natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court held that there had been a breach of Community law and explained that that breach was twofold: on the one hand, there was an infringement of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, where the persons liable to unlimited taxation pursued an economic activity; on the other hand, there was an infringement of Article 17 EC where such persons were not economically active.
Sodi�če je v tem videlo neizpolnitev obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti, vendar je poudarilo, da je kr�itev dvojna: po eni strani je �lo za kr�itev členov 39 ES in 43 ES, če so zavezanci izvajali gospodarsko dejavnost, po drugi strani pa za kr�itev člena 17 ES, če zadevna oseba ni izvajala nobene profitne dejavnosti 21.
21In his Opinion in those proceedings, Advocate General Bot merely concluded that there had been an infringement of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.
Generalni pravobranilec Bot v sklep- nih predlogih v tej zadevi ugotavlja samo že navedeno kr�itev členov 39 ES in 43 ES.
The Advocate General took the view that it was not necessary to consider the effects which the provisions on citizenship would have in a similar situation.
Meni, da ni treba obravnavati posledic, ki jih imajo v takem primeru predpisi o državljanstvu 22.
22 The Court did not share that view.
Sodi�če ni upo�tevalo njegovega mnenja.
In the light of that approach in caselaw, it is no surprise that decisions of the Court concerning the free movement of workers are increasingly based on Articles 17 EC and 18 EC.
Na podlagi tega pristopa sodne prakse ni presenetljivo, da se odločitve Sodi�ča o gibanju delavcev vedno pogosteje opirajo na člena 17 ES in 18 ES.
A number of Advocates General employ a more orthodox approach to maintain that only Article 39 EC is applicable for the purposes of resolving disputes relating to employed persons.
Nekateri generalni pravobranilci, ki uporabljajo ortodoksnej�o tehniko, menijo, da se samo člen 39 ES uporab- lja za re�itev težav, ki zadevajo zaposlene osebe.
However, the Court has raised the possibility of applying the provisions on citizenship and the provisions on the free movement of workers simultaneously.
Vendar je Sodi�če potrdilo možnost hkratne uporabe načela državljanstva in načel, ki urejajo gibanje delavcev.
To my mind, that approach is consistent with the caselaw formulated in that area of the law but the outcome reached is not always clear or convincing.
Menim, da je ta pogled skladen s sodno prakso, izrečeno na tem pravnem področju, vendar doseženi rezultat ni vedno jasen in prepričljiv.
That shortcoming is evident in an analysis of a number of recent judgments of the Court.
To pomanjkanje je očitno, če pogledamo nekaj novej�ih odločitev Sodi�ča.
Commission v Germany 20concerned a subsidy for real property granted to persons
Zadeva Komisija proti Nemčiji 20se je nana�ala na subvencijo za stanovanja,
In Gaumain-Cerri and Barth, 23the Court analysed a residence requirement for entitlement to a social security benefit for persons caring for a reliant person and found that Regulation No 1408/71 and accordingly the secondary legislation in the field of social security were applicable.
V sodbi Gaumain-Cerri 23je bilo pri preučitvi pogoja stalnega prebivali�ča za to, da osebe, ki pomagajo osebi, ki potrebuje pomoč in postrežbo, pridobijo socialno pomoč, potrjeno, da se uporablja Uredba �t.
However, in view of the uncertainties concerning the status of the persons concerned, whose provision of services to reliant persons did not fall exactly within the Community definition of ‘worker’, the Court had to extend the provisions mater- ial to the case.
1408/71 in posledično sekundarna zakonodaja na področju socialne varnosti; vendar je bilo treba zaradi dvomov o kvalifikacijah zadevnih oseb, katerih storitve, opravljene za osebe, ki potrebujejo pomoč in postrežbo, ne ustrezajo natančno skupnostnemu pojmu „delavca“, raz�iriti pravila, ki so bila predmet te zadeve.
Before embarking on a classification which would have an effect on the resolution of the case, the Court held that the residence requirement was unlawful, ‘… without it being necessary to take a position … on the issue of whether the third parties concerned are to be regarded as workers
Sodi�če je pred obravnavo kvalifikacij, ki bi morale vplivati na re�itev, potrdilo nezakonitost pogoja o stalnem prebivali�ču, „ne da bi se bilo treba opredeliti glede tega,
21 — Commission v Germany (cited in footnote 20), paragraphs 29 and 30.
22 – Sklepni predlogi z dne 28. junija 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba z dne 17. januarja 2008, navedena v opombi 20.
22 — Opinion in Commission v Germany (cited in footnote 20).23 — Joined Cases C-502/01 and C-31/02 [2004] ECR I-6483.
23 – Sodba z dne 8. julija 2004 (C-502/01 in C-31/02, ZOdl., str. I-6483).
20 — Case C-152/05 [2008] ECR I-39.
20 – Sodba z dne 17. januarja 2008 (C-152/05, ZOdl., str. I-39).
PETERSEN within the meaning of Article 39 EC or of Regulation No 1408/71.
PETERSEN ali ima zadevni tretji lastnost delavca v smislu člena 39 ES ali Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
Article 18 EC, which enshrines the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, is drafted in similarly broad terms.
Člen 18 ES se lahko razlaga prav tako �iroko, ker določa pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju vseh držav članic.
That article, which is aimed essentially at individuals who assert rights against Member States other than their State of nationality, has gradually become entwined with Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC.
To pravilo, ki je namenjeno predvsem državljanom, ki uveljavljajo pravice v drugih državah članicah in ne v državi, katere držav -ljani so, se je postopno vključilo v člene 39 ES, 43 ES in 49 ES.
It is immaterial, therefore, whether those who provide services to reliant persons are ‘workers’, since protection under Community law flows from Article 39 EC (and from the provisions of secondary law which implement it) or from Article 17 EC.
Torej ni pomembno, ali so osebe, ki opravljajo storitve za osebe, ki potrebujejo pomoč in postrežbo, „delavci“, ker naj bi varstvo na podlagi zakonodaje Skupnosti izhajalo iz člena 39 ES (in določb sekundarne zakonodaje o izvajanju tega člena) ali člena 17 ES.
As in Commission v Germany, the Court did not accept the view of the Advocate General, who, after a detailed discussion of the employment status of persons who provide care services, concluded that they are ‘workers’ within the meaning of Community law. 25
Sodi�če kot v sodbi Komisija proti Nemčiji ni upo�tevalo trditve generalnega pravobranilca, ki je po podrobni predstavitvi delovnega okvira oseb, ki pomagajo osebam, ki potrebujejo pomoč in postrežbo, menil, da so „delavci“ v smislu prava Skupnosti 25.
In Baumbast and R, the Court held that a German national who had exercised the right of freedom of movement in the United Kingdom was entitled to maintain his residence in that State under Article 18 EC.
V sodbi Baumbast je bilo Nemcu, ki je uveljavljal pravico do prostega gibanja v Združenem kraljestvu, dovoljeno ohraniti stalno prebivali�če v tej državi članici na podlagi člena 18 ES 26.
26In Trojani, the Court found that if a French national residing temporarily in Belgium was not economically active (a matter which it left in the hands of the national court), he was still entitled to the protection afforded by Article 18 EC.
Sodi�če je v zadevi Trojani menilo, da če Francoz, ki občasno prebiva v Belgiji, ni upravičen do statusa gospodarskega subjekta (vpra�anje, ki ga je moralo presoditi nacionalno sodi�če), je lahko vsekakor upravičen do varstva iz člena 18 ES 27.
27 The judgment in Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz went further in that regard and held that the application of Article 49 EC or Article 18 EC was the responsibility of the national court, although the Court ruled that there had been an infringement of both provisions.
Sodba Schwarz in Gootjes-Schwartz je nadaljevala v tej smeri in nacionalnemu sodi�ču prepustila skrb, da uporabi člen 49 ES ali člen 18 ES, vendar je v obeh primerih potrdila obstoj kr�itve 28.
28In short, although there is a certain amount of conceptual sterility when it comes to differentiating between the scope of the articles on citizenship and the articles on freedom of
Skratka, kljub določeni konceptualni čistosti pri ločevanju področij uporabe členov o državljanstvu in prostem
The cases cited concerned individuals who invoked provisions of Community law against their States of nationality, thereby justifying the application of Article 17 EC,
Navedene sodbe so zadevale posamez -nike, ki so se sklicevali na pravila Skupnosti v državi, katere državljani so bili, in tako utemeljevali uporabo člena 17 ES, v katerega
24 — Gaumain-Cerri and Barth (cited in footnote 23), paragraphs 32 and 33.
24 – Sodba Gaumain-Cerri, navedena v opombi 23, točki 32 in 33.
26 — Judgment in Baumbast and R (cited in footnote 9).27 — Case C-456/02 Trojani [2004] ECR I-7573.
27 – Sodba z dne 7. septembra 2004 v zadevi Trojani (C-456/02, ZOdl., str. I-7573).
25 — Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in Gaumain-Cerri and Barth (cited in footnote 23).
25 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Tizzana z dne 2. decembra 2003 v zadevi Gaumain-Cerri (sodba, navedena v opombi 23).
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-228/07 movement, the distinction does not give rise to significant practical differences.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-228/07 gibanju, to razlikovanje ne povzroča velikih praktičnih razlik.
The Court is advancing steadily towards achieving a uniform level of protection in the field of the free movement of persons, using the provisions on citizenship as a helpful tool.
Sodi�če odločno napreduje k uvedbi enotne ravni varstva na področju prostega gibanja oseb, tako da uporablja dragoceni instrument pravil o državljanstvu.
the Member States inserted into the founding Treaties in 1992.
1992 vključile v ustanovne pogodbe.
There are two driving forces behind that evolution, which provide criteria for endowing the caselaw with coherence and pragmatic authority: on the one hand, the emergence of the fundamental rights and, on the other, the creation of a democratic identity in the European political community.
Ta razvoj izhaja iz dveh gonilnih idej, ki zagotavljata merila, ki v sodno prakso vna�ajo skladnost in pragmatično moč: po eni strani pojav temeljnih pravic in po drugi strani oblikovanje demokratične identitete v evropski politični skupnosti.
In those circumstances, it is appropriate to summarise a number of considerations with a view to formulating a theoretical basis which will enable the resolution of this case and provide clear guidelines for future ones.
V teh okoli�činah je treba povzeti nekatera razmi�ljanja, da lahko pripravimo dogmatično podlago, ki olaj�uje re�itev te zadeve in ponuja jasna merila za prihodnje zadeve.
The preliminary ruling proceedings combine the specific features of a particular case with the requirements of caselaw which has been laid down for a Community of 500 million citizens who seek responses that are both individual and universal.
Predhodni postopek usklajuje samosvojost konkretnega primera z zahtevami sodne prakse, veljavne za skupnost petsto milijonov prebivalcev, ki zahtevajo individualne in univerzalne odgovore.
With that aim in mind, I shall present to the Court a methodology for the provisions on citizenship which will resolve Mr Petersen’s case and provide guidance for many of the cases which will arise in the Union over the coming years.
S tem ciljem Sodi�ču predlagam metodologijo na področju pravil o državljanstvu, ki re�uje spor J. Petersena in ponuja usmeritev za �tevilne spore, ki bodo nastali v Uniji v prihodnjih letih.
The movement of free citizens in a Union governed by the rule of law
Gibanje svobodnih državljanov v Uniji prava
At the outset, the concept of citizenship of the Union, as it is framed in Part Two of the EC Treaty, provided a basis for the provisions guaranteeing freedom of movement which was more symbolic than real.
Na začetku je pojem evropskega držav -ljanstva, kot obstaja v drugem delu Pogodbe ES, zagotavljal bolj simbolično kot dejansko kritje določbam, ki zagotavljajo prosto gibanje.
The cre -ation of procedures for participating in local democratic processes and for diplomatic and consular protection provided a status with a tendency to be confined to Articles 17 EC to 22 EC.
Uvedba podrobnih pravil za sodelovanje v lokalnih demokratičnih postopkih ali diplomatska in konzularna za�čita so zagotavljale status, ki naj bi se opredelil v členih od 17 ES do 22 ES 29.
29 However, the Court noticed that the freedoms of movement suffered from serious restrictions.
Vendar je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da za prosto gibanje veljajo hude omejitve.
Frequently, those shortcomings were reflected in clear injustices for the beneficiaries of the rights conferred by Community law.
Te pomanjkljivosti se pogosto kažejo v očitnih nepravičnostih za upravičenca do pravic, ki jih podeljuje pravni red Skupnosti.
Such well-known cases as Martínez Sala, Baumbast and R, and Carpenter placed the Court in a difficult situation: if the Court applied strictly the provisions on freedom of movement, it would achieve an outcome that
Sodi�če je bilo v tako znanih zadevah, kot so Martínez Sala, Baumbast ali Carpenter, postavljeno pred resno dilemo: če bi strogo uporabljalo pravila o prostem gibanju, bi ustvarilo nevzdržen položaj za zadevne osebe, ki so zahtevale pravico; če pa bi nasprotno varstvo raz�irilo prek teh pravic, bi lahko raz�irilo področje uporabe pogodb
The Court has prompted a significant change in the definition of citizenship which
Sodi�če je dalo odločilni zagon konceptu državljanstva, ki so ga države članice leta
31That definition calls for the freedoms of movement to be reinterpreted where the individuals who are entitled to those freedoms hold the status conferred in Articles 17 EC and 18 EC.
Ta pomen zahteva ponovno razlago svobode gibanja, če imajo njeni upravičenci status, priznan v členih 17 ES in 18 ES.
would be untenable for those seeking justice; however, if the Court increased the protection beyond those freedoms, it would extend the scope of the Treaties towards an uncertain destination.
na neopredeljeno področje. Da bi se izognilo obema možnostma, je Sodi�če uporabilo pojem državljanstva iz členov 17 ES in 18 ES, da bi svobo�činam dalo bolj izbrano vsebino 30.
Thus, the free movement of persons becomes the movement of free citizens.
Tako se prosto gibanje oseb spremeni v gibanje svobodnih državljanov.
That change of perspective is not insignificant, because, rather than falling on the concept of movement, the focus of attention has shifted to the individual.
Sprememba perspektive, ki se ne zdi nepomembna, ker ni več pomembno gibanje, ampak posameznik.
I believe that that new dialectic must be interpreted as follows: the concept of citizenship, which entails a legal status for individuals, means that the Member States must pay particular attention to individual legal situations.
Mislim, da je treba to novo dialektiko raz�iriti tako: pojem državljanstva, ki zajema pravni status posameznika, zahteva, naj države članice posvetijo posebno pozornost individualnemu pravnemu položaju.
The fundamental rights play a vital role in the performance of that task.
Pri tem so bistvene temeljne pravice.
As an integral part of the status of citizenship, the fundamental rights strengthen the legal position of the individual by introducing a decisive aspect for the purposes of substantive justice in the case concerned.
Temeljne pravice, ki so sestavni del statusa državljana, krepijo pravni položaj osebe, saj uvajajo odločilno razsežnost za stvarno pravico v zadevi.
Holding their fundamental rights as prerogatives of freedom, citizens of the Union afford their claims greater legitimacy. Moreover,
Evropski državljan, ki nosi svoje temeljne pravice kot posebne pravice do svobode, daje svojim zahtevam vi�jo raven legitimnosti.
While the fundamental rights introduce an individual dimension, the democratic element provides greater protection
Temeljne pravice uvajajo individualno razsežnost, demokratični element pa posveča večjo pozornost pogojem pripadnosti
Indeed, the systematic aim of the principle of nondiscrimination could lead, paradoxically, to unfair outcomes.
Logika diskriminacije ima namreč lahko paradoksalno nepravične posledice.
It is precisely that situation which the Court has sought to avoid in its most recent case-law.
Prav temu se je Sodi�če hotelo izogniti v najnovej�i sodni praksi.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-228/07 the Union.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-228/07 državljanstva 33.
33In caselaw, the importance of the responsibilities and obligations of States of origin is noticeably waning in favour of the responsibilities and obligations of host States.
Še več, čeprav to postaja breme za državno blagajno, morajo države zagotavljati enake storitve vsem evropskim državljanom, ne glede na njihovo narodnost in kraj bivanja, če dokažejo, da opravljajo dejavnosti, ki so primerljive dejavnostim posameznikov, ki
34 Therefore, a Member State may not deprive a citizen of the Union of his rights on the ground that he does not officially reside on its territory if that individual carries on his personal and professional life inside that State’s borders.
33 – Najreprezentativnej�i primer tega razdora z državnimi elementi demokratične povezave je Sodi�če ponudilo v sodbi z dne 12. septembra 2006 v zadevi Španija proti Zdru -ženemu kraljestvu (C-145/04, ZOdl., str.
35Similarly, even though it may become a burden on public funds, States to the conditions for membership of a political community.
Sodi�če je potrdilo zakonitost tega ukrepa z obsežno utemeljitvijo, saj je menilo, da vez državljana z državo, katere državljan je, ne izključuje drugih izrazov demokratične udeležbe v drugih političnih skupnostih.
Although the freedoms of movement were restricted to the removal of barriers and the prohibition of discrimination, it was understood that an individual who exercised freedom of movement belonged to a community of origin, in other words, the State of his nationality.
Sodi�če je v točki 78 navedene sodbe kategorično potrdilo, da „določitev oseb, ki imajo pravico voliti in biti voljene na volitvah v Evropski parlament, sodi v pristojnost vsake države članice ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti in da členi 189 ES, 190 ES, 17 ES in 19 ES ne nasprotujejo temu, da države članice to pravico voliti in biti voljen priznajo določenim osebam, ki so tesno povezane z njimi in ki niso njihovi državljani ali državljani Unije, ki prebivajo na njihovem ozemlju“.
That factor alone would be sufficient to justify responsibility for individuals falling on their respective States, thereby giving rise to policies of solidarity which are restricted to those who contribute resources and participate in the structure of the State. 32
O stanju tega vpra�anja na nacionalni ravni, kjer lahko demokratični proces zajema osebe, ki niso poobla�čene za zastopanje, in obratno glej Presno Linera, M. A., El derecho de voto, Tecnos, Madrid, 2003, str. od 155 do 172.
On the state of the issue at national level, where the democratic process may include those who should not hold the right of re presentation and vice versa, see Presno Linera, M.A., El derecho de voto, Tecnos, Madrid, 2003, pp. 155 to 172.
Sodi�če je preseglo to državno vizijo, ko je v pravni red Skupnosti vključilo občutljivost, ki je bolj prilagojena naravi evropskega
34 — It is appropriate to point out that the United States Supreme Court took the same approach throughout a century of caselaw, most notably after the adoption of the 14th amendment, which, as is well known, derives its subjectmatter from Dred Scott v Sandford (60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856)) and from the subsequent Civil War which bathed the young Federation of States in blood between 1861 and 1865.
34 – Treba je opozoriti, da je vrhovno sodi�če Združenih držav sprejelo isto idejo v stoletni sodni praksi, zlasti od sprejetja 14. amandmaja, katerega besedilo, kot vemo, izhaja iz sodbe Dred Scott proti Sandfordu (60 U.S. [19 How.] 393 [1856]) in državljanske vojne, v kateri je nato prelivala kri mlada konfederacija v letih 1861–1865. V navedenem amandmaju je določeno, da „all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States“.
It is significant that even now, nearly a century and a half after the adoption of that provision, the United States Supreme Court is still fighting against State laws which provide that those who seek to enforce a right must satisfy residence requirements.
Pomembno je, da �e danes, skoraj stoletje in pol po sprejetju te določbe, vrhovno sodi�če �e naprej ravna v nasprotju z državnimi predpisi, ki določajo pogoje za bivanje posameznikov, ki želijo uveljavljati pravico.
In the recent judgment in Saenz v Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), the Supreme Court declared that a Californian law which prohibited people who had not lived in the state for more than 12 months from claiming a social security benefit was unconstitutional.
Vrhovno sodi�če je v nedavni sodbi Saenz proti Roeu, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), razglasilo za protiustavnega kalifornijski zakon, ki preprečuje dostop do socialnih storitev osebam, ki v tej državi niso prebivale več kot dvanajst mesecev.
With two individual votes against, the Supreme Court took the view that the measure concerned was incompatible with the right of every citizen of the United States to freedom of movement.
Vrhovno sodi�če je z dvema glasovoma proti menilo, da gre za ukrep, ki je nezdružljiv s svobodo gibanja vsakega državljana unije. V zvezi s tem glej, čeprav je bilo izraženo pred sprejetjem zgoraj navedene odločitve, znano mnenje Warren, E., „Fourteenth Amendment: Retrospect and Prospect“, Schwartz, B. (ur.), The Fourteenth Amendment, New York University Press, New York, 1970, str.
32 — An aspect which leaves its own mark on social policy, as a special force for the integration of individuals.
32 – Razsežnost, ki se v socialni politiki izraža s posebnim profilom kot posebno gibalo vključevanja oseb. Hantrais, L., Social policy in the European Union, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1995, str. od 34 do 42, in Majone, G., „The EC Between Social Policy and Social Regulations“, Journal of Common Market Studies 31, �t. 2, 1993.
36That principle is strengthened where a citizen of the Union proves that he is not a financial burden on the host State, regardless of his source of income or the method used to obtain citizenship. 37
Ta vidik je �e močnej�i, če evropski državljan dokaže, da ni finančno breme za državo gostiteljico, ne glede na svoj vir prihodkov ali način, uporabljen za pridobitev državljanstva 37.
Accordingly, the emergence of the fundamental rights, on the one hand, and the link with the State of which the individual concerned effectively is part, on the other, imbue the caselaw with a constitutional dimension.
Zato pojav temeljnih pravic po eni strani in vez z državo, ki dejansko vključuje držav -ljana, po drugi strani prežemata sodno prakso ustavnega značaja.
That serves to protect the status of the free citizen in the democratic sphere of the Union, an aspect which is enshrined in the reality of a Union governed by the rule of law in which legal provisions, especially the ones in the Treaties, guarantee individual freedom and democratic equality. 40
Tako se vzpostavlja položaj svobodnega državljana v demo -kratičnem okolju Unije, kar potrjuje stvarnost Unije prava, kjer pravila, in zlasti pravila pogodb, zagotavljajo individualno svobodo in demokratično enakost 40.
Freedoms and citizenship: criteria for coexistence
Svobo�čine in skupnega življenja
38 When the ties of identity with a single State are broken so that they may be shared with others, a connection is woven in a wider sphere.
Torej pojem pripadnosti v vsebinskem pomenu brez vsakr�ne administrativne zahteve upravičuje vključitev evropskega državljana v politično skupnost 38.
As a result, the notion of European belonging is created, which the Treaties seek to strengthen.
S tem ko prekinemo vezi z eno samo državo, da jih navežemo z drugimi, stkemo vez v �ir�em prostoru.