natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While, under Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, a person employed in the territory of one Member State is to be subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State, the fact remains that the purpose of that regulation is not to prevent the Member State of residence from granting, pursuant to its legislation, child benefit to that person.
Čeprav za osebo, zaposleno na ozemlju ene države članice, velja na podlagi člena 13(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 zakonodaja te države, tudi če stalno prebiva na ozemlju druge države članice, pa vseeno ta uredba ne preprečuje državi stalnega prebivali�ča, da tej osebi odobri družinske dodatke na podlagi svoje zakonodaje.
Ten Holder, to which the German Government referred in its written observations, and Case 60/85 Luijten [1986] ECR 2365, referred to by the national court, cannot put in question the foregoing interpretation of Regulation No 1408/71.
Zgoraj navedena sodba Ten Holder, na katero se je sklicevala nem�ka vlada v svojih pisnih stali�čih, in sodba z dne 10. julija 1986 v zadevi Luijten (60/85, Recueil, str. 2365), ki jo je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, ne moreta povzročiti pomisleka te razlage Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
That principle was reiterated by the Court in Luijten, having regard to the likelihood of the simultaneous application of the legislation of the State of employment and of that of the State of residence permitting those covered to receive child benefit.
Sodi�če je ponovilo isto načelo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Luijten glede tveganja sočasne uporabe zakonodaj države zaposlitve in države stalnega prebivali�ča, ki zavarovancem omogočata prejemanje družinskih dajatev.
Consequently, read in their specific contexts, which differ from that of the main proceedings, those judgments cannot serve as a basis for precluding a Member State, which is not the competent State but which does not subject the right to child benefit to conditions of employment or insurance, from being able to grant such a benefit to one of its residents, since the possibility of such a grant arises, in actual fact, from its legislation.
Teh sodb zaradi njunih posebnih kontekstov, ki se razlikujeta od konteksta zadeve v glavni stvari, ni mogoče uporabiti kot temelj za izključitev možnosti države članice, ki ni pristojna država članica in ki pravice do družinske dajatve ne pogojuje z zaposlitvijo ali z zavarovanjem, da tako dajatev odobri osebi, ki stalno prebiva na njenem ozemlju, kadar možnost take odobritve dejansko izhaja iz nacionalne zakonodaje.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question must be that Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.
Glede na vse navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da člen 13(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 ne nasprotuje temu, da delavec migrant, za katerega velja sistem socialne varnosti države članice zaposlitve, prejema družinske dajatve v državi članici stalnega prebivali�ča na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje te države.
The second and third questions
Drugo in tretje vprašanje
The fourth question
Četrto vprašanje
The national court is also asking whether the fact, if it be so, that Mrs Bosmann returns to the family residence in Germany at the end of each working day affects the answer to the first to third questions.
Predložitveno sodi�če poleg tega spra�uje, ali dejstvo, da se B. Bosmann vsak delovni dan vrača domov v Nemčijo, vpliva na odgovor na prvo, drugo in tretje vpra�anje.
Accordingly, the reply to the fourth question must be that it is for the referring court to determine whether the fact that a worker, in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings, returns at the end of each working day to the family residence in the Member State concerned is relevant for the purposes of deciding whether such a worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of the child benefit in question in that State pursuant to its legislation.
Zato je treba na četrto vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da se mora predložitveno sodi�če opredeliti o tem, ali dejstvo, da se delavec, ki je v položaju tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, vsak delovni dan vrača domov v zadevno državo članico, upo�tevno pri ugotavljanju, ali tak delavec izpolnjuje pogoje za odobritev zadevne družinske dajatve v tej državi na podlagi njene nacionalne zakonodaje.
Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC)
Člen 13(2)(a) Uredbe Sveta št. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti, kot je bila spremenjena in posodobljena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 118/97 z dne 2. decembra 1996 in spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 647/2005 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 13. aprila 2005,
No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.
2008 – ZADEVA C-352/06 ne nasprotuje temu, da delavec migrant, za katerega velja sistem socialne varnosti države članice zaposlitve, prejema družinske dajatve v državi članici stalnega prebivališča na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje te države.
It is for the referring court to determine whether the fact that a worker, in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings, returns at the end of each working day to the family residence in the Member State concerned is relevant for the purposes of deciding whether such a worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of the child benefit in question in that State pursuant to its legislation.
Predložitveno sodišče se mora opredeliti o tem, ali dejstvo, da se delavec, ki je v položaju tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, vsak delovni dan vrača domov v zadevno državo članico, upoštevno pri ugotavljanju, ali tak delavec izpolnjuje pogoje za odobritev zadevne družinske dajatve v tej državi na podlagi njene nacionalne zakonodaje.
Case C-361/06
Zadeva C-361/06
(Plant protection products — Authorisation to place on the market — Ethofumesate — Directives 91/414/EEC and 2002/37/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 — Application for reopening of the oral procedure)
„Fitofarmacevtska sredstva – Dovoljenje za dajanje v promet – Etofumesat – Direktivi 91/414/EGS in 2002/37/ES – Uredba (EGS) �t. 3600/92 – Predlog za ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka“
I - 3868Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 22 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 29. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure — Oral procedure — Reopening (Art. 222, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 61)
Postopek – Ustni postopek – Ponovno odprtje (člen 222, drugi odstavek, ES; Poslovnik Sodišča, člen 61)
SUMMARY — CASE C-361/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-361/06
Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 2002/37
Kmetijstvo – Približevanje zakonodaj – Dajanje fitofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet – Direktiva 2002/37
Opinion or by the reasoning which led to that view to be formed.
predlogi generalnega pravobranilca ne obrazložitev, ki ga privede do njih,
(see paras 33, 34)
(Glej točki 33 in 34.)
The Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties, reopen the oral procedure, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties.
Sodi�če lahko v skladu s členom 61 Poslovnika po uradni dolžnosti ali na predlog generalnega pravobranilca oziroma na predlog strank odredi ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka, če meni, da dejansko stanje ni dovolj razjasnjeno ali da je treba v zadevi odločiti na podlagi trditve, o kateri se stranki nista izrekli.
However, it is not necessary to reopen the oral procedure pursuant to that provision every time the Advocate General raises a point of law that has not been debated by the parties.
Vendar ni nujno ponovno odpirati ustnega postopka v skladu z navedenim členom vsakič, ko generalni pravobranilec sproži pravno vpra�anje, o katerem se stranki nista izrekli.
Although, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 222 EC, it is the duty of the Advocate General, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice, require the Advocate General’s involvement and although, in carrying out that task, the Advocate General may, where appropriate, analyse a reference for a preliminary ruling by placing it in a context broader than that strictly defined by the national court or the parties to the main proceedings, the Court is not bound either by the Advocate General’s
Na podlagi člena 222, drugi odstavek, ES je namreč dolžnost generalnega pravobranilca, da popolnoma nepristransko in neodvisno javno predstavi obrazložene sklepne predloge o zadevah, pri katerih je v skladu s Statutom Sodi�ča zahtevano njegovo sodelovanje in čeprav pri opravljanju te naloge lahko predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe po potrebi analizira v �ir�em kontekstu in ne točno takem, kakr�nega so opredelili predložitveno sodi�če ali stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, Sodi�ča ne vežejo ne sklepni
Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/37 amending Directive 91/414 to include ethofumesate as an active substance must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to terminate, before 1 September 2003, the authorisation of a plant protection product containing ethofumesate on the ground that the holder of that authorisation does not hold, or have access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.
Člen 4(1) Direktive 2002/37 o spremembi Direktive 91/414 zaradi vključitve etofumesata kot aktivne snovi je treba razlagati tako, da od držav članic ne zahteva preklica registracije fitofarmacevtskega sredstva, ki vsebuje etofumesat, pred 1. septembrom 2003, če imetnik te registracije nima ali nima dostopa do dokumentacije, ki izpolnjuje pogoje, določene v prilogi II k Direktivi 91/414 o dajanju fitofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet.
FEINCHEMIE SCHWEBDA AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE authorisations, hold, or have access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II.
FEINCHEMIE SCHWEBDA IN BAYER CROPSCIENCE določene v navedeni prilogi II, oziroma dostop do nje.
That is the only interpretation that is compatible with the principle of legal certainty, in accordance with which Community legislation must enable those concerned to acquaint themselves with the precise extent of the obligations it imposes upon them.
Ta razlaga je edina, ki je skladna z načelom pravne varnosti, ki zahteva, da zakonodaja Skupnosti zainteresiranim osebam omogoča natančno seznanitev z obsegom obveznosti, ki jim jih nalaga.
Although that provision requires Member States, first, to review authorisations previously granted for each plant protection product containing ethofumesate, in order to ensure that the conditions relating to that active substance, as set out in Annex I to Directive 91/414, are complied with and, second, to amend or, if necessary, to withdraw those authorisations, in accordance with that directive, before 1 September 2003, there is nothing in its wording to suggest that the holders of existing authorisations must, for the purposes of the review of those
Čeprav ta določba državam članicam nalaga, naj, prvič, pregledajo prej izdane registracije za vsako fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo, ki vsebuje etofumesat, in se s tem prepričajo, da izpolnjujejo pogoje v zvezi s to aktivno snovjo iz priloge I k Direktivi 91/414, ter, drugič, v skladu s slednjo direktivo spremenijo ali po potrebi prekličejo navedene registracije do 1. septembra 2003, pa iz njenega besedila nikakor ne izhaja, da morajo imetniki obstoječih registracij za namen postopka pregleda teh registracij imeti dokumentacijo, ki izpolnjuje pogoje,
(see paras 44, 45, 50, 55, operative part)
(Glej točke 44, 45, 50, 55 in izrek.)
SHARPSTONdelivered on 29 November 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 29. novembra 2007 1
2 of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I that are already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive.
dovoli dajanje na trg fitofarmacevtskih sredstev z aktivnimi snovmi, ki niso uvr�čene v Prilogo I in so že v prometu dve leti po notifikaciji direktive.
I shall refer to such an authorisation as an existing authorisation.
Tako registracijo bom imenovala kot obstoječo registracijo.
Directive 2002/37 adds ethofumesate to Annex I to Directive 91/414, subject to certain conditions.
Direktiva 2002/37 spreminja Direktivo 91/414 3.
Directive 2002/37 amends Directive 91/414.
Direktiva 2002/37 pod določenimi pogoji dodaja etofumesat v Prilogo I k Direktivi 91/414.
3Directive 91/414 requires Member States to ensure that plant protection products (essentially herbicides, pesticides and fungicides to be applied to plants) are not placed on the market or used in their territory unless they have been authorised in accordance with the directive.
članice zagotovijo, da fitofarmacevtska sredstva (predvsem herbicidi, pesticidi in fungicidi, ki se uporabljajo za rastline) ne bodo dana v promet ali uporabljana na njihovem ozemlju, če niso bila registrirana v skladu s to direktivo.
A plant protection product may not be authorised unless its active substances are listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414.
Fitofarmacevtskih sredstev se ne sme registrirati, razen če so njihove aktivne snovi uvr�čene v Prilogo I k Direktivi 91/414.
A Member State may, however, during a transitional period, authorise the placing on the market
Država članica pa lahko za prehodno obdobje
2 — Commission Directive 2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethofumesate as an active substance (OJ 2002 L 117, p. 10).
2 – Direktiva Komisije 2002/37/ES z dne 3. maja 2002 o spremembi Direktive Sveta 91/414/EGS zaradi vključitve etofumesata kot aktivne snovi (UL L 117, str. 10).
3 — Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).
3 – Direktiva Sveta 91/414/EGS z dne 15. julija 1991 o dajanju fitofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet (UL L 230, str. 1).
The issue before the Court in the present case is whether the holder of an existing authorisation for a plant protection product containing ethofumesate as an active substance can be required to provide a dossier satisfying Annex II to Direct-
V obravnavanem primeru je Sodi�ču predloženo vpra�anje, ali se lahko kot pogoj za ohranitev registracije zahteva, da mora imetnik obstoječe registracije za fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo, ki vsebuje etofumesat kot aktivno snov, predložiti dokumentacijo iz
FEINCHEMIE SCHWEBDA AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE ive 91/414 (which contains the requirements for the dossier to be submitted for the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I) as a condition of retention of its authorisation.
Priloge II k Direktivi 91/414 (v njej so določene zahteve za dokumentacijo, ki jo je treba predložiti za uvrstitev aktivne snovi v Prilogo I).
plant protection products are authorised, to ensure that they have no unacceptable effect on plants or plant products, no unacceptable influence on the environment in general and, in particular, no harmful effect on human or animal health or on groundwater. 6
Ob registraciji fitofarmacevtskih sredstev je treba zagotoviti, da nimajo nezaželenih učinkov na rastline ali rastlinske proizvode niti neželenih učinkov na okolje na splo�no in zlasti nobenih �kodljivih učinkov na zdravje ljudi ali živali ali na podtalnico. 6
Relevant Community legislation
Upoštevna zakonodaja Skupnosti
Article 3(1) of Directive 91/414 requires Member States to prescribe that a plant protection product may not be placed on the market and used in their territory unless they have authorised the product in accordance with the directive.
Uvodne izjave v preambuli Direktive 91/414 se nana�ajo na pomembnost fitofarmacevtskih sredstev; na dejstvo, da je njihova uporaba lahko tudi nevarna za ljudi, živali in okolje; na ovire za trgovanje, ki izhajajo iz različnih nacionalnih predpisov, ki urejajo njihovo registracijo, in željo, da se take ovire odpravijo z usklajevanjem teh predpisov.
Article 4(1) requires Member States to ensure that a plant protection product is not authorised unless, first, its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid down therein are fulfilled 7and, se c-ond, a number of requirements laid down in Article 4(1)(b) to (f) are met.
Člen 4(1) državam članicam nalaga, da zagotovijo, da se fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo ne registrira, razen če so njegove aktivne snovi uvr�čene v Prilogo I in so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz te priloge 7ter �tevilne zahteve, določene v členu 4(1), od (b) do (f).
Article 4(1)(b) to (e) essentially concerns the safety and effectiveness of the product when used; and whether their requirements are met is
Člen 4(1), od (b) do (e), v bistvu zadeva varnost in učinkovitost uporabe sredstva; kadar so zahteve izpolnjene, je treba to sredstvo oceniti v skladu z enotnimi pravili, določenimi v Prilogi VI.
6 — Tenth recital.7 — Article 4(1)(a).
6 – Deseta uvodna izjava.7 – Člen 4(1)(a).
Article 4(1)(f) requires maximum residue levels to have been established by the Member State and notified to and approved by the Commission.
Na podlagi člena 4(1)(f) mora država članica določiti mejno vrednost ostankov in o njej uradno obvestiti Komisijo, ki jo odobri.
Article 8(1), not relevant in the present case, deals with arrangements for new products containing active substances not yet approved and listed.
primeru ne upo�teva, zadeva določbe v zvezi z novimi sredstvi, ki vsebujejo aktivne snovi, ki �e niso odobrene in uvr�čene na seznam.
Article 8(2) deals with existing products containing such active substances.
Člen 8(2) se nana�a na obstoječa sredstva, ki vsebujejo navedene aktivne snovi.
Article 5 provides that an active substance is to be included in Annex I if it may be expected that plant protection products containing it will not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or on groundwater or any unacceptable influence on the environment.
Člen 5 določa, da se aktivno snov uvrsti v Prilogo I, če se lahko pričakuje, da fitofarmacevtska sredstva, ki jo vsebujejo, ne bodo imela �kodljivega vpliva na zdravje ljudi ali živali ali na podtalnico ali nesprejemljivega vpliva na okolje.
The first subparagraph of Article 8(2) provides that, by way of derogation from Article 4, ‘a Member State may, during a period of 12 years following the notification of [the directive], authorise the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I that are already on the market two years after the date of notification’. 8
Prvi pododstavek člena 8(2) določa, da lahko z odstopanjem od člena 4 „država članica v dvanajstih letih od notifikacije [direktive] registrira za dajanje v promet na svojem ozemlju fitofarmacevtska sredstva, ki vsebujejo aktivne snovi, ki niso uvr�čene v Prilogo I, in so že v prometu dve leti po dnevu notifikacije“. 8
Article 6(1) provides that the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I is to be decided in accordance with a prescribed procedure.
Člen 6(2) zahteva, da država članica, ki prejme zahtevek za uvrstitev aktivne snovi v Prilogo I, zagotovi, da „vlagatelj“ dokumentacijo, za katero se domneva, da izpolnjuje zahteve iz Priloge II, posreduje drugim državam članicam in Komisiji skupaj z dokumentacijo iz Priloge III o najmanj enem fitofarmacevtskem sredstvu, ki vsebuje zadevno aktivno snov.
The second subparagraph of Article 8(2) requires the Commission to commence a programme of work for the gradual examination of those active substances within that 12-year period in accordance with a regulation 9to be adopted in accordance with a procedure prescribed under Article 19 of the directive.
Drugi pododstavek člena 8(2) zahteva, da Komisija začne izvajati delovni program za postopen pregled teh aktivnih snovi v obdobju dvanajstih let v skladu z uredbo, 9ki se sprejme v skladu s postopkom, predpisanim v členu 19 direktive.
9 — One such regulation was Regulation No 3600/92: see below, paragraph 21 et seq.
9 – Ena tak�nih uredb je bila Uredba �t. 3600/92: glej točko 21 in naslednje.
The fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) provides: further information necessary to include the active substance in Annex I for the first time, to vary the conditions for inclusion in Annex I or to maintain such inclusion. 10
Četrti pododstavek člena 8(2) določa: prejemu dodatnih podatkov, potrebnih za prvo uvrstitev v Prilogo I, zaradi spremembe pogojev za uvrstitev v Prilogo I ali zaradi ohranitve tovrstne uvrstitve. 10
Article 13(6) provides:
Člen 13(6) določa:
‘During the 12-year period referred to in the first subparagraph it may … be decided by [a prescribed procedure] that the substance can be included in Annex I and under which conditions, or, in cases where the requirements of Article 5 are not satisfied or the requisite information and data have not been submitted within the prescribed period, that such active substance will not be included in Annex I. The Member States shall ensure that the relevant authorisations are granted, withdrawn or varied, as appropriate, within a prescribed period.’
„V obdobju dvanajstih let iz prvega pododstavka se lahko po [predpisanem postopku] odloči, da se snov uvrsti v Prilogo I in določi pogoje za uvrstitev, ali da se take aktivne snovi ne uvrsti v Prilogo I, če zahteve iz člena 5 niso izpolnjene ali pa potrebni podatki niso bili predloženi v predpisanem roku. Države članice zagotovijo, da se v predpisanem roku ustrezne registracije odobri, prekliče oziroma spremeni.“
‘By way of derogation from [Article 13(1)], for active substances already on the market two years after notification of this directive, Member States may, with due regard for the provisions of the Treaty, continue to apply previous national rules concerning data requirements as long as such substances are not included in Annex I.’
„Z odstopanjem od [člena 13(1)] lahko države članice za aktivno snov, ki je že v prometu dve leti po notifikaciji te direktive, z ustreznim upo�tevanjem določb Pogodbe, �e naprej uporabljajo predhodne nacionalne predpise glede zahtevanih podatkov, dokler se take snovi ne uvrsti v Prilogo I.“
Article 13(1) provides that Member States are to require that ‘applicants for authorisation of a plant protection product submit with their application’ (a) a dossier satisfying Annex III and (b) for each active substance in the plant protection product a dossier satisfying Annex II.
Člen 13(1) določa, da države članice zahtevajo, da „vlagatelji za registracijo fitofarmacevtskega sredstva skupaj s zahtevkom predložijo“ (a) dokumentacijo, ki izpolnjuje zahteve iz Priloge III, in (b) za vsako aktivno snov v fitofarmacevtskem sredstvu dokumentacijo, ki izpolnjuje zahteve iz Priloge II.
Annex II to Directive 91/414 contains requirements for the dossier to be submitted for the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I. Annex III contains requirements for the dossier to be submitted for the authorisation of a plant protection product.
Priloga II k Direktivi 91/414 vsebuje zahteve za dokumentacijo, ki jo je treba predložiti za uvrstitev aktivne snovi v Prilogo I. Priloga III vsebuje zahteve za dokumenta -cijo, ki jo je treba predložiti za registracijo fitofarmacevtskega sredstva.