natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Justice Benjamin Cardozo expressed it superbly in Baldwin v G.A.F. Seelig, in connection with the Constitution of the United States of America, when he pointed out that the Constitution ‘was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division’. 39
Tako ustvarimo ta pojem evropske pripadnosti, ki jo krepijo pogodbe. Sodnik Benjamin Cardozo je to nepozabno izrazil v sodbi Baldwin proti G.A.F. Seeling, ko je glede ustave Združenih držav poudaril, da „temelji na teoriji, da se morajo narodi različnih držav potopiti ali plavati skupaj ter da sta dolgoročno blaginja in odre�itev v povezovanju in ne v delitvi“ 39.
In the light of that discussion, I suggest that the Court should continue to strengthen the concept of citizenship but that it should refine the legal methods of protection, because, occasionally, the application of the Treaties is incorrect.
Po tej predstavitvi predlagam Sodi�ču, naj �e naprej krepi državljanstvo, vendar naj izbolj�a pravne metode varstva, ker v nekaterih primerih izvajanje pogodb ni dobro.
To avoid that, I believe that it is essential to identify the precise scope of Articles 17 EC and 18 EC in order to define the status of citizen of the Union, particularly where the facts relate to the free movement of persons, whether they are workers or employers.
Zato menim, da je nujno določiti natančno razsežnost členov 17 ES in 18 ES, da se opredeli status evropskega državljana, zlasti kadar dejstva zadevajo prosto gibanje oseb, bodisi zaposlenih oseb ali podjetnikov.
36 — Judgment in Bidar (cited in footnote 7).37 — Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen [2004] ECR I-9925.
37 – Sodba z dne 19. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Zhu in Chen (C-200/02, ZOdl., str. I-9925).
38 — Which excludes, conversely, the right to belong of anyone who attempts to rely on the provisions on citizenship without demonstrating any link with a political community, as occurred in Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703.
38 – Kar nasprotno izključuje pripadnost osebe, ki namerava instrumentalizirati predpise o državljanstvu, ne da bi dokazala kakr�no koli zakoreninjenost v politični skupnosti, kot je bilo v zadevi Collins (sodba z dne 23. marca 2004, C-138/02, Recueil, str. I-2703).
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-228/07 freedoms of movement for employed and selfemployed persons (Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC), having regard to the prevailing circumstances.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-228/07 gibanjem zaposlenih delavcev in samozaposlenih oseb (členi 39 ES, 43 ES in 49 ES) ob upo�tevanju posebnosti obravnavnega primera.
If there is a link to the fundamental rights or to the democratic factors of belonging to a political community, the freedoms should be interpreted in the light of Articles 17 EC and 18 EC, in order to afford the citizen of the Union in question the maximum protection.
Če obstaja povezava s temeljnimi pravicami ali demokratičnimi dejavniki pripadnosti politični skupnosti, bi bilo treba svobo�čine razlagati z vidika členov 17 ES in 18 ES, da se evropskemu državljanu zagotovi večje varstvo.
The Court has described in detail the scope of freedom of movement for workers (Article 39 EC), freedom of establishment (Article 43 EC) and freedom to provide ser -vices (Article 49 EC).
Sodi�če je podrobno razlikovalo področja prostega gibanja delavcev (člen 39 ES), svobode ustanavljanja (člen 43 ES) in svobode opravljanja storitev (člen 49 ES).
Despite the progress made in caselaw, there are uncertainties surrounding whether those provisions of the Treaty may be invoked, either because the individual concerned is not a worker within the meaning of the Treaty or because he does not pursue an economic activity.
Kljub razvoju sodne prakse obstajajo dvomi o možnosti sklicevanja na ta pravila pogodb, bodisi ker o�kodovani subjekt ni delavec v smislu same pogodbe, bodisi ker ne opravlja gospodarske dejavnosti.
In those circumstances, Articles 17 EC and 18 EC come into play as provisions of last resort in the system, which protect individuals who exercise freedom of movement when they are not protected by other provisions or when the protection provided is subject to restrictions either because of a lack of harmonisation in the field concerned or because of the particular features of the cases arising in that context.
V tem primeru bi se člena 17 ES in 18 ES uporabljala kot klavzuli, dopolnjujoči sistem varstva državljana, ki se preseli, če ga ne varujejo druga pravila ali če mu ta pravila zagotavljajo samo omejeno varstvo, bodisi zaradi neusklajenosti na tem področju bodisi zaradi posebnosti zadev, nastalih v teh okoli�činah.
However, in the event that the freedoms laid down in Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC are not applicable to the present case, I propose that the Court should find two levels of protection in Articles 17 EC and 18 EC: where the conditions of freedom and democracy referred to above are present, the highest level of protection is afforded to individuals; where those conditions are not present, the margin of discretion of the Community legislature and the national authorities must be increased.
Če pa se nasprotno svobo�čine, določene v členih 39 ES, 43 ES in 49 ES, ne uporab -ljajo v obravnavanem primeru, Sodi�ču predlagam, naj v členih 17 ES in 18 ES razlikuje dve ravni varstva: če so izpolnjeni zgoraj navedeni pogoji svobode in demokracije, se posamezniku dodeli vi�ja raven varstva; če pa ti pogoji niso izpolnjeni, je treba raz�iriti diskrecijsko pravico zakonodajalca Skupnosti in nacionalnih organov.
At the same time, there appears to be a certain amount of redundancy in the caselaw, which tends to analyse the facts by distinguishing between the provisions governing citizenship and the provisions governing the freedoms but then goes on to treat them identically.
Hkrati opažamo določeno odvečnost v sodni praksi, ki analizira pogoje in pri tem razlikuje med skupino državljanstva in skupino svobo�čin, da ju nato obravnava enako.
That is clear in Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz and Commission v Germany, where it is possible to see both a distinction and a similarity between the subject-matters and the outcomes.
To izhaja iz zgoraj navedenih sodb Schwarz in Gootjes-Schwarz ter Komisija proti Nemčiji, kjer ugotavljamo ločitev, vendar tudi enotnost vsebine in rezultatov.
If that identity is more substantive than procedural, then to my mind there is no point retaining separate spheres of application.
Čeprav je ta enakost bolj vsebinska kot formalna, se mi ne zdi potrebno ohraniti ločenih področij uporabe.
Therefore, I propose that the Court should examine this case in the light of the
Torej predlagam Sodi�ču, naj odloči o tem vpra�anju tako, da ga poveže s prostim
That approach would endow the spirit which infuses the caselaw with a more refined legal method.
Če bi sprejeli to stali�če, bi duhu, ki prevladuje v sodni praksi, dali bolj�o pravno tehniko.
At the same time, Art -icles 17 EC and 18 EC would acquire their full meaning, including when they touch on the definitions of the traditional freedoms of movement.
Hkrati bi člena 17 ES in 18 ES imela poln pomen, tudi ko bi zadevala meje tradicionalne svobode gibanja.
Finally, the Court would strengthen the position of citizens of the Union, in terms of both their rights and their integration.
Sodi�če bi nazadnje okrepilo položaj evropskega državljana, kar zadeva njegove pravice in vključevanje.
PETERSEN the suspension or modification of invalidity benefits on that ground, 42 Member States are granted a wider freedom of action when the benefit at issue is unemployment benefit. 43
PETERSEN zaradi nezmožnosti za delo iz tega razloga 42, priznava večji manevrski prostor državam
Having made those preliminary points, it is necessary to analyse the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Austrian Verwaltungsgerichtshof.
Po tem uvodu je treba preučiti vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, ki ju je predložilo Verwaltungsgerichtshof.
VI — The first question: the advance unemployment benefit granted to applicants for incapacity benefit and its classification
VI – Prvo vprašanje: predplačilo nadomestila za brezposelnost, ki se izplačuje osebam, ki zaprosijo za dajatev zaradi nezmožnosti za delo, in njegova opredelitev
A — The question posed
A – Postavljeno vprašanje
Using the reasoning put forward in this Opinion, I believe that choosing either classification will lead to the same outcome.
Na podlagi sklepanja, ki ga priporočam v teh sklepnih predlogih, poudarjam, da ima odločitev za eno ali drugo opredelitev enak rezultat.
If the Court decides it is an invalidity benefit, the prohibition in the regulation will provide a categorical reply to the Verwaltungsgerichts- hof.
Če bi se odločili za invalidsko dajatev, bi prepoved, naložena z Uredbo, ponudila kategoričen odgovor Verwaltungsgerichtshof.
On the other hand, if the Court decides it is an unemployment benefit, Mr Petersen satisfies one of the conditions set out in points 25 to 38 of this Opinion, which means that he is entitled to the maximum level of Community protection under Articles 18 EC and 39 EC.
Če pa bi nasprotno dali prednost nadomestilu za brezposelnost, J. Petersen izpolnjuje enega od pogojev iz točk od 25 do 38 teh sklepnih predlogov, kar mu daje pravico do vi�je ravni varstva Skupnosti na podlagi členov 18 ES in 39 ES.
Although it is beyond doubt that it must be regarded as a benefit under Regulation No 1408/71, 41it is necessary to choose one of those classifications because the regulation provides for different rules to apply to national measures for suspension and modification where the beneficiary transfers his residence.
Čeprav ni dvoma, da gre za dajatev, ki jo pokriva Uredba �t. 1408/71 41, se je treba odločiti za eno ali drugo kategorijo, ker besedilo Uredbe določa različne sisteme za nacionalne ukrepe začasne ustavitve ali spremembe pri spremembi stalnega prebivali�ča prejemnika.
While the regulation prohibits
Medtem ko prepoveduje začasno ustavitev ali spremembo dajatev
Notwithstanding the similarity in the outcomes, it is appropriate to examine the issue of the classification of the benefit, since the questions referred for a preliminary ruling turn first and foremost on that point.
Kljub tem enakim posledicam je treba sprejeti stali�če v obravnavi opredelitve, ker se vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje nana�ata najprej na to temo.
B — Arguments of the governments, the Commission and Mr Petersen coefficient to avoid imbalances where invalidity benefit is granted.
B – Trditve vlad, Komisije in J. Petersena se preprečijo razlike, če se odobri invalidska dajatev.
The German, Austrian and Italian Governments and the Commission have maintained in their observations that the disputed benefit is an unemployment benefit, which comes under Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Nem�ka, avstrijska in italijanska vlada ter Komisija so v stali�čih trdile, da je zadevna dajatev nadomestilo za brezposelnost, ki ga pokriva člen 4(1)(g) Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
Thus, the German and Austrian Governments state that the advance at issue is intended to cover a situation of unemployment, because that status is necessary for the grant of the benefit.
Nem�ka in avstrijska vlada tako opozarjata, da je namen zadevnega predplačila pokritje brezposelnosti, ker je ta status nujen za dodelitev nadomestila.
Those governments also point out that there is always a risk of unemployment but that the risk inherent in invalidity benefit is based on facts which are unknown until the time of the administrative decision awarding the benefit.
Trdita tudi, da tveganje, povezano z invalidsko dajatvijo, temelji na dejstvih, ki niso znana do upravne odločitve o dodelitvi nadomestila.
Finally, the German and Austrian Governments argue that the benefit is calculated in accordance with the rules governing unemployment benefit, with the addition of a corrective
Nazadnje opozarjata, da se dajatev določi v skladu s pravili o nadomestilu za brezposelnost, razen korekcijskega koeficienta, s katerim
44 — Case C-406/04 [2006] ECR I-6947.
44 – Sodba z dne 18. julija 2006 v zadevi De Cuyper (C-406/04, ZOdl., str. I-6947).
45 — De Cuyper (cited in footnote 44), paragraph 25: ‘… in order to be categorised as social security benefits, benefits must be regarded, irrespective of the characteristics peculiar to different national legal systems, as being of the same kind when their purpose and object as well as the basis on which they are calculated and the conditions for granting them are identical.
45 – Sodba De Cuyper, navedena v opombi 44, točka 25: „[…] da je treba neodvisno od posebnosti različnih nacionalnih zakonodaj �teti, da so dajatve, zato da bi bile opredeljene kot dajatve socialne varnosti, enake narave, če so njihovi predmet in cilj ter tudi osnova za izračun in pogoji za njihovo dodelitev enaki.
On the other hand, characteristics which are purely formal must not be considered relevant criteria for the classification of the benefits.’
Nasprotno zgolj formalnih značilnosti ni mogoče �teti za pomembne dejavnike razvrstitve dajatev“.
Finally, the German, Austrian and Italian Governments and the Commission do not regard as important the fact that, in order to receive the advance, the applicant is not required to be seeking employment, since that would distort the nature of a benefit designed to assist individuals who have applied for incapacity benefit but do not know the outcome of their claim and are also unemployed.
Nem�ka, avstrijska in italijanska vlada ter Komisija nazadnje relativizirajo dejstvo, da se od zadevne osebe ne zahteva, da i�če delo, da lahko prejme predplačilo, ker bi s tem izkrivili dajatev za podporo osebi, ki uveljav - lja svojo invalidnost, vendar ne ve, kak�na bo odločitev o njenem zahtevku, in je poleg tega brezposelna.
To alleviate such a situation, a third category was created in Austria, which has all the elements of an unemployment benefit but with one logical exception, because it would be difficult to require a person who has applied for an invalidity benefit to seek work.
Avstrija je za omilitev teh okoli�čin uvedla tretjo pot z vsemi elementi dajatve za brezposelnost, vendar z logično izjemo, ker se osebo, ki zaprosi za invalidsko dajatev, težko sili k iskanju dela.
The arguments put forward reflect the dilemma faced by the Court, since there are reasons for and against both categories.
Predstavljene trditve odsevajo dilemo Sodi�ča, ker obstajajo argumenti za in proti vsaki možnosti.
In principle, the benefit concerned is a sui generis benefit which is difficult to fit into the Community classification and is aimed at resolving the difficulties of those who claim entitlement to certain social security benefits.
Načelno gre za dajatev sui generis, ki jo je težko vključiti v tipologijo Skupnosti in katere namen je re�iti težave oseb, ki menijo, da so upravičene do določenih socialnih pomoči.
However, there are compelling reasons why the benefit should be classified as an unemployment benefit rather than as an invalidity benefit.
Vendar pomembni razlogi spodbujajo k temu, da se zadevna dajatev opredeli prej kot nadomestilo za brezposelnost in ne kot invalidska dajatev.
The Kingdom of Spain, relying on a literal interpretation of the De Cuyper judgment, argues that, because he lacks the capacity for work, the benefit is intended to cover the possible invalidity of Mr Petersen.
Kraljevina Španija, ki povzema dobesedno razlago iz sodbe De Cuyper, trdi, da je namen zadevne dajatve pokriti morebitno invalidnost J. Petersena zaradi nezmožnosti za delo.
The purpose of unemployment benefit is ‘enabling the workers concerned to provide for themselves following an involuntary loss of employment when they still have the capacity for work’.
Namen nadomestila za brezposelnost je „zadevnim delavcem omogočiti pomoč pri zadovoljevanju njihovih potreb zaradi neprostovoljne izgube njihove zaposlitve, ko so �e sposobni za delo“ 46.
46The latter condition, which requires anyone applying for un -employment benefit to be available for work, would exclude Mr Petersen and convert his advance into an invalidity benefit.
Zadnja navedba, ki naj bi zahtevala, da je oseba, ki zaprosi za nadomestilo za brezposelnost, zmožna za delo, naj bi izključevala J. Petersena in spreminjala njegovo predplačilo v invalidsko dajatev.
It is not a condition of the disputed advance that the applicant must have the capacity for work 49or be available to the employment authorities.
Res je, da sporno predplačilo od osebe, ki zaprosi zanj, ne zahteva niti, da je zmožna za delo 49, niti, da je na razpolago službi za zaposlovanje 50.
50If the incapacity
Če se invalidska dajatev odobri,
48 benefit is granted, the decision acquires a kind of retroactivity vis-à-vis the advance and consequently transforms it into a benefit provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71; the body responsible for invalidity benefit must reimburse the authority
odločitev postane nekako veljavna za nazaj, kar zadeva predplačilo, saj ga postavlja kot izhodi�če enega od nadomestil iz člena 4(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, organ, pristojen za sistem invalidskega zavarovanja, pa upravi,
49 — Paragraph 23(2)(1) of the AlVG.
49 – Člen 23(2)(1) AlVG.
50 — A logical consequence of the foregoing exception.
50 – Logična posledica prej�nje oprostitve.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-228/07 responsible for the payment of unemployment benefit for the grant of the advance. 51
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-228/07 pristojni za dajatve za brezposelnost, nadomesti stro�ke, povezane s predplačilom 51.
Finally, in De Cuyper the Court defined unemployment benefit in strict terms, emphasising that the applicant must have the capacity for work. 52
Nazadnje je bila v sodbi De Cuyper dajatev za brezposelnost opredeljena strogo, pri tem pa je bilo poudarjeno, da mora biti zadevna oseba zmožna za delo 52.
In the same way as the advance differs from unemployment benefit in those aspects (which are essential requirements in the light of Paragraph 7(1)(1) of the AlVG), it also fails to satisfy an essential condition of invalidity benefit, namely the financial element, which is calculated in accordance with the provisions on un -employment benefit. 53
Predplačilo s teh vidikov (ki so vsebinske zahteve ob upo�tevanju člena 7(1)(1) AlVG) ni dajatev za brezposelnost, tudi ne izpolnjuje bistvenega pogoja invalidske dajatve, to je ekonomske vsebine, ki se izračuna v skladu s pravili o nadomestilih za brezposelnost 53.
The second reason relates to the fact that incapacity benefit is granted retroactively so that it may be set off against the amount of the unemployment benefit.
Drugi razlog zadeva dejstvo, da invalidska dajatev velja za nazaj, da se finančno nadomesti znesek nadomestila za brezposelnost.
The nature of the advance changes if the application for incapacity benefit is granted but, where an application is refused, it becomes an unemployment benefit in the strict sense and there is no need for the reimbursement of any sums between the competent authorities. 54
Zadevno predplačilo se spremeni, ko se zahtevku za invalidsko dajatev ugodi, vendar če se zahtevek zavrne, ostane nadomestilo za brezposelnost v ožjem pomenu, ne da bi povzročilo kakr�no koli nadomestilo zneskov med pristojnimi upravami 54.
It is also appropriate not to overstate the importance of the De Cuyper judgment in order to understand its true scope. In that
Treba je tudi relativizirati pomen sodbe De Cuyper, da jo lahko razumemo v njeni pravi razsežnosti. V tej zadevi je belgijski
53 — Paragraph 23(4) of the AlVG.
53 – Člen 23(4) AlVG.
54 — Paragraph 23(5) and (6) of the AlVG.
54 – Člen 23(5) in (6) AlVG.
51 — Paragraph 23(7) of the AlVG.
51 – Člen 23(5) AlVG.
52 — De Cuyper (cited in footnote 44), paragraph 27.
52 – Sodba De Cuyper, navedena v opombi 44, točka 27.
PETERSEN allowances.
PETERSEN te pomoči.
Second, the advance is automatically terminated if the beneficiary accepts a job during the procedure for consideration of the application for incapacity benefit.
Drugič, predplačilo avtomatično preneha, če prejemnik sprejme delo med postopkom preučitve invalidske dajatve.
Just as an unemployed person loses his entitlement to unemployment benefit when he takes up a job, so the beneficiary of the advance is subject to the same outcome.
Tako kot brezposelna oseba izgubi pravico do dajatve za brezposelnost, če začne delati, se prejemniku predplačila zgodi enako.
Third, the system for calculating the advance is drawn up in accordance with the rules governing unemployment benefits, but with the inclusion of a corrective criterion to avoid excessive payments where incapacity benefit is subsequently granted.
Tretjič, sistem izračuna predplačila deluje v skladu s pravili o dajatvah za brezposelnost, vendar s korekcijskim merilom, da se preprečijo velika izplačila, če bi bila invalidska dajatev pozneje odobrena.
Fourth, it is merely hypothetical that the beneficiary of the advance lacks the capacity to work and the only certainty is that he is unemployed, from which it follows that it is appropriate that the advance is based on that fact.
Četrtič, invalidnost prejemnika predplačila je samo predpostavka, saj je brezposelnost edino zanesljivo dejstvo, tako da se zdi primerno, da se predplačilo predstavlja kot tako.
case, a Belgian national was in receipt of an unemployment allowance a special feature of which was that it exempted him from registering as a job-seeker and, consequently, from the requirement of being available for work.
državljan prejemal nadomestilo za brezposelnost s to posebnostjo, da se ni bil dolžan prijaviti kot iskalec zaposlitve in mu posledično ni bilo treba biti na voljo za zaposlitev 55.
55That exemption, which constituted a derogation from the statutory conditions laid down for the grant of unemployment benefits, did not prevent the Court from classifying the allowance as an unemployment benefit.
Ta izjema, ki pomeni izjemo od zakonsko naloženih pogojev za dodelitev dajatev za brezposelnost, Sodi�ču ni preprečila, da je pomoč opredelilo kot dajatev za brezposelnost.
At paragraph 27 of the judgment, the Court described such allowances as ones where the beneficiary still has the capacity to work, but found that a similar allowance must be regarded as an unemployment benefit, notwithstanding that it did not satisfy one of the conditions. The same finding could be applied to the present case, in that, although the Austrian advance does not satisfy an essential condition for classification as an unemployment benefit, it has a significant number of elements which make it similar to that type of benefit.
Sodi�če je v točki 27 sodbe te dajatve opisalo kot dajatve, ki jih prejme upravičenec, ki je �e zmožen za delo, vendar je menilo, da se podobna dajatev lahko opredeli kot nadomestilo za brezposelnost, če eden od pogojev ni izpolnjen, kar lahko velja za to zadevo, ker avstrijsko predplačilo, čeprav ne izpolnjuje bistvenega pogoja, da bi ustrezalo opredelitvi nadomestila za brezposelnost, združuje �tevilne značilnosti, ki ga povezujejo s to vrsto dajatev.
First of all, the advance is paid where a worker is unemployed and has also applied for incapacity benefit, which suggests that the individual concerned is particularly vulnerable.
Prvič, predplačilo se izplača, ker je delavec, ki je brezposeln, poleg tega zaprosil za invalidsko dajatev, kar pomeni, da gre za posebno ranljivo osebo 56.
56In those circumstances, an unemployment allowance is provided out of the unemployment insurance funds and in accordance with the rules governing such
V teh okoli�činah se nadomestilo za brezposelnost izplača iz sredstev za zavarovanje za primer brezposelnosti in v skladu s predpisi, ki veljajo za
55 — De Cuyper (cited in footnote 44), paragraph 30.
55 – Sodba De Cuyper, navedena v opombi 44, točka 30.
57 It is clear from the letter and the spirit of the Austrian legislation that the advance is intended to replace income from employment for a temporary period which
Vendar je bistven element njen cilj, da se tehtnica prevesi v korist opredelitve predplačila kot dajatve za brezposelnost 57. Iz oblike in vsebine avstrijske zakonodaje izhaja, da je namen te pomoči nadomestiti prihodke