natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While the title to Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38 does not specifically refer to the right to leave, and indeed many of the provisions of that chapter address questions relating to the right of entry 16and the right of residence, 17it is clear from the wording of Article 27(1) and the 22nd recital in the preamble to that directive that Chapter VI thereof regulates restrictions on the ‘freedom of movement of Union citizens’, a matter which undoubtedly relates to both the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State and the right to enter another Member State.
Čeprav se poglavje VI Direktive 2004/38 ne nana�a izrecno na pravico do zapustitve in se več določb iz tega poglavja dejansko nana�a na vpra�anja v zvezi s pravico do vstopa 16ter pravico do prebivanja, 17je iz besedila člena 27(1) in uvodne izjave 22 te direktive jasno, da njeno poglavje VI ureja omejitve „pravice gibanja državljanov Unije“, kar se gotovo nana�a na pravico do zapustitve ozemlja države članice zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico in na pravico do vstopa v drugo državo članico.
By the second part of its second question and the first part of its third question, the national court seeks essentially clarification on whether the ‘illegal residence’ of a Romanian national in another Member State of the Union who was repatriated on foot of the Readmission Agreement, falls within the terms ‘public policy’ or ‘public security’ provided for in Article 27 of Direct ive 2004/38 so that a restriction may be imposed by Romania on that person’s freedom of movement within the territory of another Member State.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim delom drugega vpra�anja in prvim delom tretjega vpra�anja v bistvu prosi za pojasnitev, ali pojma „javni red“ ali „javna varnost“ iz člena 27 Direktive 2004/38/ES zajemata „nezakonito prebivanje“ romunskega državljana v drugi državi članici Unije, ki je bil vrnjen na podlagi sporazuma o ponovnem sprejemu, tako da sme Romunija določiti oviro za prosto gibanje te osebe na ozemlju druge države članice.
In my view, Article 27(2) of Direct- ive 2004/38, which reproduces much of the contents of Article 3 of Council Direct - ive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health 18must be interpreted, inter alia, in the light of the caselaw of the Court on Article 3 of Directive 64/221.
Po mojem mnenju je treba člen 27(2) Direktive 2004/38, ki povzema večino vsebine člena 3 Direktive Sveta [64/221] z dne 25. februarja 1964 o usklajevanju posebnih ukrepov, ki zadevajo gibanje in prebivanje tujih državljanov, utemeljenih z javno politiko, javno varnostjo ali zdravjem prebivalstva, 18razlagati med drugim ob upo�tevanju sodne prakse Sodi�ča v zvezi s členom 3 Direktive 64/221.
In that regard, the Court has consistently held, in relation to workers, that the principle of freedom of movement must be given a broad interpre-
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če glede delavcev dosledno odločalo, da je treba načelo svobode gibanja razlagati �iroko in da je treba izjeme od tega načela
17 — See Chapter III of Directive 2004/38 on the right of residence.
16 – Glej člen 5 Direktive 2004/38 o pravici do vstopa.17 – Glej poglavje III Direktive 2004/38 o pravici do prebivanja.
See Article 38(2) of Directive 2004/38.
Glej člen 38(2) Direktive 2004/38.
Pursuant to Article 18(1) EC, limitations and conditions may be imposed on the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States pursuant to the EC Treaty and the measures adopted to give it effect.
V skladu s členom 18(1) ES se lahko določijo omejitve in pogoji za pravico prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic v skladu s Pogodbo ES in ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti za njeno uveljavitev.
In my view, the provisions of Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38, which is entitled ‘Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’, regulate the circumstances in which Member States may
Po mojem mnenju določbe poglavja VI Direktive 2004/38, ki ima naslov „Omejitve pravice do vstopa in pravice do prebivanja zaradi javnega reda, javne varnosti ali javnega
24 tation and that derogations from that principle must be interpreted strictly.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če odločilo, da status osebe kot državljana Unije zahteva posebno ozko razlago izjem od te svobode.
In addition, the Court has held that a particularly restrictive interpretation of the derogations from that freedom is required by virtue of a person’s status as a citizen of the Union.
19 skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso uporaba pojma javni red s strani nacionalnega organa predpostavlja, da poleg socialne motnje, ki jo predstavlja vsaka kr�itev zakona, obstaja resnična in dovolj huda grožnja, ki prizadene ključni družbeni interes. 24
19The Court has nevertheless also held that the particular circumstances justifying recourse to the concept of public policy may vary from one country to another and from one period to another, and it is therefore necessary in this matter to allow the competent national authorities an area of discretion within the limits imposed by the Treaty. 20
Sodi�če je vseeno odločilo, da se posebne okoli�čine, ki upravičujejo sklicevanje na javni red, lahko spreminjajo od ene države do druge in od enega obdobja do drugega in je zato v zvezi s tem nujno pustiti pristojnim nacionalnim organom diskrecijsko pravico v okviru meja, ki jih določa Pogodba. 20
In my view, a Member State may not limit the right granted to a Union citizen to leave his Member State of origin to travel to another Member State on grounds of public policy or public security merely on the basis that he was repatriated from another Member State due to his ‘illegal residence’ in the latter.
Po mojem mnenju država članica ne more omejiti pravice državljana Unije, da zapusti svojo državo članico izvora zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico, zaradi razlogov javnega reda ali javne varnosti zgolj zato, ker je bil vrnjen iz druge države članice zaradi „nezakonitega prebivanja“ v njej.
I consider that it follows from the ruling of the Court in Commission v Spain 25that a Member State, when limiting the rights granted to Union citizens pursuant to Article 18(1) EC, cannot rely on general non-specific assertions made, in relation to the conduct of a Union citizen, by another Member State.
Menim, da iz sodbe Sodi�ča v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji 25sledi, da se država članica, ko omeji pravice državljana Unije iz člena 18(1) ES, ne more sklicevati na splo�ne nedoločne navedbe, ki jih je v zvezi z obna�anjem državljana Unije podala druga država članica.
A Member State when limiting the fundamental freedoms of Union citizens must itself verify and confirm whether the exercise of those freedoms poses a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
Kadar država članica omeji temelje svobo�čine državljanov Unije, mora sama preveriti in potrditi, ali uresničevanje teh svobod predstavlja resnično in dovolj hudo grožnjo za zahteve javnega reda, ki prizadene enega izmed ključnih družbenih interesov.
21It is clear, not only from the terms of Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38, but also the settled caselaw of the Court, that restrictions imposed on grounds of public policy and for the maintenance of public security cannot be based on grounds extraneous to the individual case or on considerations of general prevention.
Direktive 2004/38, temveč tudi iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča jasno izhaja, da omejitve, določene zaradi razlogov javnega reda in zaradi ohranjanja javne varnosti, ni mogoče utemeljiti z nepomembnimi razlogi posameznega primera ali preudarki splo�ne prevencije.
22In addition, Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38 provides that previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for adopting such restrictions.
22Poleg tega člen 27(2) Direktive 2004/38 določa, da predhodne kazenske obsodbe same po sebi �e ne predstavljajo razlogov za sprejetje tak�nih ukrepov. 23V
23According to settled caselaw, reliance by a national authority on the concept
19 – Sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004 v združenih zadevah Orfanopoulos in Oliveri, C-482/01 in C-493/01, Recueil, str. I-5257, točki 64 in 65.
In the present case nothing in the facts, as presented by the referring court, would
Nobeno izmed dejstev obravnavanega primera, kot jih je navedlo predložitveno
21 — In accordance with the principle of proportionality, national measures adopted on grounds of public policy or public security must be necessary and appropriate to attain the objective pursued.
21 – V skladu z načelom sorazmernosti morajo biti nacionalni ukrepi, sprejeti zaradi razlogov javnega reda ali javne varnosti, nujni in primerni za dosego zastavljenega cilja.
See, to that effect, Baumbast and R, cited in footnote 8, paragraph 91.
Glej v tem smislu v opombi 8 navedeno sodbo Baumbast in R, točka 91.
24 — See Case C-503/03 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-1097, paragraph 46; Orfanopoulos and Oliveri, cited in footnote 19, paragraph 66; Bouchereau, cited in footnote 7, paragraph 35; and Rutili, cited in footnote 22, paragraph 28.
24 – Glej sodbo z dne 31. januarja 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-503/03, ZOdl., str. I-1097, točka 46, ter v opombi 19 navedeno sodbo v zadevi Orfanopoulos in Oliveri, točka 66; v opombi 7 navedeno zadevo Bouchereau, točka 35, in v opombi 22 navedeno zadevo Rutili, točka 28.
23 — See, in particular, Case C-348/96 Calfa [1999] ECR I-11, paragraphs 22 to 24.
23 – Glej predvsem sodbo z dne 19. januarja 1999 v zadevi Calfa, C-348/96, Recueil, str. I-11, točke od 22 do 24.
C — Personal conduct
C – Osebno obnašanje
By the second part of its third question, the national court seeks clarification on whether a Member State may automatically impose pursuant to Article 27 of Direct- ive 2004/38 restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on grounds of ‘public policy’ and ‘public security’, without that person’s ‘personal conduct’ being examined.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim delom tretjega vpra�anja prosi za pojasnilo, ali sme država članica na podlagi člena 27 Direktive 2004/38 samodejno in brez presoje „osebnega obna�anja“ določiti omejitve za prosto gibanje ali prebivanje državljana Unije iz razlogov „javnega reda“ ali „javne varnosti“.
tend to indicate that Mr Jipa’s personal behaviour, present or past, give cause to fear that he might constitute a danger to the fundamental interests of society thereby necessitating the adoption of a measure by Romania limiting his right to freedom of movement pursuant to Article 18(1) EC on grounds of public policy or public security.
sodi�če, ne kaže na to, da bi bilo sedanje ali prej�nje osebno obna�anje G. Jipe povod za bojazen, da bi lahko predstavljal nevarnost za osnovne interese družbe, kar bi sililo Romunijo k sprejetju ukrepa, ki bi omejil njegovo pravico prostega gibanja iz člena 18(1) ES zaradi razlogov javnega reda ali javne varnosti.
Indeed, subject to verification by the referring court, it would appear from the order for reference and from the submissions of the Romanian Government that the Ministry regularly seeks from the Romanian courts, even following the accession of that Member State to the EU, on foot of the national provisions in question, orders limiting the right of Romanian citizens to leave that Member State and to travel to another Member State where those citizens have been repatriated on foot of a readmission agreement.
Iz predložitvene odločbe in iz pisnih stali�č, ki jih je predložila romunska vlada, izhaja, da ministrstvo na podlagi zadevnih nacionalnih določb redno, tudi po pristopu te države članice k EU, vlaga tožbe pri romunskih sodi�čih in predlaga, naj se romunskim državljanom, ki so bili vrnjeni na podlagi sporazuma o ponovnem sprejemu, omeji pravica zapustiti to državo in potovati v drugo državo članico, vendar mora to preveriti predložitveno sodi�če.
In my view, in the light of the reasoning outlined in points 40 to 44 above, a Member State may not automatically impose, pursuant to Article 27 of Directive 2004/38, restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on grounds of public policy and public security.
Po mojem mnenju, ob upo�tevanju preudarkov, navedenih zgoraj v točkah od 40 do 44, država članica v skladu s členom 27 direktive 2004/38 ne sme samodejno omejiti svobode gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije zaradi javnega reda in javne varnosti.
In accordance with Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38, Member States must, when imposing such restrictions and as a minimum sine qua non, examine the personal conduct of the person in question.
Država članica mora v skladu s čle nom 27(2) Direktive 2004/38, kadar določa take omejitve in kot minimalen sine qua non, presoditi osebno obna�anje zadevne osebe.
Moreover, Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38 unequivocally states that measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned.
Poleg tega člen 27(2) Direktive 2004/38 jasno določa, da ukrepi, sprejeti zaradi javnega reda ali javne varnosti, temeljijo izključno na osebnem obna�anju zadevnega posameznika.
I consider therefore that failure by a Member State to examine the personal conduct of a person when restricting, on grounds of public policy or public security, his right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States invalidates any justification of the restriction in question.
Zato menim, da – če država članica ne presodi osebnega obna�anja posameznika, kadar iz razlogov javnega reda ali javne varnosti omeji njegovo pravico prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic – je vsaka utemeljitev zadevne omejitve neveljavna.
I therefore consider that, in the absence of a specific finding by a Member State in relation to one of its own nationals, adopted in compliance with the principle of proportionality and based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned, that the exercise by him of his right pursuant to Article 18(1) EC and Article 4 of Direct- ive 2004/38 to leave his own Member State to travel to another Member State may pose a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, the Member State of origin may not impose, on grounds of ‘public policy’ or ‘public security’ as provided by Article 27 of that directive, restrictions on the freedom of movement of that person.
Zato menim, da če država članica izvora v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti in izključno na podlagi osebnega obna�anja zadevnega posameznika za enega izmed svojih državljanov izrecno ne ugotovi, da lahko njegovo uresničevanje pravice iz člena 18(1) ES in člena 4 Direktive 2004/38, da zapusti svojo državo članico zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico, pomeni resnično in dovolj hudo grožnjo za javni red, ki prizadene enega izmed ključnih družbenih interesov, potem ta država ne sme omejiti svobode gibanja te osebe zaradi razlogov „javnega reda“ ali „javne varnosti“, kot to določa člen 27 te direktive.
I consider accordingly, that the Court should answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa, as follows:
Sodi�ču zato predlagam, naj na vpra�anje, ki ga je zastavilo Tribunalul Dâmboviţa, odgovori:
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa (Romania), made by decision of 17 January 2007, received at the Court on 24 January 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-33/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Tribunalul Dâmboviţa (Romunija) z odločbo z dne 17. januarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 24. januarja 2007, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-33/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-33/07 generalni pravobranilec: J.
JIPA gives the following
JIPA izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Article 18 EC and Article 27 of 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.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 18 ES in člena 27 Direktive 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 [d]irektive 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/EGS (UL L 158, str. 77, in popravek UL L 229, str. 35).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings relating to an application submitted by the Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor — Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti (Ministry of Administration and Home Affairs — Directorate General for Passports, Bucharest, ‘the Minister’), seeking to obtain from the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa an order prohibiting Mr Jipa, a Romanian national, from travelling to Belgium for a period of up to three years.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v sporu v zvezi z zahtevo, ki jo je vložilo Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor – Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti (ministrstvo za upravo in notranje zadeve – Generalni direktorat za potne liste iz Bukare�te, v nadaljevanju: „ministrstvo“) in s katero je predlagalo, naj Tribunalul Dâmboviţa za največ tri leta prepove romunskemu državljanu G. Jipu, da potuje v Belgijo.
2008 — CASE C-33/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-33/07
Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38 provides:
Člen 4(1) Direktive 2004/38 določa:
‘Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport and their family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid passport shall have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State.’
„Brez vpliva na določbe o potnih listinah, ki se uporabljajo pri nadzorih državne meje, imajo vsi državljani Unije z veljavno osebno izkaznico ali potnim listom in njihovi družinski člani, ki niso državljani države članice in ki imajo veljavni potni list, pravico, da zapustijo ozemlje države članice zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico.“
Under Article 27(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38:
Člen 27(1) in (2) Direktive 2004/38 določa:
Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
Ob upo�tevanju določb tega poglavja lahko države članice omejijo svobodo gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov ne glede na državljanstvo, in sicer zaradi javnega reda, javne varnosti ali javnega zdravja. Na te razloge se ne da sklicevati iz ekonomskih ciljev.
Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted.’
Utemeljitve, ki niso neposredno povezane s podrobnostmi posameznega primera ali ki se nana�ajo na splo�no preventivo, niso dovoljene.“
‘The Government of Romania shall readmit to its territory, at the request of the Government of Belgium, the Government of Luxembourg or the Government of the Netherlands, without any formality, any person who does not satisfy or no longer satisfies the conditions for entry or residence applicable to the territory of Belgium, of Luxembourg, or of the Netherlands, where it is established or presumed that the person concerned is a Romanian national.’
„Vlada Romunije bo na zahtevo vlade Belgije, Luksemburga ali Nizozemske brez formalnosti ponovno sprejela vsako osebo, ki ne izpolnjuje ali ne izpolnjuje več pogojev za vstop ali prebivanje, ki veljajo na belgijskem, luksembur�kem ali nizozemskem ozemlju, če je dokazano ali se domneva, da je zadevna oseba romunski državljan.“
Article 38 of Law 248/2005 reads as follows :
Člen 38 zakona �t. 248/2005 določa:
(b) a person whose presence in the territory of a State would, by reason of the activities which that person carries out or might carry out, seriously harm the interests of Romania or, as the case may be, bilateral relations between Romania and that State.’
„Omejitev pravice romunskih državljanov, da se prosto gibljejo v tujini, se lahko izreče za največ tri leta in le: a) osebi, ki jo je država vrnila na podlagi sporazuma o ponovnem sprejemu, ki je bil sklenjen med Romunijo in to državo; b) osebi, katere prisotnost na ozemlju države bi zaradi dejavnosti, ki jih ta oseba opravlja ali bi jih morda opravljala, resno �kodila interesom Romunije ali, odvisno od primera, dvostranskim odnosom med Romunijo in to državo.“
Article 39 of Law 248/2005 provides:
Člen 39 zakona �t. 248/2005 določa:
‘In the situation provided for in Article 38(a), the measure shall be adopted at the request of the Directorate General for Passports, in relation to the State from which
„V primerih iz člena 38(a) sprejme ukrep na zahtevo Generalnega direktorata za potne liste, glede države, iz katere je bila oseba vrnjena, sodi�če, na območju katerega ima ta oseba prebivali�če, ali, če ta oseba živi v tujini, Tribunalul Bucureşti.“
The dispute in the main proceedings and the reference for a preliminary ruling
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
On account of his ‘illegal residence’ in Belgium, he was repatriated to Romania on 26 November 2006 under the terms of the Readmission Agreement.
26. novembra 2006 se je moral zaradi svojega „nezakonitega položaja“ v tej državi vrniti v Romunijo v skladu s sporazumom o ponovnem sprejemu.
The referring court emphasises that the Minister’s application does not specify the nature of the ‘illegal residence’ that led to Mr Jipa’s readmission.
Predložitveno sodi�če poudarja, da ministrstvo ni pojasnilo, kaj je menilo z „nezakonitim položajem“ G. Jipa, ki je privedel do njegovega ponovnega sprejema.
In those circumstances, the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Tribunalul Dâmboviţa prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
Must Article 18 EC … be interpreted as [precluding] the legislation in force in Romania (Articles 38 and 39 of [Law 248/2005]) [from placing] obstacles in the way of the free movement of persons?
Ali je treba člen [18 ES] […] razlagati tako, da veljavno romunsko pravo (člena 38 in 39 [zakona �t. 248/2005]) ovira prosto gibanje oseb?
2. (a) Do Articles 38 and 39 of [Law 248/2005], which prevent a person (who is a Romanian citizen and, now, a citizen of the Union) from moving freely in another State (in this case, a Member State of the European Union), constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons upheld by Article 18 EC?
2. a) Ali člena 38 in 39 [zakona �t. 248/2005], ki osebi (ki je romunski državljan in sedaj tudi državljan Evropske unije) preprečujeta, da bi se prosto gibala v drugi državi (v tem primeru v državi članici Evropske unije), pomenita oviro za prosto gibanje oseb iz člena 18 ES?
(b) May a Member State of the European Union (in this case Romania) place a limitation on the exercise of the right of freedom of movement of citizens within the territory of another Member State?
b) Ali sme država članica Evropske unije (v tem primeru Romunija) določiti oviro za uresničevanje pravice do prostega gibanja državljanov na ozemlju druge države članice?