natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
47 — For the sake of completeness, I add that he might also consider moving to one of the communes within the Dutchspeaking region with certain administrative facilities for French-speakers and availability of (primary) schools in French.
47 – V dobro celovitosti dodajam, da bi lahko razmi�ljal o preselitvi v eno od občin v nizozemsko govoreči regiji z določeno administrativno infrastrukturo za francosko govoreče in dostopnostjo (osnovnih) �ol v franco�čini.
The closest ones would presumably be Wezembeek-Oppem and Kraainem or Herstappe, all slightly over 40 kilometres to the west or east of Hoegaarden. See further J. Clement, Taalvrijheid, bestuurstaal en minderheidsrechten. Het Belgisch model, Antwerp/Groningen/Oxford, Intersentia, 2003, pp. 838 to 850.
Najbližje bi bili gotovo Wezembeek-Oppem in Kraainem ali Herstappe, ki sta oddaljeni nekaj več kot 40 kilometrov zahodno ali vzhodno od Hoegaardna.
46 — Graf, cited in footnote 44, paragraphs 23 to 25.
46 – V opombi 44 navedena sodba Graf, točke od 23 do 25.
Thus, it is clear that the residence requirement may in certain circumstances be an obstacle to freedom of movement for persons.
Tako je jasno, da je lahko zahteva po stalnem prebivali�ču v določenih okoli�činah ovira za prosto gibanje oseb.
It therefore relies on Graf, in which the Court held that in order to constitute an obstacle, national provisions must affect access of workers to the labour market and their effect on the freedom of movement must not be too indirect and uncertain. 48
Zato se sklicuje na sodbo Graf, kjer je Sodi�če odločilo, da morajo nacionalne določbe, da bi predstavljale oviro, vplivati na dostop delavcev do trga dela, njihov učinek na prosto gibanje pa ne sme biti preveč posreden in negotov. 48
— Is the effect of the residence requirement on freedom of movement too indirect and uncertain?
– Ali je vpliv zahteve po stalnem prebivali�ču na prosto gibanje preveč posreden in negotov?
The Commission suggests that this assessment should be left to the national judge.
Komisija predlaga, da bi morali to oceno prepustiti nacionalnemu sodniku.
In Graf, the Court was concerned with a future and purely hypothetical event.
V sodbi Graf se je Sodi�če ukvarjalo s prihodnostjo in z le hipotetičnim dogodkom.
By contrast, it is clear in the present case that any migrant worker considering taking up employment in the Dutchspeaking region will potentially be affected by the residence requirements governing affiliation to the Flemish care insurance.
Nasprotno je v tem primeru jasno, da bo na vsakega delavca migranta, ki razmi�lja, da bi se zaposlil v nizozemsko govoreči regiji, morda vplivala zahteva za stalno prebivali�če, ki ureja vstop v flamsko zavarovanje.
This is not a hypothetical situation.
To ni hipotetičen položaj.
I do not think that the Court should try to evaluate the precise extent to which such a measure affects the individual worker’s decision.
Menim, da Sodi�ču ni treba oceniti natančnega obsega, do katerega tak ukrep vpliva na odločitev posamičnega delavca.
Otherwise, the fact that some workers may not be daunted by a particular measure could always be used as a reason for holding
Drugače se lahko dejstvo, da nekateri delavci ne bi bili odvrnjeni zaradi določenega ukrepa, vedno uporabi kot razlog za razumevanje, da je bil učinek tega ukrepa na dostop do trga
The Flemish Government estimates that the number of people affected will be
Težko predvidim natančno, katera merila bi predložitveno sodi�če, brez usmeritve tega Sodi�ča, uporabilo, da bi ocenilo oddaljenost in negotovost.
48 — Graf, paragraphs 23 to 25.
48 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Graf, točke od 23 do 25.
Moreover, it is difficult to see how the Court would go about conducting such an evaluation.
dela potencialno preveč negotov in posreden. Še več, težko je predvideti, kako bi Sodi�če izvedlo tako oceno.
It seems to me that, for a measure to constitute an obstacle, it is sufficient that it should be reasonably likely to have that effect on migrant workers.
Zdi se mi, da za ukrep, ki predstavlja oviro, zadostuje, da mora biti razumno verjetno, da ima tak učinek na delavce migrante.
It is to be assumed that the Flemish Government, in establishing the care insurance scheme, thought it was providing its citizens with a benefit rather than placing them under a burden.
Predpostavljati je treba, da je flamska vlada z uvedbo sistema zavarovanja menila, da svojim državljanom zagotavlja korist in ne, da jim nalaga breme.
On the Flemish Government’s argument, paying for unemployment benefits would likewise be regarded as disadvantageous.
Glede na argumente flamske vlade izplačilo dajatev za brezposelnost prav tako ne bi bilo razumljeno kot ugodno.
Any particular individual may pay contributions throughout his working life without ever drawing unemployment benefit — indeed, he may hope that he will never need to do so.
Vsak posameznik lahko plačuje prispevke med vsem svojim delovnim življenjem, ne da bi prejel dajatev za brezpo -selnost – resnično lahko upa, da mu tega nikoli ne bo treba.
The whole point of such social security schemes is, however, not that everyone benefits directly, but that everyone benefits potentially, to the advantage of society as a whole.
Smisel takih sistemov socialnega zavarovanja torej ni, da ima vsak neposredne koristi, temveč da ima vsak potencialne koristi, v prednost družbe kot celote.
— Is the residence requirement also indirectly discriminatory?
– Ali je zahteva po stalnem prebivali�ču tudi posredno diskriminacijska?
The effects of the residence requirement are therefore not too indirect and uncertain.
Učinki zahteve po stalnem prebivali�ču zato niso preveč posredni in negotovi.
As I have already indicated, 49 a national measure that constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for persons cannot stand, even if it is non-discriminatory.
Kot sem že navedla 49, nacionalni ukrep, ki predstavlja oviro za prosto gibanje oseb, ne more veljati, tudi če ni diskriminacijski.
However, since the question of discrimination was raised to a greater or lesser extent by most of the parties in their written observations and also at the hearing, I shall deal with it here.
Ker pa so vse stranke v pisnih stali�čih in tudi na naroku v večji ali manj�i meri omenjale vpra�anje diskriminacije, ga bom na tem mestu obravnavala.
49 — See point 55 above.
49 – Glej zgoraj navedeno točko 55.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT intrinsically liable to affect the nationals of other Member States more than the nationals of the State whose legislation is at issue and if there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage.
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE prizadene državljane drugih držav članic bolj kot državljane države, za katere zakonodajo gre, in če obstaja posledično tveganje, ki bo prve postavilo v �e posebej prikraj�an položaj.
Such a provision is then permissible only if it is objectively justified and proportionate. 52
Taka odločba je tako dovoljena le, če je objektivno upravičena in proporcionalna. 52
It is well established that the principle of equal treatment, as laid down in Article 39(2) EC and implemented, as far as concerns social security for migrant workers, by Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, prohibits not only overt discrimination based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social security schemes but also all covert forms of discrimination which, through the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result. 50
Uveljavljeno je, da načelo enakega obravnavanja, kot ga določa člen 39(2) ES in kot ga glede socialne varnosti za delavce migrante uresničuje člen 3(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, prepoveduje ne samo očitno diskriminacijo, ki temelji na nacionalnosti upravičencev sistemov socialnega varstva, temveč tudi prikrite oblike diskriminacije, ki z uporabo drugih razlikovalnih kriterijev dejansko pripeljejo do istega rezultata. 50
The Flemish Government submits that migrant workers are treated exactly like Belgian workers in a similar situation.
Flamska vlada zatrjuje, da so delavci migranti obravnavani popolnoma enako kot belgijski delavci v podobnem položaju.
Accordingly, conditions imposed by national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory where, although applicable irrespective of nationality, they affect essentially migrant workers or the great majority of those affected are migrant workers, where they are applicable without distinction but can more easily be satisfied by national workers than by migrant workers or where there is a risk that they may operate to the particular detriment of the latter. 51
Skladno s tem moramo pogoje, ki jih predpisuje nacionalna zakonodaja, razumeti kot posredno diskriminacijske, kadar ti, čeprav veljajo ne glede na nacionalnost, bistveno prizadenejo delavce migrante ali pa delavci migranti predstavljajo veliko večino prizadetih, kadar veljajo brez razlikovanja, vendar se z njimi lažje zadovoljijo domači delavci kot delavci migranti, ali kadar obstaja nevarnost, da lahko delujejo v posebno �kodo slednjih. 51
The difficulty, however, is to determine the correct comparator, i.e. who are the Belgian nationals who are in a ‘similar situation’.
Vendar je težavno določiti primerjavo, tj. kdo so državljani Belgije, ki so v „podobnem položaju“.
A provision of national law must thus be regarded as indirectly discriminatory if it is
Določba nacionalnega prava tako velja za posredno diskriminacijsko, če lahko dejansko
The second and fourth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 1408/71 indicate that its objective is to ensure freedom of
Druga in četrta uvodna izjava v preambuli Uredbe �t. 1408/71 kažeta, da je njen cilj zagotoviti prosto gibanje zaposlenih in
50 — Case C-131/96 Mora Romero [1997] ECR I-3659, paragraph 32; Case C-124/99 Borawitz [2000] ECR I-7293, paragraph 24; and Celozzi, cited in footnote 30, paragraph 22.
50 – Sodbi z dne 25. junija 1997 v zadevi Mora Romero, (C-131/96, Recueil, str. I-3659, točka 32) in z dne 21. septembra 2000 v zadevi Borawitz (C-124/99, Recueil, str.
51 — Case C-237/94 O’Flynn [1996] ECR I-2617, paragraph 18; Borawitz, paragraph 25; and Celozzi, paragraph 24.
52 – V tem smislu glej v opombi 15 navedeno sodbo O’Flynn, točka 20, sodbo z dne 27. novembra 1997 v zadevi Meints (C-57/96, Recueil, str.
52 — See, to that effect, O’Flynn, paragraph 20; Case C-57/96 Meints [1997] ECR I-6689, paragraph 45; Borawitz, cited in footnote 50, paragraph 27; and Celozzi, cited in footnote 30, paragraph 26.
51 – Sodba z dne 23. maja 1996 v zadevi O’Flynn (C-237/94, Recueil, str. I-2617, točka 18), v opombi 50 navedena sodba Borawitz, točka 25, in v opombi 30 navedena sodba Celozzi, točka 24.
movement for employed and selfemployed persons within the Community, while respecting the special characteristics of national social security legislation.
samozaposlenih oseb znotraj Skupnosti, ob upo�tevanju posebnih značilnosti nacionalnih zakonodaj na področju socialne varnosti.
To that end, as is clear from the 5th, 6th and 10th recitals, Regulation No 1408/71 seeks to guarantee equal treatment for all workers occupied on the territory of a Member State as effectively as possible and to avoid penalising workers who exercise their right to free movement.
Zato želi ta, kot izhaja iz 5., 6. in 10. uvodne izjave Uredbe �t. 1408/71, najučinkoviteje zagotoviti enako obravnavo vseh delavcev, zaposlenih na ozemlju države članice, ter se izogniti kaznovanju delavcev, ki uveljavljajo pravico do prostega gibanja.
53Article 13(2)(a) provides that, as a general rule, the applicable legislation is to be the lex loci laboris.
53Člen 13(2)(a) omogoča, da je veljavna zakonodaja kot splo�no pravilo lex loci laboris.
The Member State in whose territory equality is to be achieved will therefore normally be the State where the place of work is situated.
Država članica, na ozemlju katere je treba doseči enakost, je zato običajno država, v kateri se nahaja delovno mesto.
Suppose there are two employees of the same company located in Hoegaarden.
Predpostavimo lahko, da sta dva zaposlena v isti družbi, ki se nahaja v Hoegaardnu.
Both wish to live as close as possible to their place of work.
Oba želita živeti čim bližje kraja zaposlitve.
Worker A is a Dutchspeaking Belgian.
Delavec A je nizozemsko govoreč Belgijec.
Worker B is French.
Delavec B je Francoz.
For the reasons suggested earlier, he decides to live in Jodoigne.
Iz prej navedenih razlogov se je odločil, da bo živel v Jodoignu.
They work in the same Member State, in the same region, in the same city and for the same company.
Delata v isti državi članici, v isti regiji, v istem mestu in za isto družbo.
Their houses are 7 kilometres apart.
Njuni hi�i sta oddaljeni druga od druge 7 kilometrov.
Worker A can — indeed, must — join the Flemish care insurance and will be able to access its benefits.
Delavec A lahko – dejansko mora – vstopiti v flamsko zavarovanje in bo zato imel dostop do dajatev.
Worker B cannot.
Delavec B tega ne more.
It is evident that, in this example, there is no equality of treatment.
V tem primeru je očitno, da ni enake obravnave.
As the Commission suggested at the hearing, the correct starting point for the comparison is therefore not the place of residence, but the place of work.
Kot je Komisija predlagala na naroku, je zato pravilno izhodi�če za primerjavo kraj delovnega mesta in ne kraj stalnega prebivali�ča.
What happens when we compare two groups
Kaj se zgodi, ko primerjamo dve
It is unnecessary to establish that the provision in question in practice affects a substantially higher proportion of migrant workers.
Ni treba ugotoviti, da zadevna določba v praksi prizadene bistveno vi�ji delež delavcev migrantov.
It is sufficient that it is liable to have such an effect. 54
Zadostuje, da ima lahko tak učinek. 54
54 — See, to that effect O’Flynn, cited in footnote 51, paragraph 21; and Celozzi, cited in footnote 30, paragraph 27.
54 – Glej v zvezi s tem v opombi 51 navedeno sodbo O’Flynn, točka 21, in v opombi 30 navedeno sodbo Celozzi, točka 27.
In that respect, the Court’s statement in Piatkowski, paragraph 34, that ‘the EC Treaty offers no guarantee to a worker that extending his activities into more than one Member State or transferring them to another Member State will be neutral as regards social security’ should not be read outside its context.
V tem smislu ne smemo brati zunaj konteksta izjave Sodi�ča v sodbi Piatkowski, točka 34, da ,,Pogodba ES ne zagotavlja delavcu, da bo ob �iritvi aktivnosti na več kot eno državo članico ali s tem, da jih prenese na drugo državo članico, vpliv na njegovo socialno varnost nevtralen‘‘.
It first appeared in Hervein (cited in footnote 42), paragraph 51.
Prvič se je ta navedba pojavila v zgoraj v opombi 42 navedeni sodbi Hervein, točka 51.
There, it followed a paragraph in which the Court emphasised that the Treaty does not provide for harmonisation of social security legislation and that substantive and procedural differences between the social security systems of individual Member States, and hence in the rights of persons working there, remain unaffected.
Tam je sledila odstavku, v katerem je Sodi�če poudarilo, da Pogodba ne zagotavlja usklajene zakonodaje socialne varnosti ter da vsebinske in postopkovne razlike med sistemi socialne varnosti posameznih držav članic, posledično pa tudi pravice oseb, ki tam delajo, nanje ne vplivajo.
In other words, Community law does not require Member States to provide equal contributions or the same manner of calculating those contributions.
Z drugimi besedami: pravo Skupnosti ne zahteva od držav članic, da zagotovijo enake prispevke ali isti način izračunavanja prispevkov.
The facts of both Hervein and Piatkowski bear out that that is what the Court had in mind.
Dejstva iz sodb Hervein in Piatkowski potrjujejo tak�no stali�če Sodi�ča.
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT by virtue of national legislation, a migrant worker may lose a benefit that he had been granted by virtue of Community law.
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE izgubi koristi, ki so mu zagotovljene v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
This would endanger the coordination regime established by Regulation No 1408/71.
To bi ogrozilo režim usklajevanja, vzpostavljen z Uredbo �t. 1408/71.
It is also immaterial whether the contested measure affects, in some circumstances, nationals of the State in question resident in other parts of the national territory as well as nationals of other Member States.
Prav tako ni bistveno, ali sporni ukrep v nekaterih okoli�činah prizadene državljane zadevne države, ki imajo stalno prebivali�če v drugih delih nacionalnega ozemlja, in tudi državljane drugih držav članic.
In order for a measure to be discriminatory, it is not necessary for it to put at an advantage all the nationals of the State in question or to put at a disadvantage only nationals of other Member States, but not nationals of the State in question. 55
Za diskriminatornost ukrepa ni treba, da ta postavi v prednostni položaj vse državljane zadevne države ali da prikraj�a samo državljane drugih držav članic, ne pa državljanov zadevne države. 55
I agree with the Commission.
Glede tega se strinjam s Komisijo.
A scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings therefore imposes a difference in treatment to the detriment of migrant workers.
Sistem, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, zato povzroča različno obravnavanje na �kodo delavcev migrantov.
— The application of the lex loci laboris to denote the competent part of the competent State
– Uporaba lex loci laboris za določitev pristojnega dela ozemlja pristojne države
To pursue my earlier illustration: suppose that the same French national who took up a job in Hoegaarden initially decides to commute between his work and his home in Givet.
Če nadaljujem svojo prej�njo ponazoritev: predpostavimo, da se isti francoski državljan, ki se je zaposlil v Hoegaardnu, prvotno odloči, da bo dnevno migriral med krajem zaposlitve in domom v Givetu.
He does this for a number of years.
To dela več let.
Then he decides that life would be easier for all the family if they moved closer to his place of work and settled in Jodoigne.
Potem se odloči, da bi bilo življenje za vso družino lažje, če se preselijo bližje kraja njegove zaposlitve in se naselijo v Jodoignu.
Upon moving his residence from France to the Frenchspeaking region of Belgium, whilst continuing to work in the Dutchspeaking region, he will lose the benefits of the Flemish care insurance.
S spremembo stalnega prebivali�ča iz Francije v francosko govorečo regijo Belgije, medtem ko nadaljuje delo v nizozemsko govoreči regiji, bi izgubil koristi flamskega zavarovanja. Jasno je, da ga to lahko odvrne od uveljavljanja pravice do prostega gibanja in stalnega prebivali�ča.
At the hearing, the Commission also suggested that, in application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, the lex loci laboris should be used as the sole connecting factor, to denote both the Member State and the decentralised authority of that Member State whose legislation is applicable.
Na naroku je Komisija predlagala, naj se pri uporabi člena 13 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 lex loci laboris uporabi kot edini povezovalni faktor za določitev obeh, države članice in dela te države članice, katere zakonodaja se uporablja.
Otherwise,
Drugače lahko v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo delavec migrant
When taken at face value, the situation I have just described appears to be the one envisaged in Article 21(4) of Regulation No 1408/71: a worker who was previously not resident in the competent State transfers his residence to the competent State, in casu Belgium.
Na prvi pogled se zdi, da je opisani položaj tisti, ki je predviden v členu 21(4) Uredbe �t. 1408/71: delavec, ki prej ni imel stalnega prebivali�ča v zadevni državi, prenese stalno prebivali�če v zadevno državo, v tem primeru v Belgijo.
Article 21(4) of Regulation No 1408/71 provides that the migrant worker should receive or continue to receive benefits in accordance with the legislation of the competent State.
Člen 21(4) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določa, da delavec migrant prejema ali nadaljuje s prejemanjem dajatev v skladu z zakonodajo zadevne države.
Prima facie the situation under the Flemish care insurance seems to comply with this requirement inasmuch as the French migrant is treated in accordance with the legislation of the competent State, in casu Flemish legislation.
Prima facie izgleda, da je položaj po flamskem zavarovanju v skladu s to zahtevo, če je francoski migrant obravnavan v skladu z zakonodajo zadevne članice, v tem primeru s flamsko zakonodajo.
There are however two flaws in this reasoning.
Vendar nepopolnosti.
First, the prima facie conclusion that there is no inequality of treatment is dependent upon comparing a French national moving to the Frenchspeaking part of Belgium with a Belgian national living in the Frenchspeaking part of Belgium.
Prvič, zaključek prima facie, po katerem ni neenakosti obravnave, je odvisen od primerjave francoskega državljana, ki se preseli v francosko govoreči del Belgije, z belgijskim državljanom, ki živi v francosko govorečem delu Belgije.
Similarly, when Article 21(4) of Regulation No 1408/71 determines that a migrant worker upon moving to the competent State shall receive or continue to receive benefits in accordance with the legislation of the competent State, it assumes that the competent State is indeed competent to grant the migrant worker whichever benefits it grants to its own citizens.
Podobno, ko člen 21(4) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določa, da delavec migrant s preselitvijo v zadevno državo prejema ali nadaljuje s prejemanjem dajatve v skladu z zakonodajo zadevne države, predvideva, da je zadevna država resnično pristojna dodeljevati delavcu migrantu katero koli dajatev, ki jo zagotavlja svojim državljanom.
However, in the present case the competent authority of the competent State is, in fact, competent in respect of only part of the territory of that State.
Vendar je v tem primeru pristojna oblast zadevne države dejansko pristojna le za del ozemlja te države.
As I have indicated earlier, this is the wrong comparison to make.
Kot sem nakazala prej, ta primerjava ni pravilna.
Second, as the Commission correctly observed at the hearing, the coordination system of Regulation No 1408/71 is based
Drugič, kot je Komisija pravilno opozorila na naroku, sistem usklajevanja po Uredbi
In order for the French worker in my example to be granted the benefits, he has either to go on living in France or to move,
V mojem primeru mora francoski delavec, da bi bil upravičen do dajatev, �e naprej živeti v Franciji ali pa se preseliti ne
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH COMMUNITY AND WALLOON GOVERNMENT of movement and/or as indirect discrimination that operates to the detriment of migrant workers, is it objectively justified?
VLADA FRANCOSKE SKUPNOSTI IN VLADA VALONIJE deluje v �kodo delavcev migrantov, ali je to objektivno utemeljeno?
not just to the competent State (Belgium), but to the part of the competent State where the competent authority is competent (the Dutchspeaking region or the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital).
le v zadevno državo (Belgijo), temveč tudi v del zadevne države, kjer ima pristojna oblast pooblastila (nizozemsko govoreča regija ali dvojezična regija Bruselj-Capital).
Is the obstacle or differential treatment at issue based on objective considerations which are independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and proportionate to the aim legitimately pursued by the national law? 56
Ali tu ovira ali različno obravnavanje temeljita na objektivnem premisleku, ki ni odvisen od nacionalnosti zadevne osebe in je sorazmeren glede na cilj, ki ga upravičeno zasleduje nacionalna zakonodaja? 56
The solution is to use the lex loci laboris to denote the applicable social security regime, both with regard to the Member State (Belgium) and with regard to the decentralised authority of the Member State whose legislation is applicable (Flemish Community).
Re�itev je uporaba lex loci laboris za določitev veljavnega režima socialnega varstva glede na državo članico (Belgija) in tudi glede na del te države članice, katere zakonodaja se uporablja (flamska skupnost).