38
The question whether Directive 2004/38 permits the benefit of the right of residence which it grants to non-EU nationals who are the family members of a Union citizen to be subject in the host Member State to the condition that they must have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State requires consideration of the scope of application of that legislation: does it apply only to families which were established in a Member State before moving to the host Member State?
Z vpra�anjem, ali je na podlagi Direktive 2004/38 mogoče postaviti pogoj, da se v državi članici gostiteljici pravica do prebivanja, ki je s to direktivo priznana državljanom tretjih držav, družinskim članom državljanov Unije, podeli le po predhodnem prebivanju v drugi državi članici, se postavlja vpra�anje področja uporabe navedenega besedila: ali se to uporablja le za družine, ki so bile pred prihodom v državo članico gostiteljico že oblikovane v drugi državi članici?
In other words, does Dir ective 2004/38 guarantee for non-EU nationals who are family members of a Union citizen only freedom of movement within the territory of the Union or also, in certain cases, access for them to the territory of the Union?
Povedano drugače: ali je z Direktivo 2004/38 državljanom tretjih držav, ki so družinski člani državljanov Unije, zagotovljeno le prosto gibanje na ozemlju Unije ali jim je v nekaterih primerih zagotovljen tudi vstop na ozemlje Unije?
It merely confers, in Art -icles 6, 7 and 16 thereof, a right of residence on a Union citizen’s family members who are not nationals of a Member State, ‘accompanying or joining the Union citizen’.
V členih 6, 7 in 16 te direktive je določeno le, da se pravica do prebivanja prizna družinskim članom državljana Unije, ki nimajo državljanstva nobene od držav članic „in ki spremljajo ali se pridružijo državljanu Unije“.
Since an analysis of the text provides no assistance, it is necessary to refer to its objectives.
Ker si z razlago zadevnega besedila ni mogoče pomagati, se je treba osredotočiti na njegove cilje. Namen
Therefore, in order to be able to examine the merits of the proceedings brought against the refusals to grant residence cards, the referring court considers that it is necessary essentially to ask the Court of Justice whether the benefit of the provisions of Directive 2004/38, or more specifically of the right of residence for the non-EU national spouse of a Union citizen, can be subject to the condition that he must have been lawfully resident in another Member State before coming to the host Member State.
Predložitveno sodi�če je zato menilo, da mora za presojo utemeljenosti pritožb zoper sporne odločbe o zavrnitvi izdaje dovoljenja za prebivanje Sodi�če v bistvu vpra�ati, ali je pri uporabi določb Direktive 2004/38 – ali, natančneje, priznanju pravice do prebivanja, ki se zagotovi državljanu tretje države, zakoncu državljana Unije – mogoče postaviti pogoj, da mora zainteresirani državljan tretje države pred prihodom v državo članico gostiteljico zakonito prebivati v drugi državi članici.