natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, the migrant worker must, when, as in the present case, that rule is brought to bear, be treated equally as compared with all other workers employed on the territory of that State.
Delavca migranta je treba takrat, ko se tako kot v obravnavanem primeru, to pravilo izvaja, obravnavati enako kot vse druge delavce, zaposlene na ozemlju te države.
It follows that the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 and, in particular, of the principles reflected therein (lex loci laboris and applicability of the legislation of a single Member State only), with the result that an employed person in a situation such as that in issue in the main proceedings is not entitled to child benefit in the Member State of residence and cannot receive child benefit in the State of employment because of the age of the children, is compatible with the freedom of movement and the principle of equality.
Iz tega sledi, da je uporaba člena 13 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 in zlasti načel, ki jih določa (lex loci laboris in uporaba zakonodaje ene same države članice), na podlagi katerih zaposlena oseba, ki je v takem položaju kot tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, ni upravičena do družinskih dodatkov v državi članici stalnega prebivali�ča in v državi zaposlitve ne more prejemati družinskih dodatkov zaradi starosti svojih otrok, združljiva s pravico do prostega gibanja in načelom enakosti.
Here, that is apparently the case, as Netherlands legislation does not in general recognise entitlement to child benefit in respect of children of the ages in issue, so that Ms Bosmann is being treated in that regard in exactly the same way as persons employed and residing in the Netherlands.
V obravnavanem primeru gre za tak primer, saj nizozemska zakonodaja na splo�no ne priznava upravičenosti do družinskih dodatkov za otroke v starosti otrok B. Bosmann; slednjo se torej glede tega obravnava enako kot osebe, ki delajo in stalno prebivajo na Nizozemskem.
In the light of all the foregoing, it is clear that, under Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 and account being taken of the right to freedom of movement and equal treatment, a person in a situation such as that in issue in the main proceedings is not entitled to application of the legislation of the State of residence so as to receive child benefit as provided for under that legislation.
Iz teh razlogov jasno izhaja, da na podlagi uredb �t. 1408/71 in 574/72 ter ob upo�tevanju pravic do prostega gibanja in do enakega obravnavanja oseba, ki je v takem položaju, kot je položaj, ki je predmet obravnave v sporu o glavni stvari, ne more zahtevati uporabe zakonodaje države, v kateri stalno prebiva, da bi prejemala družinske dodatke, ki jih ta zakonodaja določa.
43 — The principle of nondiscrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated in the same way.
43 – Načelo prepovedi diskriminacije zahteva, da se primerljivih položajev ne obravnava drugače in da se različnih položajev ne obravnava enako.
Relevance of the daily return of the employee to the family residence
Pomen dnevnega vračanja zaposlene osebe v družinsko prebivali�če
As regards Question 4, it suffices to note, as the German Government has sub - mitted, that Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 provides that the legislation of the State of employment is to apply where a person resides in one Member State and is engaged in paid employment in the territory of another Member State.
Glede četrtega vpra�anja zado�ča poudariti to, kar je navedla nem�ka vlada, da člen 13(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določa, da se zakonodaja države zaposlitve uporablja takrat, ko oseba stalno prebiva v eni državi članici in je zaposlena na ozemlju druge države članice.
The lex loci laboris principle thus applies regardless of whether the employed person concerned returns to the family residence at the end of each working day, which is in fact a random circumstance with no legal relevance in the present context.
Načelo lex loci laboris se torej uporablja ne glede na vpra�anje, ali se zadevna zaposlena oseba vsak dan po delu vrača v družinsko prebivali�če, kar je dejansko naključna okoli�čina in v obravnavanem primeru nima pravnih posledic.
For the reasons given above, I propose that the questions referred by the Finanzgericht Köln should be answered as follows:
Iz teh razlogov Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je postavilo Finanzgericht Köln (finančno sodi�če iz Kölna) (Nemčija), odgovori:
2008 — CASE C-352/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-352/06
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany), made by decision of 10 August 2006, received at the Court on 25 August 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-352/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Köln (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 10. avgusta 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 25. avgusta 2006, v postopku
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 13(2)(a) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti
1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 (OJ 2005 L 117, p.
1) in spremenjeni z Uredbo (ES) �t. 647/2005 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 13. aprila 2005 (UL L 117, str.
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Mrs Bosmann and the Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Aachen (Federal Employment Agency — Aachen Family Benefits Office, ‘the Bundesagentur’) concerning a refusal to grant child benefits in Germany.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med B. Bosmann in Bundesagentur für Arbeit – Familienkasse Aachen (zvezna agencija za delo – družinski dodatki Aachen, v nadaljevanju: Bundesagentur), ker ji ta ni dodelila družinskega dodatka v Nemčiji.
The first and fifth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 1408/71 read as follows:
Prva in peta uvodna izjava Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določata:
‘Whereas the provisions for coordination of national social security legislations fall within the framework of freedom of movement for workers who are nationals of Member Sates and should contribute towards the improvement of their standard of living and conditions of employment;
„ker določbe za koordinacijo nacionalnih zakonodaj na področju socialne varnosti sodijo v okvir svobodnega gibanja delavcev, ki so državljani držav članic, in bi morale prispevati k izbolj�anju njihovega življenjskega standarda in pogojev zaposlovanja;
Whereas it is necessary, within the framework of that coordination, to guarantee within the Community equality of treatment under the various national legislations to workers living in the Member States and their dependants and their survivors’.
[…] ker je v okviru te koordinacije znotraj Skupnosti delavcem, ki živijo v državah članicah, in njihovim vzdrževanim družinskim članom ter preživelim osebam nujno zajamčiti enako obravnavanje v različnih nacionalnih zakonodajah“.
The 8th to 10th recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 1408/71 state:
Osma, deveta in deseta uvodna izjava določajo:
‘Whereas employed persons and selfemployed persons moving within the Community should be subject to the social security scheme of only one single Member State in order to avoid overlapping of national legislations applicable and the complications which could result therefrom;
„ker mora za zaposlene in samozaposlene osebe, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti, veljati sistem socialne varnosti le ene države članice, da bi se preprečilo prekrivanje nacionalnih zakonodaj, ki se uporabljajo, in zapleti, ki lahko iz tega izhajajo; ker morajo biti primeri, v katerih za osebo kot izjema od splo�nega pravila sočasno velja zakonodaja dveh držav članic, omejeni, kolikor je le mogoče, tako po �tevilu kot po obsegu; ker bi vsem delavcem, ki delajo na ozemlju ene države članice čimbolj učinkovito zagotovili enako obravnavanje, bi bilo praviloma primerno določiti kot zakonodajo, ki se uporablja, zakonodajo tiste države članice, v kateri je oseba zaposlena ali samozaposlena“.
Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, entitled ‘General rules’, provides:
Člen 13 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 z naslovom „Splo�na pravila“ določa:
That legislation shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Title.
Zakonodaja, ki se uporabi, se določi v skladu z določbami tega naslova.
(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;
V skladu s členi 14 do 17: a) za osebo, zaposleno 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;
Under 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’:
Člen 73 te uredbe z naslovom „Zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe, katerih družinski člani prebivajo v državi članici, ki ni pristojna država“ določa:
‘An employed or selfemployed person subject to the legislation of a Member State shall 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, subject to the provisions of Annex VI.’
„Zaposlena ali samozaposlena oseba, za katero velja zakonodaja države članice, je 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, v skladu z določbami Priloge VI.“
Article 10(1) of Regulation No 574/72, entitled ‘Rules applicable to employed or selfemployed persons in the case of overlapping of rights to family benefits or family allowances’, provides:
Člen 10(1) Uredbe �t. 547/72 z naslovom „Pravila, ki se uporabljajo v primeru prekrivanja pravic do družinskih dajatev ali družinskih dodatkov za zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe“ določa:
‘(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 … Regulation [No 1408/71], up to the sum of those benefits.
„1. 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.
(i) in the case of benefits due either only under national legislation of another Member State or under Articles 73 or 74 of … Regulation [No 1408/71] 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
b) Kadar pa se na ozemlju prve države članice opravlja poklicna dejavnost: 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 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. Stro�ke teh dajatev, ki jih izplačuje država
2008 — CASE C-352/06 whose territory the member of the family is residing. 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;
2008 – ZADEVA C-352/06 članica, na ozemlju katere družinski član stalno prebiva, krije ta država članica;
Paragraph 62.1.1 of the Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz) provides:
V členu 62(1), točka 1, zakona o dohodnini (Einkommensteuergesetz) je določeno:
‘In respect of children … a person shall be entitled to child benefit under this law if he has a residence in Germany or normally resides there.’
„Kdor ima v Nemčiji stalno ali običajno prebivali�če, je za otroke […] upravičen do družinskih dodatkov v skladu s tem zakonom.“
They also reside Germany where they are students.
Tudi onadva živita v Nemčiji, kjer �tudirata.
The Bundesagentur construed the relevant provisions of Community law as meaning that Mrs Bosmann is subject only to the legislation of the Member State of employment, namely that of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so that the Federal Republic of Germany cannot be regarded as the competent State, liable to pay those benefits.
Bundesagentur je razlagala upo�tevne določbe prava Skupnosti tako, da za B. Bosmann velja le zakonodaja države članice zaposlitve, namreč nizozemska zakonodaja, tako da Zvezne republike Nemčije ni več mogoče �teti za pristojno državo, ki je dolžna plačati navedene dodatke.
The national court states that it has not been clarified whether Mrs Bosmann returns to Germany at the end of each working day or only on week-ends and other public holidays.
Predložitveno sodi�če opozarja, da ni bilo pojasnjeno, ali se B. Bosmann po vsakem delovnem dnevu vrne v Nemčijo ali pa samo ob koncih tedna in praznikih.
It was in those circumstances that the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) decided to stay proceedings and to refer to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Finanzgericht Köln prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
Is Article 10 of … Regulation … No 574/72 … to be interpreted restrictively, so as not to [preclude] entitlement to child benefit 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?
Ali je treba člen 10 Uredbe […] �t. 574/72 […] 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 ne prejema družinskih dodatkov?
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 pravica zaposlene matere samohranilke do uporabe ugodnej�ih predpisov države stalnega prebivali�ča v zvezi z dodelitvijo družinskih dodatkov izhaja neposredno iz Pogodbe ES oziroma iz splo�nih pravnih načel?
By its first question, the national court is asking whether Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 lends itself to an interpretation which permits an employed person in Mrs Bosmann’s situation, who comes within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71
S prvim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je mogoče člen 13(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 razlagati tako, da zaposlena oseba, ki je v takem položaju kot
Before replying to that question, it is appropriate to note the general rules to which, under Regulation No 1408/71, the determination of the legislation applicable to workers moving within the Community is subject.
Preden se odgovori na to vpra�anje, se je treba spomniti na splo�na pravila, ki na podlagi Uredbe �t. 1408/71 veljajo za določitev zakonodaje, ki se uporabi za delavce, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti.
The aim of the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, which determine the legislation applicable to workers moving within the Community, is to ensure that the persons concerned shall be subject to the social security scheme of only one Member State in order to prevent more than one system of national legislation from being applicable and to avoid the complications which may result from that situation.
Namen določb naslova II Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ki določajo zakonodajo, ki se uporablja za delavce, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti, je, da mora za zadevne osebe veljati sistem socialne varnosti le ene države članice, da bi se preprečilo prekrivanje nacionalnih zakonodaj, ki se uporabljajo, in zapleti, ki lahko iz tega izhajajo.
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.
Na podlagi člena 13(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 za osebo, zaposleno na ozemlju ene države članice, velja zakonodaja te države, tudi če stalno prebiva na ozemlju druge države članice.
The effect of determining that a given Member State’s legislation is the legislation applicable to a worker pursuant to that provision is that only the legislation of that Member State is applicable to him (see Ten Holder, paragraph 23).
Zaradi določitve zakonodaje države članice kot zakonodaje, ki se uporabi za zaposleno osebo na podlagi te določbe, zanjo velja le zakonodaja te države članice (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ten Holder, točka 23).
As regards the specific context of family benefits, under Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 a person 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.
V okviru posebnega konteksta družinskih dajatev 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.
Consequently, as the national court has correctly held, the legislation applicable to Mrs Bosmann’s situation is, in principle, the legislation of the Member State of her employment, that is the Netherlands legislation.
Kot je pravilno ugotovilo predložitveno sodi�če, je zato zakonodaja, ki se uporabi za B. Bosmann, v načelu zakonodaja države članice zaposlitve, namreč nizozemska zakonodaja.
Thus, the existence of a link of attachment to two Member States, namely that of residence and that of employment, permits, in particular, the overlapping of rights to benefits.
Tako naj bi obstoj povezave z državama članicama, to je z državo članico stalnega prebivali�ča in državo članico zaposlitve, omogočal zlasti prekrivanje pravic do dajatev.
Therefore, under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72, in view of the lack of comparable entitlement to family benefits in the Member State of employment, they should be granted without limitation by the Member State of residence, in this case the Federal Republic of Germany.
Zato bi morala država članica stalnega prebivali�ča, v tem primeru Zvezna republika Nemčija, na podlagi člena 10(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 574/72 brez omejitev dodeliti družinske dodatke, glede na to, da pravica do podobnih družinskih dodatkov v državi članici zaposlitve ne obstaja.
From the same point of view, the national court refers to Case C-543/03 Dodl and Oberhollenzer [2005] ECR I-5049.
V tem smislu se predložitveno sodi�če sklicuje na sodbo z dne 7. junija 2005 v zadevi Dodl in Oberhollenzer (C-543/03, ZOdl., str. I-5049).
It must be emphasised, in that regard, that the cases which gave rise to the two above-cited judgments were decided on the basis of Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 574/72, which covers situations in which a professional or trade activity is also carried out in the Member State of residence.
Vendar je treba v zvezi s tem opozoriti, da je bilo o zadevah, ki so bile podlaga za zgoraj navedeni sodbi, odločeno na podlagi člena 10(1)(b)(i) Uredbe �t. 574/72, ki zajema položaje, v katerih se poklicna dejavnost opravlja tudi v državi članici stalnega prebivali�ča.
As the Advocate General pointed out in points 51 and 52 of his Opinion, in McMenamin and Dodl and Oberhollenzer the reversal of priorities in favour of the competence of the Member State of residence was triggered by the fact that a professional or trade activity was exercised or pursued in the Member State of residence by the spouse of the person entitled to the benefits in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točkah 51 in 52 sklepnih predlogov, je v zgoraj navedenih sodbah McMenamin ter Dodl in Oberhollenzer sprememba pristojnosti v korist države članice stalnega prebivali�ča nastala zato, ker je poklicno dejavnost v državi članici stalnega prebivali�ča opravljal zakonec osebe, ki je bila upravičena do dodatkov iz člena 73 Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
However, it is clear from the decision making the reference that Mrs Bosmann is not in such a situation.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da B. Bosmann ni v takem položaju.
However, as the German Government and the national court observe, the facts of the case in the main proceedings do not establish that type of ‘overlapping’ of family benefits, since the right to child benefit in the Member State of employment is, in this case, excluded, pursuant to that State’s legislation, in view of the ages of the children of the applicant in the main proceedings.
Kot navajata nem�ka vlada in predložitveno sodi�če, v postopku v glavni stvari ni takega „prekrivanja“ družinskih dajatev, ker je v tej zadevi pravica do družinskih dajatev v državi članici zaposlitve izključena na podlagi zakonodaje te države glede na starost otrok tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari.
It follows that Community law does not require the competent German authorities to grant Mrs Bosmann the family benefit in question.
Iz tega sledi, da pravo Skupnosti ne zavezuje nem�kih pristojnih organov, da B. Bosmann odobrijo zadevno družinsko dajatev.
However, neither can the possibility of such a grant be excluded, because, as is clear from the contents of the file submitted to the Court, it is apparent that, under the German legislation, Mrs Bosmann may be entitled to child benefit solely because of her residence in Germany, which is for the national court to determine.
Vendar pa ni mogoče izključiti, da bi se taka dajatev lahko odobrila, zlasti ker – kot izhaja iz spisa, posredovanega Sodi�ču – bi bila B. Bosmann na podlagi nem�ke zakonodaje lahko upravičena do družinskih dodatkov že samo zaradi stalnega prebivali�ča v Nemčiji, kar pa mora predložitveno sodi�če preveriti.
In the light of those factors, it must be held that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the Member State of residence cannot be deprived of the right to grant child benefit to those resident within its territory.
Glede na vse navedeno je treba ugotoviti, da v okoli�činah, kot so v postopku v glavni stvari, državi članici stalnega prebivali�ča ne sme biti odvzeta pristojnost, da odobri družinske dodatke osebam, ki stalno prebivajo na njenem ozemlju.