natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
74 granted when envisaging freedom of movement for persons within the Community that internal obstacles within a single Member State such as the one at issue in the present case would have been abolished. 76
predvideli prosto gibanje oseb znotraj Skupnosti, da bodo izginile notranje ovire v državi članici, kot je ta v tem primeru. 76
In his Opinion in Lancry, Advocate General Tesauro noted the ‘paradox of a single market in which barriers to trade between Portugal and Denmark are prohibited, whilst barriers to trade between Naples and Capri are immaterial’.
V sodbi Lancry je generalni pravobranilec Tesauro v mnenju omenil „paradoks notranjega trga, na katerem so trgovinske ovire med Portugalsko in Dansko prepo- vedane, medtem ko trgovinske ovire med Neapljem in Caprijem niso pomembne“. 77Zaključil je, da re�itev tega paradoksa 78
It seems to me that, potentially at least, the same reasoning can be applied by analogy to freedom of movement for persons.
Vsaj verjetno se mi zdi, da lahko isto utemeljitev po analogiji uporabimo za prosto gibanje oseb.
Why should the provisions on freedom of movement for persons not likewise be read together with Article 14(2) EC?
Zakaj ne bi tudi določb o prostem pretoku oseb razlagali skupaj s členom 14(2) ES?
Indeed, unlike Article 25 EC, Article 39 EC does not explicitly refer only to crossborder situations.
Dejansko se člen 39 ES v nasprotju s členom 25 ES izrecno ne nana�a le na čezmejne položaje.
Rather, it stipulates that freedom of movement shall entail the right to move freely within the territory of Member States for the purpose of accepting offers of employment actually made.
Natančneje, določa, da prosto gibanje vsebuje pravico do svobode gibanja na ozemlju držav članic za sprejemanje danih ponudb za zaposlitev.
Advocate General Warner noted as much in Saunders, 75where he argued that the right flowing from Article 39 EC is ‘prima facie one of access to every part of every territory.
Generalni pravobranilec Warner je to omenil v sodbi Saunders 75, kjer je trdil, da je pravica iz člena 39 ES „prima facie dostop do vsakega dela, vsakega ozemlja.
That is as one would expect, since the free movement of persons has as its object to contribute to the establishment of a common market in which the nationals of all Member States may take part in economic activity anywhere on the territory of the Community …’ of internal tariff barriers, that would call into question the settled caselaw on purely internal situations, not only regarding goods, but also regarding services and persons generally.
To je v skladu s pričakovanji, saj je cilj prostega gibanja oseb prispevati k vzpostavitvi skupnega trga, na katerem lahko državljani vseh držav članic sodelujejo pri gospodarskih aktivnostih povsod na ozemlju Skupnosti […]“ ni naloga Sodi�ča in opozoril, da bi, če bi Sodi�če to storilo v zvezi z notranjimi tarifnimi ovirami, postavili pod vpra�aj ustaljeno sodno prakso v le notranjih položajih, ne le glede blaga, temveč tudi na splo�no, glede storitev in oseb.
76 — Indeed, at the moment the Treaties were drafted the formal process of federalisation had not yet started in Belgium.
76 – V času, ko so nastajale pogodbe, se v Belgiji �e ni začel proces formalne federalizacije države.
The obstacle at issue in the present case therefore did not exist and could not have existed.
Zadevna ovira v danem primeru zato ni obstajala, niti ni mogla obstajati.
However, several other Member States had different degrees of non-unitary structures, most notably Germany and its Länder.
Vendar ima nekaj držav članic različne stopnje neunitarnih struktur, najbolj opazno Nemčija s svojimi Länder.
Just as with Articles 23 and 25 EC, the Treaty draftsmen may well have taken it for
Prav s členoma 23 in 25 ES so avtorji Pogodbe verjetno �teli za gotovo, ko so
74 — Carbonati, cited in previous footnote, paragraphs 23 to 24.75 — Case 175/78 [1979] ECR 1129, at 1143.
78 – Generalni pravobranilec Mischo je v združenih zadevah Nederlandse Bakkerij Stichting (80/85 in 159/85, Recueil 1986, str. 3359, str.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT situations, internal or not, are deemed to have no link with Community law.
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE položaje, notranje ali ne, se �teje, da niso povezani s pravom Skupnosti.
Whilst the Court did not follow Advocate General Tesauro in that respect, it has not yet fully grappled with the implications, for freedom of movement for persons, of the conceptual justification it has advanced for the abolition of internal tariff barriers affecting free movement of goods.
Sodi�če v tem pogledu sicer ni sledilo generalnemu pravobranilcu Tesauru, vendar se �e ni povsem spoprijelo s posledicami konceptualne utemeljitve na prosto gibanje oseb, ki je napredovala do ukinitve notranjih tarifnih ovir, ki vplivajo na prosti pretok blaga.
An additional impetus for so doing may perhaps be found in the articles of the Treaty on citizenship of the Union.
Dodaten vzgib za tako ravnanje je mogoče najti v členih Pogodbe o državljanstvu Unije.
women provides a clear example of a provision applicable to situations that are normally wholly internal to a Member State.
Člen 141 ES o enakem plačilu za mo�ke in ženske je jasen primer določbe, ki se uporablja v položajih, ki so praviloma povsem notranji v državi članici.
The question whether the situation is internal is therefore conceptually distinct from the question whether there is a link with Community law.
Zato je treba vpra�anje, ali je položaj notranji, vsebinsko ločiti od vpra�anja, ali obstaja povezava s pravom Skupnosti.
Both questions must be answered in the light of the goals of the relevant Treaty provisions.
Na obe vpra�anji moramo odgovoriti ob upo�tevanju ciljev ustreznih določb Pogodbe.
True, the Court has held that citizenship of the Union, as established by Article 17 EC, is not intended to extend the material scope of the Treaty to internal situations which have no link with Community law. 79
Res je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da državljanstvo Unije, kot ga določa člen 17 ES, ni namenjeno �iritvi področja uporabe Pogodbe na notranje položaje, ki ni povezana s pravom Skupnosti. 79
It is true that in Uecker and Jacquet the Court explained its conclusion that Article 17 EC does not affect internal situations that have no link with Community law by recalling that Article 47 EU ‘provides that nothing in that Treaty is to affect the Treaties establishing the European Communities, subject to the provisions expressly amending those treaties’.
Res je v sodbah Uecker in Jacquet Sodi�če pojasnilo svoj zaključek, da člen 17 ES ne vpliva na notranje položaje, ki niso povezani s pravom Skupnosti, sklicujoč se na člen 42 EU, ki „določa, da ta Pogodba v ničemer ne vpliva na Pogodbo o ustanovitvi Evropskih skupnosti, ob upo�tevanju določb, ki izrecno spreminjajo te pogodbe“.
81The Court decided that ‘[a]ny discrimination which nationals of a Member State may suffer under the law of that State fall[s] within the scope of that law
81Sodi�če je odločilo, da „vsaka diskriminacija, ki jo utrpi državljan države članice po pravu
81 — The text of Article 47 EU itself refers to ‘amending’ rather than ‘expressly amending’.
79 – V opombi 65 navedena sodba Uecker in Jacquet, točka 23, ter sodba z dne 2. oktobra 2003 v zadevi Garcia Avello (C-148/02, Recueil, str.
79 — Uecker and Jacquet, cited in footnote 65, paragraph 23; Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I-11613, paragraph 26; and Case C-192/05 Tas-Hagen [2006] ECR I-10451, paragraph 23.
I-11613, točka 26) in sodba z dne 26. oktobra 2006, v zadevi Tas-Hagen (C-192/05 ZOdl., str. I-10451, točka 23).
As the Court first held in Grzelczyk 84and confirmed most recently in Commission v Netherlands, 85citizenship of the Union is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality. 86
Kot je Sodi�če najprej ugotovilo v sodbi Grzelczyk 84in nedavno potrdilo v sodbi Komisija proti Nizozemski 85, je državljan- stvo temeljni status državljanov držav članic, ki omogoča tistim, ki se nahajajo v enakem položaju, enako pravno obravnavo, ne glede na njihovo nacionalnost. 86
The Court has recently shown its willingness to draw the appropriate consequences in cases such as Tas-Hagen 87and Turpeinen 88and Commission v Netherlands.
Sodi�če je nedavno pokazalo pripravlje- nost, da oblikuje ustrezne posledice v sodbah, kot so Tas-Hagen 87 in Turpeine 88 ter Komisija proti Nizozemski 89.
89It seems to me that, at least poten- tially, the provisions on citizenship likewise challenge the sustainability in its present form of the doctrine on purely internal situations. 90
Zdi se mi, da določbe o državljanstvu vsaj potencialno izpodbijajo tudi vzdržnost, v sedanji obliki doktrine o samo notranjih položajih. 90
84 — Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, paragraph 31.85 — Case C-50/06 [2007] ECR I-4383, paragraph 32.
84 – Sodba z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Grzelczyk (C-184/99, Recueil, str. I-6193, točka 31).
With all respect, I am not convinced that Article 47 EU provides a conclusive answer on this point.
Z vsem spo�tovanjem, vendar nisem prepričana, da člen 47 EU zagotavlja prepričljiv odgovor na to točko.
A different and plausible reading of that provision is that its primary purpose is to protect the acquis communautaire from being affected by the provisions of, and decisions taken under, Title V and Title VI of the EU Treaty.
Drugačno in verjetno branje te določbe je, da je njen glavni namen zavarovati acquis communautaire pred vplivi določb Naslova V in Naslova VI Pogodbe EU ter odločitev, sprejetih na tej podlagi.
83I find it difficult to conceive that Article 47 EU was intended to protect certain parts of the existing EC Treaty from other parts, such as the articles on citizenship, that were inserted by amendment into that same Treaty by the Maastricht Treaty.
83 Težko sprejmem, da je bil člen 47 EU namenjen za zavarovanje določenih delov obstoječe Pogodbe ES pred drugimi deli, kot so členi o državljanstvu, ki so bili z dopolnili vključeni v to Pogodbo z Maastrichtsko pogodbo.
If that were the case, logic would dictate that all provisions inserted into the EC Treaty by the Maastricht Treaty are to be regarded as a separate genus of Community law that cannot interact with or affect the rest of Community law.
Če bi bilo to res, bi logika narekovala, da je treba vse določbe, vključene v Pogodbo ES z Maastrichtsko pogodbo, obravnavati kot posebno vrsto prava Skupnosti, ki ni povezana s preostalim pravom Skupnosti in nanj ne vpliva.
That seems clearly wrong.
To bi bilo popolnoma napačno.
82 — Uecker and Jacquet, cited in footnote 65, paragraph 23.
82 – V opombi 65 navedena sodba Uecker in Jacquet, točka 23.
87 — Cited in footnote 79.88 — Cited in footnote 44.89 — Cited in footnote 85.
I-5257, točka 65), v opombi 56 navedena sodba Collins, točka 61, v opombi 79 navedena sodba Garcia Avello, točka 22, sodba z dne 19. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Zhu in Chen (C-200/02, ZOdl., str.
90 — See S. O’Leary, The Evolving Concept of Community Citizenship, The Hague/London/Boston, Kluwer Law International, 1996.
I-9925, točka 25); z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Pusa (C-224/02, Recueil, str. I-5763, točka 16); z dne 7. julija 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Avstriji (C-147/03, ZOdl., str.
Discussing citizenship and free movement, the author argues inter alia that the provisions on citizenship are difficult to reconcile with reverse discrimination.
I-5969, točka 45); z dne 15. marca 2005 v zadevi Bidar (C-209/03, Zodl., str. I-2119, točka 31); z dne 12. julija 2005 v zadevi Schempp (C-403/03, ZOdl., str.
See also N. Nic Shuibhne, ‘Free Movement of Persons and the Wholly Internal Rule: Time to Move On?’, Common Market Law Review, 2002, p. 748.
I-6421, točka 15) in z dne 12. septembra 2005 v zadevi Španija proti Združenemu kraljestvu (C-145/04 ZOdl., str. I-7917, točka 74) ter sodba Turpeinen (navedena v opombi 44, točka 18).
83 — See, in that sense, P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union.
83 – Glej v tem smislu P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union. Legal and Constitutional Foundations, Oxford, OUP, 2004, str. 146; K.
But that article also speaks of a right of residence.
Toda ta člen govori tudi o pravici do prebivanja.
The group of persons concerned (Belgian citizens who have not exercised classic economic rights of freedom of movement), as well as being Belgian citizens, are also (and for that very reason) citizens of the Union (Article 17 EC).
Skupina zadevnih oseb (belgijski državljani, ki niso uveljavili klasičnih ekonomskih pravic do prostega gibanja) ima poleg belgijskega državljanstva (in prav zaradi tega) tudi državljanstvo Unije (člen 17 ES).
92There is no issue about the type of nationality that they hold, or whether it qualifies them to claim Union citizenship (unlike the situation in Kaur). 93
92 Ne gre za vrsto njihovega državljanstva ali za njihovo upravičenje do državljanstva Unije (v nasprotju s položaji v sodbi Kaur).
If it were to pursue this line of analysis, the Court would therefore have to decide whether on a proper construction, the ‘right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’ 94in Article 18 EC means ‘freedom to move and then reside’ (i.e., freedom to reside derives from/flows from prior exercise of the freedom to move) or whether it means ‘freedom both to move and to reside’ (so that it is possible to exercise the freedom to reside/go on residing without first exercising the freedom to move between Member States).
Če sledimo tej analitični liniji, bi Sodi�če moralo odločiti, ali ustrezna razlaga „pravice prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic“ 94 v členu 18 ES pomeni „prosto gibanje in nato prebivanje“ (tj. pravica do stalnega prebivali�ča izvira iz/je nadaljevanje predhodno uveljavljenega prostega gibanja) ali pomeni „prostost obeh, gibanja in prebivanja“ (tako da je mogoče uveljaviti prosto gibanje/se naseliti, ne da bi najprej uveljavili prosto gibanje med državami članicami).
By virtue of that citizenship, they have under EC law a right not only to move but also to reside anywhere within the territory of the Union (Article 18 EC).
Državljanstvo jim po pravu ES daje pravico ne le do prostega gibanja, temveč tudi do prebivanja na ozemlju Unije (člen 18).
The previous Article 18 caselaw has focused on moving.
Sodna praksa se je po prej�njem členu 18
The benefit to which the persons concerned wish to have access is one that, as I have indicated, falls equally squarely within Regulation No 1408/71.
Dajatev, do katere bi zadevne osebe želele imeti dostop, sodi, kot sem navedla, enako neposredno v obseg Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
It is therefore clearly within the scope of the Treaty ratione materiae.
Zato očitno sodi v obseg pogodbene ratione materiae.
Even if it were not, I recall that the Court was prepared to hold in Tas-Hagen that Article 18 might give access to a benefit through Member States’ obligation to exer-
Tudi če ne bi, ponavljam, da je bilo Sodi�če pripravljeno vztrajati v sodbi Tas-Hagen, da bi člen 18 ES lahko omogočal dostop do dajatve prek obveznosti države članice izvr�evati oblast v okviru
84, pointing out the self-contradictory character of aiming at or completing an internal market while continuing to attach importance to the crossing of national borders.
84, izpostavljajoč notranje nasprotujoč si karakter stremljenja k ali končnega oblikovanja notranjega trga, medtem ko se pozornost �e vedno posveča prehajanju nacionalnih meja.
92 — Tas-Hagen, cited in footnote 79, paragraph 18.93 — Case C-192/99 [2001] ECR I-1237.
93 – Sodba z dne 20. februarja 2001 v zadevi Kaur (C-192/99, Recueil, str. I-1237).
95 principles of EC law. It requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified.
96Pomembnost nedikrimina- pristojnosti na način, ki je v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
96The importance of nondiscrimination is underscored by the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union 97(Article 21) and by the legislative initiative of the Council in enacting two major directives, based on Article 13 EC, prohibiting various specific forms of discrimination.
95 cije je podprta z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije 97 (člen 21) ter z zakonodajno pobudo Sveta pri sprejemanju dveh direktiv, ki temeljita na členu 13 ES in prepovedujeta različne posebne oblike diskriminacije. 98
98Non-discrimination is also (of course) enshrined in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (Article I-4, Article II-81, and Article III-123).
Nediskriminacijo prav tako vsebuje (seveda) Pogodba o ustavi za Evropo (člen I-4, člen II-81 in člen III-123).
Discrimination is thus generally perceived to be repugnant and something that should be prohibited.
Na splo�no je diskriminacija zaznana kot nasprotujoča in nekaj, kar je prepovedano.
Conceptually, it seems unfortunate that a benefit which is, in my view, clearly part of ‘mainstream’ social security and which is available both to those who work in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital and live within those particular parts of the national territory and to those who work in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital and have exercised ‘classic’ economic rights of freedom of movement should by definition be unavailable to those who work in the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital but who live in the Frenchspeaking or Germanspeaking regions.
Konceptualno se mi zdi žalostno, da dajatev, ki je po mojem mnenju jasno del „redne“ socialne varnosti in je dostopna tistim, ki delajo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital in živijo na določenem delu nacionalnega ozemlja, ter tistim, ki delajo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali v dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital in so uveljavili „klasično“ ekonomsko pravico do prostega gibanja, po definiciji ne bi bila dostopna za tiste, ki delajo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji ali dvojezični regiji Bruselj-Capital, vendar živijo v francosko ali nem�ko govorečih regijah.
In its judgment in Kenny, 99the Court seems already to have suggested that, within the field of social security law, the principle of nondiscrimination may also prevent reverse discrimination. 100
V sodbi Kenny 99 se zdi, da je Sodi�če že nakazalo, da lahko na področju prava socialne varnosti načelo nediskriminacije prepreči povratno diskriminacijo. 100
Article 12 EC contains a broadly-drafted prohibition on discrimination in respect of what is covered by the Treaty.
Člen 12 ES vsebuje �iroko zasnovano prepoved diskriminacije v smislu tega, kar zajema Pogodba.
A further manifestation can be found in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Nadalje to lahko najdemo v členu 3(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
98 — Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p.
98 – Direktiva Sveta 2000/43/EC z dne 29. junij 2000, ki izvr�uje načelo enake obravnave med osebami ne glede na njihovo raso ali etnično pripadnost (UL L 180, str.
22); and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
22), in Direktiva Sveta 2000/78/EC z dne 27. novembra 2000, ki določa splo�ni okvir za enako obravnavo pri zaposlitvi in opravljanju poklica (UL L 303, str. 16).
99 — Case 1/78 [1978] ECR 1489, paragraphs 16 to 21.
99 – Sodba z dne 28. junija 1978 (1/78, Recueil., str. 1489, točke od 16 do 21).
95 — Tas-Hagen, cited in footnote 79, paragraphs 20 to 24; see also Case C-279/93 Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225, paragraphs 21 and 26; De Groot, cited in footnote 40, paragraph 75; Schempp, cited in footnote 86, paragraph 19; and Turpeinen, cited in footnote 44, paragraph 11.
95 – V opombi 79 navedena sodba Tas-Hagen, točke od 20 do 24, glej tudi sodbo z dne 14. februarja 1995 v zadevi Schumacker (C-279/93, Recueil, str. I-225, točki 21 in 26), v opombi 40 navedeno sodbo De Groot, točka 75, v opombi 86 navedeno sodbo Schempp, točka 19, in v opombi 44 navedeno sodbo Turpeinen, točka 11.
100 — See, in the same sense: C. Barnard, EC Employment Law.
100 – Glej v tem smislu C. Barnard, EC Employment Law. Third Edition, Oxford, OUP, 2006, str. 213 in 214, in D. Wyatt, Social security benefits and discrimination by a Member State against its own nationals, European Law Review, 1978, str. od 488 do 494.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT residing in the Frenchspeaking or Germanspeaking regions or in their home Member State) (b) to Belgians who have already exercised a right of freedom of movement, to avoid a ‘chilling’ effect on the exercise of those rights. 102
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE vajo v francosko ali nem�ko govoreči regiji ali v svoji domači državi članici), (b) Belgijcem, ki so že uveljavili pravico do prostega gibanja, da bi se izognili učinku „zamrznitve“ pri uveljavljanju teh pravic. 102
There, a Netherlands national resident in a nonmember country had the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament held in the Netherlands whereas a Netherlands national residing in the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba had no such right.
V tem primeru je imel državljan Nizozemske s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi nečlanici pravico voliti in biti izvoljen na volitvah v Evropski parlament, ki so potekale na Nizozemskem, medtem ko državljan Nizozemske, ki je imel stalno prebivali�če na nizozemskih Antilih ali Arubi, ni imel te pravice.
The Court held that whilst, in the current state of Community law, Member States could define the conditions for exercising the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament by reference to residence in the territory in which the elections were held, the principle of equal treatment prevented the criteria chosen from resulting in different treatment of nationals who were in comparable situations, unless that difference in treatment was objectively justified.
Sodi�če je menilo, da lahko glede na trenutno stanje prava Skupnosti države članice določijo pogoje za izvr�evanje aktivne in pasivne volilne pravice na volitvah za Evropski parlament glede na stalno prebivali�če na ozemlju, na katerem potekajo volitve, medtem ko načelo enake obravnave preprečuje, da bi izbrani kriteriji vodili v različno obravnavo državljanov, ki so v primerljivih položajih, razen če je različno obravnavanje objektivno utemeljeno.
The Court held that it was not. 101
Sodi�če je menilo, da to ni bilo tako. 101
Thus, the combination of the application of national law and the application of EC law produces a situation in which the only category of persons residing in the Frenchspeaking or Germanspeaking region who are not able to access the Flemish care benefit are Belgians who have not exercised a traditional right of freedom of movement, but who have exercised (and continue to exercise) a right to reside in a particular part of Belgium.
Kombinacija uporabe nacionalnega prava in prava ES privede torej v položaj, v katerem so edina kategorija oseb, ki bivajo v francosko ali nem�ko govoreči regiji brez dostopa do flamskih zavarovalnih dajatev, Belgijci, ki niso uveljavili tradicionalne pravice do prostega gibanja, vendar so uveljavili (in �e uveljavljajo) pravico do bivanja v določenem delu Belgije.
Furthermore, the difference in treatment between such persons on the one hand, and nationals of other Member States and Belgians who have exercised classic economic rights of freedom of movement, on the other hand, arises precisely because EC law intervenes to prevent adverse treatment of the latter group. 103 If one then applies the test that is familiar from the discrimination
Še več, različno obravnavanje teh oseb na eni strani ter državljanov drugih držav članic in Belgijci, ki niso uveljavili klasične ekonomske pravice do prostega gibanja, na drugi strani, nastane prav zato, ker pravo ES posreduje, da bi se preprečila neugodna obravnava slednje skupine 103. Ta bi prav tako imela dostop