natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(a) a person employed in the territory of one Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State or if the registered office or place of business of the undertaking or individual employing him is situated in the territory of another Member State;
II – Pravni okvir a) za delavca, zaposlenega na ozemlju ene države članice, velja zakonodaja te države, tudi če stalno prebiva na ozemlju druge države članice ali če je registrirani sedež ali poslovna enota podjetja ali posameznika, ki osebo zaposluje, na ozemlju druge države članice;
A — Community legislation
A – Pravo Skupnosti
Regulation No 1408/71
Uredba �t. 1408/71
Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, entitled ‘Employed or selfemployed persons the members of whose families reside in a Member State other than the competent State’, reads:
Člen 73 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 z naslovom „Zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe, katerih družinski člani stalno prebivajo v državi članici, ki ni pristojna država“ določa:
Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, entitled ‘General rules’, provides, so far as is relevant, as follows with respect to the determination of the legislation applicable:
Člen 13 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 z naslovom „Splo�na pravila“ v delih, ki so pomembna za določitev prava, ki se uporabi, določa:
Subject to Articles 14c and 14f, persons to whom this Regulation applies shall be subject to the legislation of a single Member State only.
Ob upo�tevanju členov 14c in 14f se za osebe, za katere velja ta uredba, uporablja zakonodaja samo ene države članice.
That legislation shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Title.
Ta zakonodaja se določi v skladu z določbami tega naslova.
Regulation No 574/72
Uredba �t. 574/72
Article 10(1) of Regulation No 574/72, which lays down the rules applicable to employed or selfemployed persons in cases where rights to family benefits or family allowances overlap, provides: another Member State or under Articles 73 or 74 of the Regulation to the person entitled to family benefits or to the person to whom they are to be paid, the right to family benefits due either only under national legislation of that other Member State or under these Articles shall be suspended up to the sum of family benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the member of the family is residing.
Člen 10(1) Uredbe �t. 574/72, ki opredeljuje pravila, ki se uporabljajo v primeru prekrivanja pravic do družinskih dajatev ali družinskih dodatkov za zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe, določa: osebi, ki se ji morajo dajatve izplačati, pravica do družinskih dajatev, ki izhajajo bodisi samo iz nacionalne zakonodaje te druge države članice bodisi iz omenjenih členov, miruje do zneska družinskih dajatev, določenih z zakonodajo države članice, na ozemlju katere družinski član stalno prebiva.
The cost of the benefits paid by the Member State in whose territory the member of the family is residing shall be borne by that Member State;
Stro�ke teh dajatev, ki jih izplačuje država članica, na ozemlju katere družinski član stalno prebiva, krije ta država članica;
‘(a) Entitlement to benefits or family allowances due under the legislation of a Member State, according to which acquisition of the right to those benefits or allowances is not subject to conditions of insurance, employment or selfemployment, shall be suspended when, during the same period and for the same member of the family, benefits are due only in pursuance of the national legislation of another Member State or in application of Articles 73, 74, 77 or 78 of the Regulation, up to the sum of those benefits.
„(a) Upravičenost do družinskih dajatev ali družinskih dodatkov po zakonodaji države članice, v skladu s katero pridobitev pravice do teh dajatev ali dodatkov ni pogojena z zavarovanjem, zaposlitvijo ali samozaposlitvijo, miruje, kadar do zneska teh dajatev obstoji pravica do dajatev v istem obdobju in za istega družinskega člana po nacionalni zakonodaji druge države članice ali z uporabo členov 73, 74, 77 ali 78 Uredbe.
B — National legislation
B – Nacionalno pravo
(b) However, where a professional or trade activity is carried out in the territory of the first Member State:
(b) Kadar pa se na ozemlju prve države članice opravlja poklicna dejavnost:
(i) in the case of benefits due either only under national legislation of
(i) v primeru izplačljivih dajatev, ki izhajajo samo iz nacionalne zakonodaje druge države članice ali iz členov 73 ali 74 uredbe, osebi, ki je upravičena do družinskih dajatev, ali
Entitlement to German child benefit is governed by Paragraphs 62 and 63 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (‘EStG’) (Law on Income Tax).
Upravičenost do nem�kih družinskih dodatkov urejata člena 62 in 63 Einkommensteuergesetz (EStG) (zakon o dohodnini).
The following provisions are relevant here.
Določbe tega zakona, ki so pomembne za to zadevo, so navedene v nadaljevanju.
Paragraph 62.1.1 reads:
Člen 62(1), točka 1, EStG določa:
‘A child who has attained the age of 18 years shall be taken into account if he has not yet attained the age of 27 years and is being trained for a profession or occupation.’
Člen 32(4), prvi stavek, točka 1, (a), EStG določa:
‘In respect of children within the meaning of Paragraph 63, a person shall be entitled to child benefit under this law if he has a residence in Germany or normally resides there.’
„Otrok, ki je dopolnil 18 let, se upo�teva samo, če je mlaj�i od 27 let in se �ola za poklic.“
III — Factual background, procedure and questions referred
„Kdor ima v Nemčiji stalno ali običajno prebivali�če, je za otroke v smislu člena 63 upravičen do družinskih dodatkov v skladu s tem zakonom.“
Paragraph 63.1.1 provides:
Člen 63(1), točka 1, EStG določa:
‘Children shall mean: Children within the meaning of Paragraph 32.1.’
„Kot otroci se upo�tevajo otroci v smislu člena 32(1).“
She is a single mother of two children, Caroline and Thomas, who live in her household in Germany and are currently studying in Germany.
Je mati samohranilka dveh otrok, Caroline in Thomasa, ki živita v njenem gospodinjstvu v Nemčiji in v tej državi �tudirata.
Their own income is beneath the threshold above which entitlement to child benefit in Germany is lost.
Njuni osebni dohodki so nižji od zneska, pod katerim je mogoče v Nemčiji prejemati družinske dodatke.
Paragraph 32.1.1 reads:
Člen 32(1), točka 1, EStG določa:
According to the order for reference, it is undisputed between the parties to the main proceedings that Ms Bosmann would in principle be entitled to German child benefit in accordance with the EStG, on the basis of which she was in fact initially granted child benefit in respect of both children.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je med strankama v postopku v glavni stvari nesporno, da bi bila B. Bosmann načeloma upravičena do nem�kih družinskih dodatkov, in sicer v skladu z EStG, na podlagi katerega jih je prej dejansko prejemala za oba otroka.
According to the Bundesagentur, the fact that that State does not pay child benefit for children aged 18 and over is irrelevant.
Bundesagentur je glede tega menila, da okoli�čina, da ta država ne izplačuje družinskih dodatkov za otroke, starej�e od 18 let, pri tem ni pomembna.
The Finanzgericht Köln questions whether that legal position is compatible with the right to freedom of movement as laid down in Article 39 EC or, indeed, with the general principles of Community law, in particular the principles of nondiscrimination and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex. 6
Finanzgericht Köln spra�uje, ali je ta pravni položaj združljiv s pravico do prostega gibanja iz člena 39 ES ali celo s splo�nimi načeli prava Skupnosti, zlasti načeli enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi spola. 6
In that regard, the referring court emphasises, inter alia, that, since the question whether a harmonisation measure such as Regulation No 1408/71 is in conformity with primary law falls, as a matter of principle, outside the scope of the preliminary
Predložitveno sodi�če glede tega med drugim poudarja, da zato, ker vpra�anje, ali je s primarnim pravom Skupnosti združljiv uskladitveni ukrep, kot je Uredba �t. 1408/71,
In the order for reference, the Finanzgericht Köln points out that if the German EStG alone were to be applied, leaving Community law aside, the applicant would be entitled in Germany to child benefit for her two children.
Finanzgericht Köln v predložitveni odločbi poudarja, da če bi se uporabilo samo nem�ki EStG in se pravo Skupnosti ne bi
No 1408/71 to be interpreted restrictively, so as not to preclude entitlement to child benefit in the case of a mother bringing up children on her own in the State of residence (Federal Republic of Germany), who does not receive child benefit in the State of employment (Kingdom of the Netherlands) because of the age of the children?
določitvi postopka za izvajanje Uredbe (EGS) �t. 1408/71 razlagati ozko, tako da ne nasprotuje pravici do družinskih dodatkov matere samohranilke v državi stalnega prebivali�ča (Zvezna republika Nemčija), ki v državi zaposlitve (Kraljevina Nizozemska) zaradi starosti otrok družinskih dodatkov ne prejema?
Against that background, the Finanzgericht Köln decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Finanzgericht Köln prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
(3) If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are also in the negative:
V primeru nikalnih odgovorov na prvo in drugo vpra�anje:
Does a mother in employment, who brings up children on her own, have a right to the application of the more favourable rules of her State of residence in relation to the granting of child benefit arising directly from the EC Treaty and/or from general legal principles?
Ali izhaja pravica zaposlene matere samohranilke do uporabe ugodnej�ih predpisov države stalnega prebivali�ča v zvezi z dodelitvijo družinskih dodatkov neposredno iz Pogodbe ES oziroma iz splo�nih pravnih načel?
(2) If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
V primeru nikalnega odgovora na prvo vpra�anje:
Is Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 concerning the implementation of Regulation (EEC)
Ali je treba člen 10 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 574/72 z dne 21. marca 1972 o
(4) Is it relevant to the answers to the above questions whether the employee returns to the family residence at the end of each working day?’
Ali so odgovori na zgornja vpra�anja odvisni od tega, ali se oseba vsak delovni dan vrača v družinsko prebivali�če?“
A — Main submissions of the parties one Member State.
Poleg tega iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da se načelo, v skladu s katerim uporaba Uredbe �t.
Moreover, pursuant to the caselaw of the Court, the principle that the application of Regulation No 1408/71 cannot entail the loss of rights acquired exclusively under national legislation does not apply to the rules for determining the applicable legislation as laid down under Title II of that regulation. 8
1408/71 ne more povzročiti izgube pravic, pridobljenih izključno na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje, ne uporablja za pod naslovom II navedene uredbe določena pravila za določitev zakonodaje, ki se uporabi. 8
In the present proceedings, written observations have been submitted by the Governments of Germany and Spain, by the Commission and by Ms Bosmann.
V tej zadevi so pisne izjave preložile nem�ka in �panska vlada, Komisija in B. Bosmann.
Given the clear wording of Article 10 of Regulation No 574/72, Question 2 should also be answered in the negative.
Po mnenju nem�ke vlade bi bilo treba zaradi jasnosti člena 10 Uredbe �t. 574/72 nikalno odgovoriti tudi na drugo vpra�anje.
According to the German Government, that article does not apply in the present case: since the employee pursues an occupation in only one Member State and lives in another Member State, there can be no overlapping of family benefits.
Nem�ka vlada meni, da tega člena v postopku v glavni stvari ni mogoče uporabiti: glede na to, da je tožeča stranka zaposlena samo v eni državi članici in živi v drugi državi članici, ne more biti nobenega prekrivanja upravičenosti do družinskih dajatev.
The German Government takes the view that Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 is to be interpreted as preventing entitlement to child benefit in a situation such as that at issue.
Nem�ka vlada meni, da je treba člen 13(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 razlagati tako, da v takem primeru, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni oviro za upravičenost do družinskih dodatkov.
The German child benefit constitutes a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Nem�ki družinski dodatki so del družinskih dajatev v smislu člena 4(1)(h) Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
According to the clear wording of Article 13(1) of that regulation, persons to whom it applies are to be subject to the legislation of a single Member State only.
Po navedbah nem�ke vlade iz jasnih določb člena 13(1) te uredbe izhaja, da za osebe, za katere se uporablja, velja zakonodaja samo ene države članice.
In the view of the German Government, a different interpretation would run counter to the aim of Regulation No 1408/71, as defined in the caselaw of the Court, 7 which is to ensure that the persons concerned are subject to the social security scheme of only
Nem�ka vlada meni, da bi bila kakr�nakoli drugačna razlaga v nasprotju z namenom Uredbe �t. 1408/71, kot je opredeljen v sodni praksi Sodi�ča 7 in ki je v tem, da se zagotovi,
As regards Question 3, the German Government asserts that, contrary to the view expressed by the Finanzgericht Köln in the order for reference, it is perfectly possible, under the preliminary rulings procedure, to determine whether an act such as Regulation No 1408/71 is in conformity with primary Community law.
V zvezi s tretjim vpra�anjem nem�ka vlada zatrjuje, da je v nasprotju z mnenjem Finanzgericht Köln v predložitveni odločbi povsem mogoče v okviru postopka predhodnega odločanja preizkusiti, ali je s primarnim pravom Skupnosti združljiv akt, kot je Uredba �t. 1408/71.
The German Government contends, however, that Article 13 of that regulation infringes neither the right to freedom of movement laid down
Vendar pa nem�ka vlada trdi, da s členom 13 navedene uredbe ni kr�ena niti pravica do prostega gibanja
7 — It refers, in particular, to Case 302/84 Ten Holder [1986] ECR 1821, paragraphs 19 to 21.
7 – Zlasti se sklicuje na sodbo z dne 12. junija 1986 v zadevi Ten Holder (302/86, Recueil, str. 1821, točke od 19 do 21).
8 — Luijten, cited in footnote 6, paragraph 15.
8 – V opombi 6 navedena sodba Luijten, točka 15.
The Spanish Government therefore concludes, on the basis of the caselaw of the Court on the free movement of persons, 9 in Article 39 EC nor the general principles of equal treatment or the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex, as referred to in the order for reference.
Španska vlada na koncu meni, da so na podlagi sodne prakse Sodi�ča v zvezi s prostim gibanjem oseb 9upo�tevne določbe uredb �t.
that, in so far as the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 lead the employed person, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, to lose family benefits, they are contrary to Article 39 EC.
1408/71 in 574/92, če učinkujejo tako, da zaposlena oseba v takih okoli�činah, kot so v postopku v glavni stvari, izgubi družinske dodatke, v nasprotju s členom 39 ES.
Finally, as regards Question 4, the German Government considers it irrelevant, in the light of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, which refers to the State of employment, whether the employee returns to the family residence at the end of each working day.
Končno, nem�ka vlada v zvezi s četrtim vpra�anjem meni, da ob upo�tevanju člena 13 Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ki omenja državo zaposlitve, to, da se zaposlena oseba dnevno vrača v državo prebivali�ča, ni pomembno.
The Spanish Government submits that the key point at issue is not the interpretation of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, but rather the question whether that article is contrary to Article 39 EC and the principles of equal treatment and nondiscrimination on grounds of sex.
Španska vlada meni, da bistveni problem ni razlaga člena 13 Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ampak bolj vpra�anje združljivosti tega člena s členom 39 ES ter načeli enakega obravnavanja in prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi spola.
9 — It refers in that regard, in particular, to Case C-10/05 Cynthia Mattern [2006] ECR I-3145; Case C-109/04 Kranemann [2005] ECR I-2421; and Case C-185/04 Öberg [2006] ECR I-1453.
9 – Glede tega se sklicuje zlasti na sodbe z dne 30. marca 2006 v zadevi Mattern in Cikotic (C-10/05, ZOdl., str. I-3145); z dne 17. marca 2005 v zadevi Kranemann (C-109/04, Zodl., str.
10 — Case C-119/91 [1992] ECR I-6393 and the corresponding Opinion of Advocate General Darmon.
10 – Glej sodbo z dne 9. decembra 1992 v zadevi McMenamin (C-119/91, Recueil, str. I-6393) in sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Darmona k tej sodbi.
Those provisions are not justified and are not appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue.
Bosmann očitno postavile v neugoden položaj, ki bi jo lahko odvrnil od uresničevanja svoje pravice do prostega gibanja.
BOSMANN be treated less favourably than a mother forming part of a couple.
BOSMANN članici, dela pa v drugi, obravnavalo manj ugodno kot tistega, ki dela hkrati v državi svojega stalnega prebivali�ča in v drugi državi članici, in da bi se na splo�no mater samohranilko obravnavalo manj ugodno kot mater, ki živi v paru.
Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 merely provides that the legislation of the State of employment is to apply: it does not establish whether benefit is payable and, if so, by whom.
Komisija meni, da člen 73 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določa samo to, da je treba uporabiti pravo države zaposlitve: ne določa niti ali je dajatev dejansko treba plačati niti kdo naj bi jo plačal.
Viewed in that light, Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72 should be understood as meaning that, although the State of employment is competent, entitlement to benefit under the legislation of the State of residence may continue to exist.
V tem okviru je treba člen 10(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 574/72 razlagati tako, da lahko kljub pristojnosti države zaposlitve upravičenost, ki jo določa zakonodaja države stalnega prebivali�ča, ostaja.
Since, in the case before the referring court, the ‘benefit due’ in the State of employment is zero, the entitlement to German child benefit becomes de facto operative and fully payable.
Komisija meni, da če je v sporu, o katerem odloča predložitveno sodi�če, „dajatev“ v državi zaposlitve enaka nič, upravičenost do nem�kih družinskih dodatkov de facto ne miruje in jih je treba v celoti plačati.
If followed, the view held by the German Government would run counter to the principle that the application of Regulation No 1408/71 cannot entail the loss of rights acquired exclusively under national legislation and would lead to unjustifiable contradictions.
Komisija meni, da bi stali�če nem�ke vlade lahko privedlo do položaja, ki bi bil v nasprotju z načelom, v skladu s katerim uporaba Uredbe �t. 1408/71 ne more povzročiti izgube pravic, pridobljenih izključno na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje, in do neupravičenih protislovij.
Before embarking on the analysis, some preliminary remarks appear appropriate in order to determine the issues which arise from the questions referred.
Pred začetkom analiziranja je treba razmejiti probleme, ki izhajajo iz vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje.
In that regard, the Commission agrees with the arguments set out by the referring court in the order for reference to the effect that a parent bringing up children alone, who lives in one Member State and works in another, would be treated less favourably than one who is employed both in his State of residence and in another Member State and that, more generally, a single mother would
Glede tega se Komisija strinja s trditvami predložitvenega sodi�ča v predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, da bi se star�a, ki sam skrbi za otroke in živi v eni državi
It should be noted, first of all, that it has not been disputed in the present case that the situation at issue falls ratione personae and ratione materiae within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, that is to say, more specifically, that Ms Bosmann can be con-
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, da je nesporno, da dejansko stanje v sporu o glavni stvari ratione personae in ratione materiae izhaja iz Uredbe �t. 1408/71, natančneje povedano,
It should be noted in that regard that, according to settled caselaw, in order
Glede tega poudarjam, da lahko Sodi�če v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, zato da bi se
11 — See only, as regards Regulation No 1408/71, for example Joined Cases C-393/99 and C-394/99 Hervein and Others [2002] ECR I-2829.
1408/71 pogleda na primer sodbo z dne 19. marca 2002 v združenih zadevah Harvein in drugi (C-393/99 in C-394/99, Recueil, str. I-2829).
The referring court takes as its starting point in that regard, however,
Predložitveno sodi�če pa
BOSMANN rules in accordance with which the legislation applicable to an employed person who makes use, under various circumstances, of his right to freedom of movement, is to be determined.
BOSMANN zakonodaje, ki se uporablja za zaposlene osebe, ki v različnih okoli�činah uresničujejo svojo pravico do prostega gibanja.
Those rules are intended in particular to prevent the concurrent application of provisions deriving from more than one national legislative system and the complications which might ensue.
Namen teh določb je med drugim, da se preprečijo sočasna uporaba več nacionalnih zakonodaj in zapleti, ki temu lahko sledijo. 14
I will then, more specifically, address the issues which are raised in the present case in respect of Article 39 EC and the general principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
Nato bom natančneje preučil vpra�anja, ki so se v obravnavani zadevi zastavila v zvezi s členom 39 ES ter splo�nima načeloma enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije.
Regulation No 1408/71 lays down the principle that a person is to be subject to the legislation of a single Member State only, 15 which is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Title II of that regulation.
Tako člen 13(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določa načelo, da za osebe, za katere se uporablja uredba, velja zakonodaja ene same države članice, 15ki jo je treba določiti v skladu z določbami naslova II navedene uredbe.
Finally I will address Question 4, concerning the relevance of the return to the family residence at the end of each working day, which can be answered separately.
Na koncu bom preučil četrto vpra�anje v zvezi z vplivom vračanja v družinsko prebivali�če ob koncu vsakega delovnega dne, ki je lahko predmet ločenega odgovora.
In that regard, Article 13(2)(a) of the regulation makes it clear that in a situation where the person concerned is engaged in paid employment in one Member State and resides in the territory of another Member State, it is the legislation of the State where he is employed that is applicable (rule of lex loci laboris).
Glede tega člen 13(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 jasno določa, da za osebo, zaposleno na ozemlju ene države članice, ki ima stalno prebivali�če na ozemlju druge države članice, velja zakonodaja države, v kateri je zaposlena (pravilo lex loci laboris).
It should be noted, however, that certain benefits are governed by the more specific
Vendar naj poudarim, da sodijo nekatere dajatve pod posebne določbe iz naslova III Uredbe �t. 1408/71. V zvezi s takimi
13 — See to that effect, inter alia, Hervein and Others, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 52.
13 – Glej v tem smislu med drugim v opombi 11 navedeno sodbo Harvein in drugi, točka 52.
12 — See, to that effect, inter alia Case C-153/03 Weide [2005] ECR I-6017, paragraph 25.
12 – Glej v tem smislu med drugim sodbo z dne 7. julija 2005 v zadevi Weide (C-153/03, ZOdl., str. I-6017, točka 25).
15 — See as to that, inter alia, Vogler, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 19.
15 – V zvezi s tem glej med drugim v opombi 14 navedeno sodbo Vogler, točka 19.