natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With respect to family benefits such as those at issue in the present case, which are covered by Chapter 7 of that regulation, Article 73 provides that a worker subject to the legislation of a Member State is to be entitled, in respect of the members of his family who are residing in another Member State, to the family benefits provided for by the legislation of the former State, as if they were residing in that State.
17 družinskimi dajatvami, kot se obravnavajo v postopku v glavni stvari, ki sodijo pod poglavje 7 navedene uredbe, člen 73 določa, da je zaposlena oseba, za katero velja zakonodaja države članice, za svoje družinske člane, ki stalno prebivajo v drugi državi članici, upravičena do družinskih dajatev, ki jih določa zakonodaja prve države, kot če bi ti stalno prebivali v tej državi.
Thus, Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 confirms that, in accordance with the rule laid down in Article 13(2)(a) of that regulation, entitlement to family benefits in respect of members of the family is governed by the legislation of the Member State of employment of the worker. 16
Zato člen 73 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 v skladu s pravilom iz člena 13(2)(a) te uredbe potrjuje, da upravičenost do družinskih dodatkov za družinske člane ureja zakonodaja države članice, v kateri je delavec zaposlen. 16
It is therefore clear from Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, read in conjunction with Article 73 thereof, that under the system of coordination set up by that regulation, in a situation such as that in issue, in which the employed person and the members of his family are residing in a Member State other than the Member State of employment, the legislation applicable as regards entitlement to family benefits is the legislation of that latter State.
Iz povezanih določb člena 13 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 torej jasno izhaja, da v takem primeru, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, ko zaposlena oseba in člani njene družine stalno ne prebivajo v državi članici zaposlitve, velja na podlagi v tem členu določenega sistema koordinacije za upravičenost do družinskih dodatkov zakonodaja države zaposlitve.
17 — See for example McMenamin, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 14.
17 – Glej na primer v opombi 10 navedeno sodbo McMenamin, točka 14.
For similar reasoning with regard to Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 see Dodl and Oberhollenzer, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 49.
Glede podobnega razlogovanja v zvezi s členom 73 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 glej v opombi 5 navedeno sodbo Dodl in Oberhollenzer, točka 49.
16 — See, to that effect, Dodl and Oberhollenzer, cited in footnote 5, paragraphs 47 and 48.
18 – V tem smislu glej v opombi 12 navedeno sodbo Weide, točka 28.
18 — See to that effect Weide, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 28.19 — Cited in footnote 10.
16 – V tem smislu glej v opombi 5 navedeno sodbo Dodl in Oberhollenzer, točki 47 in 48.
By contrast, there is in my view nothing in the situation described by the referring court in the present case which would trigger the application of the legislation of the State of residence on the basis of the provisions against overlapping laid down in Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72.
Nasprotno pa v sporu o glavni stvari nobeno od dejstev, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, po mojem mnenju ne povzroči uporabe zakonodaje države stalnega prebivali�ča na podlagi določb proti prekrivanju, ki jih vsebujeta uredbi �t. 1408/71 in 574/72.
In particular, neither Ms Bosmann herself 24 nor a spouse exercises a professional
574/72, in razsodilo, da če oseba, ki vzdržuje otroke, natančneje zakonec osebe, ki je upravičenka iz člena 73 Uredbe �t.
Court therefore assessed the case in the light of the provisions against overlapping, laid down in Article 76 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 10 of Regulation No 574/72, and held that the exercise by a person having the care of children — and, in particular, by the spouse of the person entitled in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 — of a professional or trade activity in the Member State of residence of the children suspends the right to allowances in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 up to the amount of the allowances of the same kind actually paid by the Member State of residence. 20
1408/71, opravlja poklicno dejavnost v državi članici stalnega prebivali�ča otrok, upravičenost do dodatkov iz člena 73 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 miruje do vi�ine zneska enakih dodatkov, ki jih je država stalnega prebivali�ča dejansko plačala. 20
In consequence, contrary to the somewhat contrived view taken by the Commission, there is to my mind no overlapping of entitlements within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 which would lead to a reversal of priorities in favour of the Member State of residence and, in application of Article 10(1)(a) of the latter regulation, to payment of the full amount of German child benefit (the Commission’s argument on the latter point being that the sum of benefits paid in the State of employment is zero in the present case and, under that provision, the allowances are to be suspended only up to that amount).
Zato v nasprotju s kar nekoliko umetno prirejenim stali�čem, ki ga zagovarja Komisija, po mojem mnenju ne gre za prekrivanje zakonodaj v smislu uredb �t. 1408/71 in 574/72, ki bi spremenile pristojnost v korist države stalnega prebivali�ča in ki bi na podlagi člena 10(1)(a) zadnjenavedene uredbe povzročile plačilo celotnih nem�kih družinskih dodatkov (glede zadnje navedbe je Komisija zatrjevala, da je bil znesek dodatkov, ki so bili plačani v državi zaposlitve, v obravnavanem primeru enak nič, in da na podlagi te določbe dodatki mirujejo samo do vi�ine tega zneska.
The same can also be said of Dodl and
Enako velja za sodbi Dodl in Oberhol-
It follows that, in this case, Ms Bosmann is subject exclusively to the social security scheme established by the Netherlands legislation.
Iz tega izhaja, da v obravnavanem primeru za B. Bosmann velja izključno nizozemski sistem socialne varnosti.
20 — See as to that McMenamin, cited in footnote 10, paragraphs 15 and 27.
20 – Glej v zvezi s tem v opombi 10 navedeno sodbo McMe-namin, točki 15 in 27.
21 — See McMenamin, cited in footnote 10, paragraphs 18, 24 and 25.
21 – Glej v opombi 10 navedeno sodbo McMenamin, točke 18, 24 in 25.
22 — See Dodl and Oberhollenzer, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 60.
22 – Glej v opombi 5 navedeno sodbo Dodl in Oberhollenzer, točka 60.
24 — For an example of a case where a (self-employed) person is subject to the legislation of the Member State of residence on account of the fact that he pursues a part of his activity in the territory of that State, see order in Vogler, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 19.
24 – Kot primer zadeve, v kateri je za (samozaposleno) osebo veljala zakonodaja države članice njenega stalnega prebivali�ča, zato ker je del dejavnosti opravljala na ozemlju te države, glej v opombi 14 navedeni sklep Vogler, točka 19.
23 — See Weide, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 33.
23 – Glej v opombi 12 navedeno sodbo Weide, točka 33.
Once the legislation applicable to an employed person (the question of the applicable legislation logically precedes the question of entitlement) is determined in accordance with Regulation No 1408/71, that person’s entitlement to benefit is subject to that legislation, which can naturally vary from Member State to Member State due to the fact that under Community law, the social security systems are only coordinated, not harmonised. 29
Ko se na podlagi Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določi, katero zakonodajo je treba uporabiti za posamezno zaposleno osebo (logično je, da se pred vpra�anjem o upravičenosti do dodatkov najprej postavi vpra�anje o zakonodaji, ki jo je treba uporabiti), velja za vpra�anje glede morebitne upravičenosti te zaposlene osebe do dodatkov ta zakonodaja, ki se od države članice do države članice seveda lahko razlikuje, ker so v skladu s pravom Skupnosti ureditve socialne varnosti samo koordinirane, ne pa usklajene. 29
The question of competence is governed by Regulation No 1408/71.
Vpra�anje o pristojnosti je urejeno v Uredbi �t. 1408/71.
According to established caselaw, that regulation merely puts in place a system of coordination, which simply determines which legislation is applicable to various situations.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da je bil s to uredbo samo vzpostavljen sistem koordinacije, ki določa samo zakonodajo ali zakonodaje, ki se uporabljajo v različnih primerih.
25As the Court has pointed out on several occasions, its provisions do not themselves, as such, confer any entitlement to benefits. 26
25Kot je Sodi�če že večkrat navedlo, zgolj te določbe ne podeljujejo upravičenosti do družinskih dajatev. 26
Of course, the result of the determination of the legislation applicable in accordance with Regulation No 1408/71 may be that a migrant worker is found to have no right to a particular benefit, because he does not meet the conditions specified by that scheme.
Seveda lahko določitev zakonodaje, ki jo je treba uporabiti v skladu z Uredbo �t. 1408/71, povzroči, da delavec migrant sploh ni upravičen do neke dajatve, ker ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki jih določa sistem socialne varnosti, ki ga je treba uporabiti.
It should be emphasised in that regard, however, that that regulation is not intended to ensure as a general rule that employed persons to whom it applies are entitled to benefits, but rather to ensure that persons are not left without social security cover on the grounds that ‘there is no legislation applicable’. 30
Glede tega pa naj poudarim, da ni cilj te uredbe, da se na splo�no zagotovi, da so zaposlene osebe, za katere se uporablja, upravičene do dodatkov, ampak da se prepreči, da bi „zaradi zakonodaje, ki bi se zanje uporabila“, ostala brez socialne varnosti. 30
Such benefits are in fact granted on the basis of the relevant provisions of national law.
Družinske dajatve se dejansko podelijo na podlagi upo�tevnih nacionalnih določb. 27
27It is for the Member States to define the content of the social security system and, in particular, to lay down the substantive conditions for entitlement to benefits. 28
Države članice določijo vsebino svojega sistema socialne varnosti, zlasti vsebinske pogoje za upravičenost do dodatkov. 28
25 — See to that effect, for example, Hervein and Others, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 52.
25 – V tem smislu glej na primer v opombi 11 navedeno sodbo Harvein in drugi, točka 52.
Seen in that light, it should be noted with regard to the situation at issue in the main proceedings that, on closer inspection, there is no (negative) conflict of competence.
S tega stali�ča je treba opozoriti, da na podlagi natančnej�e preučitve dejanskega stanja v postopku o glavni stvari ni nobenega (negativnega) spora o pristojnosti.
27 — See García, cited in footnote 26, paragraph 29.
27 – Glej v opombi 26 navedeno sodbo García, točka 29.
28 — See in that regard Hervein and Others, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 53, and Kuusijärvi, cited in footnote 26, paragraph 29.
28 – Glej v zvezi s tem v opombi 11 navedeno sodbo Harvein in drugi, točka 53, in v opombi 26 navedeno sodbo Kuusijärvi, točka 29.
29 — See Hervein and Others, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 52.30 — See Kuusijärvi, cited in footnote 26, paragraph 28.
29 – Glej v opombi 11 navedeno sodbo Harvein in drugi, točka 52.30 – Glej v opombi 26 navedeno sodbo Kuusijärvi, točka 28.
In particular, the system of coordination under Regulation No 1408/71 does not determine the law applicable on the basis of the principle that persons who live or work in two or more countries should be subject to the legislation most favourable to them. 32
BOSMANN zakonodaje, ki jo je treba uporabiti, ne določa na podlagi načela, da bi morala za osebe, ki živijo ali delajo v dveh ali več državah, veljati zakonodaja, ki je zanje ugodnej�a. 32
Plainly, therefore, the problem here is not that there is no applicable legislation, nor that the legislation of several Member States could simultaneously and legitimately be regarded as applicable.
Zato v obravnavanem primeru očitno ni problematično to, da ne bi bilo zakonodaje, ki jo je treba uporabiti, niti da bi bilo mogoče �teti, da bi se hkrati upravičeno lahko uporabilo zakonodaje več držav članic.
It now remains to be examined, more specifically, whether that approach is, as submitted by Ms Bosmann, in breach of Article 39 EC and the principle of equal treatment.
Preizkusiti je �e treba, ali je to stali�če, kot trdi B. Bosmann, v nasprotju s členom 39 ES in načelom enakega obravnavanja.
Free movement and nondiscrimination
Pravica do prostega gibanja in prepoved diskriminacije
The root of the problem is, rather, a matter of substantive law and entitlement, in that Ms Bosmann does not qualify for child benefit in her Member State of employment on account of the fact that one of the conditions for entitlement to child benefit under Netherlands law (the age-require-ment relating to the children) is not fulfilled, whereas, in that regard, the German legislation would be more favourable in that child benefit is payable thereunder for children aged 18 and over.
Jedro problema zadeva bolj meritorno pravo in upravičenost; B. Bosmann namreč ne more zahtevati družinskih dodatkov v državi članici zaposlitve, kajti ne izpolnjuje enega od pogojev na podlagi nizozemske zakonodaje (starost otrok), medtem ko bi bila glede tega nem�ka zakonodaja ugodnej�a, ker se družinski dodatki izplačujejo tudi za otroke, stare 18 let in več.
As the Spanish Government, in particular, has emphasised in the present case, a person who, like Ms Bosmann, has exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers and has been employed in a Member State other than that of residence falls within the scope of Article 39 EC. 33
Kot v tem primeru poudarja predvsem �panska vlada, se za osebo, kot je B. Bosmann, ki uresničuje pravico do prostega gibanja delavcev in opravlja poklicno dejavnost v državi članici, ki ni država njenega stalnega prebivali�ča, uporablja člen 39 ES. 33
As is apparent from the foregoing considerations, however, that situation is not in principle such as to run counter to the system of conflict rules 31 provided for under
Kot izhaja iz navedenih ugotovitev, pa ta položaj načeloma ni tak, da bi nasprotoval sistemu kolizijskih pravil 31iz Uredbe �t. 1408/71 ali da bi mu odvzel polni učinek.
32 — See to that effect Hervein and Others, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 51.
32 – Glej v tem smislu v opombi 11 navedeno sodbo Harvein in drugi, točka 51.
31 — See, for example, Ten Holder, cited in footnote 7, paragraph 21.
31 – Glej na primer v opombi 7 navedeno sodbo Ten Holder, točka 21.
33 — See, inter alia, Öberg, cited in footnote 9, paragraph 11.
33 – Glej med drugim v opombi 9 navedeno sodbo Öberg, točka 11.
Article 39 EC — implemented, as far as concerns social security for migrant workers, by Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 — prohibits, first, overt discrimination based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social security schemes, as well as all covert forms of discrimination which, through the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in practice to the same result.
Člen 39 ES – katerega izvedbo, kar zadeva socialno varnost delavcev migrantov, pomeni člen 3(1) Uredbe �t.
34 from the fifth, sixth and tenth recitals, that regulation upholds the principle of equality of treatment of workers under the national legislation of the various Member States and seeks to guarantee equality of treatment for all workers occupied on the territory of a Member State as effectively as possible and not to penalise workers who exercise their right to free movement. 36
1408/71 – prvič, ne prepoveduje le očitne diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva upravičencev iz sistemov socialne varnosti, ampak tudi vse prikrite oblike diskriminacije, ki z uporabo drugih meril razlikovanja dejansko privedejo do enakih posledic. 34
Second, it is clear from well-established caselaw that the provisions of the Treaty relating to freedom of movement for persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community, and preclude measures which might place Community citizens at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State. 35
Drugič, iz ustaljene sodne prakse jasno izhaja, da sku�ajo določbe Pogodbe o prostem gibanju oseb državljanom Skupnosti olaj�ati opravljanje poklicnih dejavnosti vseh vrst na celotnem ozemlju Skupnosti in nasprotujejo ukrepom, ki bi lahko te državljane postavili v slab�i položaj, kadar bi želeli izvajati gospodarsko dejavnost na ozemlju druge države članice. 35
However, as I have already noted above, it is only by drawing up, as provided for by Article 42 EC, a system of coordination that Regulation No 1408/71 contributes to facilitating the exercise of the free movement of persons and the guarantee of equal treatment.
Vendar kot sem že prej navedel, Uredba �t. 1408/71 samo z določitvijo sistema koordinacije, kot ga določa člen 42 ES, prispeva k olaj�evanju uresničevanja pravice do prostega gibanja oseb in zagotavljanju enakega obravnavanja.
37Substantive and procedural differences between the social security systems of individual Member States, hence in the rights of persons working there, are left unaffected by the Treaty. 38
37 Na materialnopravne in procesnopravne razlike med sistemi socialne varnosti vsake države članice in torej na razlike med pravicami oseb, ki v njih delajo, pa člen 51 Pogodbe ne vpliva. 38
It should be noted in that regard that it is the objective of Regulation No 1408/71, as stated in the second and fourth recitals in the preamble, to ensure free movement of employed and selfemployed persons within the European Community, while respecting the special characteristics of national social security legislation.
Glede tega naj poudarim, da je cilj Uredbe �t. 1408/71 zagotoviti, kot je navedeno v njeni drugi in četrti uvodni izjavi, prosto gibanje zaposlenih in samozaposlenih oseb v Evropski skupnosti, ob hkratnem spo�tovanju značilnosti nacionalnih zakonodaj o socialni varnosti. Ta uredba v
Accordingly, as the Court has repeatedly held, the Treaty offers no guarantee to a worker that extending or transferring his activities to another Member State will have
Zato, kot je Sodi�če že večkrat razsodilo, Pogodba ES delavcu ne zagotavlja, da raz�iritev ali prenos njegovih dejavnosti v več kot eno državo članico ne bo imela posledic na področju socialne varnosti. Zaradi razlik
36 — See, inter alia, Case C-493/04 Piatkowski [2006] ECR I-2369, paragraph 19 and the caselaw cited.
36 – Glej med drugim sodbo z dne 9. marca 2006 v zadevi Piatkowski (C-493/04, ZOdl., str. I-2369, točka 19 in navedena sodna praksa).
37 — See Case C-68/99 Commission v Germany [2001] ECR I-1865, paragraphs 22 and 23.
37 – Glej sodbo z dne 8. marca 2001 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (C-68/99, Recueil, str. I-1865, točki 22 in 23).
35 — See, inter alia, Case C-318/05 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6957, paragraph 114; Öberg, cited in footnote 9, paragraph 14; and Bosman, cited in footnote 6, paragraph 94.
35 – Glej med drugim sodbo z dne 11. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (C-318/05, ZOdl., str. I-6957, točka 114); v opombi 9 navedeno sodbo Öberg, točka 14; in v opombi 6 navedeno sodbo Bosman, točka 94.
38 — See, for example, Case 41/84 Pinna [1986] ECR 1, paragraph 20.
38 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 15. januarja 1986 v zadevi Pinna (41/84, Recueil, str. 1, točka 20).
Given the disparities between the social security regime of the various Member States, such an extension or transfer may be to the worker’s advantage in terms of social security or not, according to circumstances. 39
BOSMANN med sistemi socialne varnosti v različnih državah članicah je lahko na področju socialne varnosti za delavca, odvisno od primera, taka raz�iritev ali prenos bolj ali manj ugodna ali neugodna. 39
It follows that, in the absence of harmonisation of social security legislation, certain restrictions on the freedom of movement — that is to say, restrictions which result from the persisting disparities between the social security schemes of the Member States and which are inherent in a system aimed merely at coordination — are not precluded by the provisions on the free movement of persons under the EC Treaty. 40
Ker zakonodaja na področju socialne varnosti ni usklajena, določbe Pogodbe ES o prostem gibanju oseb ne preprečujejo nekaterih omejitev prostega gibanja, to je omejitev, ki so posledica trajnih razlik med sistemi socialne varnosti držav članic in ki so značilne za sistem, katerega cilj je samo koordinacija nacionalnih zakonodaj. 40
To my mind, however, that disadvantage is to be ascribed to the substantive differences with regard to child benefit as between the social security schemes in Germany and the Netherlands concerning, in particular, the age of the children as a condition of entitlement.
Vendar pa menim, da je ta neugodnost posledica vsebinskih razlik glede družinskih dodatkov med nem�kim in nizozemskim sistemom socialne varnosti, kar zadeva med drugim na starost otrok vezan pogoj za pridobitev pravic.
Accordingly, it cannot as such give rise to an infringement of freedom of movement under the Treaty.
Glede na to taka neugodnost ne pomeni kr�itve pravice do prostega gibanja, ki jo zagotavlja Pogodba.
The same considerations must in fact apply to differences in treatment which arise merely on account of permissible differences between the social security legislation of the Member States, and in consequence they cannot be regarded as contrary to the principle of equality. 41
Prav to razlogovanje je treba uporabiti tudi za različno obravnavanje, ki je le posledica legitimnih razlik med zakonodajami o socialni varnosti različnih držav članic in ga torej ni mogoče �teti za tako, ki nasprotuje načelu enakosti. 41
39 — See, to that effect, Piatkowski, cited in footnote 36, paragraph 34, and Hervein and Others, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 51.
39 – Glej v tem smislu v opombi 36 navedeno sodbo Piatkowski, točka 34, in v opombi 11 navedeno sodbo Harvein in drugi, točka 51.
40 — It appears, however, from caselaw that this holds true only to the extent that the Community rules pursuant to Article 42 EC do not add to the disparities which already stem from the absence of harmonisation of national legislation: see in that regard, inter alia, Pinna, cited in footnote 38, paragraphs 20 and 21.
40 – Vendar iz te sodne prakse izhaja, da to drži samo, kolikor pravila Skupnosti, ki izhajajo iz člena 41 ES, ne določajo dodatnih razlik, ki so že posledica neusklajenosti nacio -nalnih zakonodaj: v zvezi s tem glej med drugim v opom -bi 38 navedeno sodbo Pinna, točki 20 in 21.
41 — For a similar reasoning of the Court with regard to direct taxation, see Case C-427/05 Porto Antico di Genova [2007] ECR I-9303, paragraph 20.
41 – Glede podobnega razlogovanja Sodi�ča v zvezi z neposredno obdavčitvijo glej sodbo z dne 25. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Porto Antico di Genova (C-427/05, ZOdl., str. I-9303, točka 20).
Second, as regards the question of discrimination raised by Ms Bosmann and the referring court, it is also clear that the coordination system established by Regulation No 1408/71 does not — and indeed cannot — guarantee equal treatment in all respects.
Bosmann in predložitveno sodi�če, je tudi jasno, da sistem koordinacije iz Uredbe �t. 1408/71 v vseh pogledih ne zagotavlja (in ne more zagotavljati) enakega obravnavanja.
As Advocate General Sharpston has pointed out in her Opinion in Case C-212/06, in so far as Article 13(2)(a)
Kot je poudarila gene -ralna pravobranilka Sharpston v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi C-212/06, ker člen 13(2)(a)
42 may also lead to different results in terms of the applicability of the law of the State of residence and hence in terms of entitlement to child-benefit in that State.
42 ti položaji privedejo tudi do različnih rezultatov glede uporabe zakonodaje države stalnega prebivali�ča in torej glede upravičenosti do družinskih dodatkov v tej državi.