natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen begyndte med at analysere artiklerne 1, 2 og 5 i direktiv 76/207 og konkluderede derefter, at direktivet havde til formål at gennemføre princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder, for så vidt an går blandt andet »arbejdsvilkår«, for herved at gen nemføre EØF-traktatens socialpolitiske mål, og ikke at regulere spørgsmål vedrørende familiens interne for hold eller at ændre opgavefordelingen mellem foræl-
The Court started its reasoning by analysing Articles 1, 2, and 5 of Directive 76/207, and subsequently con-
EF-Domstolens afgørelser angår beskyttelse af kvinder i forbindelse med gravi ditet og moderskab.
This provision, which contains an exception to the principle of equal treatment, leaves the Member States free as to the protection of women in con­nection with pregnancy and maternity.
I modsætning til Kommissionens strengere opfattelse fandt EFD, at medlemsstaterne frit kan bestemme, at »barsel« orlov kun skal ind rømmes kvinder.
Contrary to the stricter opinion of the Commission, the ECJ held that the Member States are free to decide that 'mater­nity' leave is to be granted only to women.
EFD's fortolkning af denne undta gelse fra princippet om ligebehandling er ikke overras kende i betragtning af dens dom i sagerne 163/82 — Kommissionen mod Italien (artikel 2, stk. 3) og 165/82 — Kommissionen mod Det Forenede Kon gerige (artikel 2, stk. 2).
The ECJ's interpretation of this exception to the principle of equal treatment is not surprising, taking into ac­count its judgment in Cases 163/82 — Commission ν Italy (Article 2 3)) and 1 65/82 — Commission ν UK (Article 2 (2)).
Domtolen bemærkede yderligere, at direktivet indrømmede medlemsstaterne et skøn, for så vidt angår de sociale foranstaltninger, de inden for direktivets rammer traf for at beskytte kvinder i forbindelse med graviditet og moderskab og for at udligne de vanskeligheder, som kvinder, modsat mænd, havde med at bevare beskæftigelsen.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the Direc­tive left Member States with a discretion as to the so­cial measures which they adopted in order to guar­antee, within the framework laid down by the Directive, the protection of women in connection with pregnancy and maternity and to offset the disad­vantages which women, by comparison with men, suffer with regard to the maintanance of their jobs.
På denne baggrund statuerede Domstolen:
In view of this, the Court ruled that:
Ifølge EFD skal artikel 2, stk. 3, i direktiv 76/207 om ligebehandling fortolkes bredt.
Articles 1, 2 and 5(1 ) of the Council Directive 76/207 of 9 February 1976 on the implementa­tion of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion and working conditions must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, after the protective period has expired, grant to mothers a period of mater­nity leave which the State encourages them to take by the payment of an allowance.
Denne bestemmelse, som indeholder en undtagelse fra princippet om li gebehandling, stiller medlemsstaterne frit, for så vidt
The Direc­tive does not impose on Member States a require-
Sag 23/83
Case 23/83 which a civil servant was employed; that article made the payment of contributions, which in principle was the responsibility of the civil servant, incumbent upon the public authority.
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder (EØF-traktaten, artikel 119).
Subject-matter: Equal pay for men and women (EEC Treaty, Article 119).
Der skulle kun betales ét bidrag af de samlede to lønindtægter.
Only one contribution was payable on the total of both salaries.
Bidraget opkrævedes af skattemyndighederne sammen med indkomstskat ten.
The contribution was collected by the collector of direct taxes at the same time as income tax.
De beløb, der opkrævedes som bidrag, var begrænset til et vist maksimum.
There was a maximum limit for contribu­tions.
Før 1972 blev det overskydende beløb (benævnt overkompensation), når de af den offentlige myndighed indbetalte beløb oversteg førnævnte maksimum, tilbagebetalt af skattemyndighederne, ikke til den pågældende offentlige myndighed, men til de pågældende tjenestemænd. Det var klart, at denne betaling var en økonomisk fordel for disse tjenestemænd.
Before 1972, if the amounts paid by the pub­lic authority exceeded that maximum limit, the surplus (called 'over-compensation') was paid back by the collector of taxes, not to the public authority which paid it, but to the civil servants concerned.
De personer, der fik overkompensation, var for størstedelen tjene stemænd, der samtidig arbejdede i flere offentlige in stitutioner, og som hver indbetalte bidrag i henhold til AOW og AWW, og hustruer til tjenestemænd, der var ansat i en anden institution end den, hvor deres mænd arbejdede.
The recipients of 'over-compensation' were mostly civil servants who worked at the same time for different public authorities, each of which paid separate contributions under the Old-Age Law and the Widows and Orphans Law, and the wives of civil servants employed by an authority other than the one for which their husbands worked.
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen var alle kvinder, der var offentligt ansat som tjenestemænd.
The plaintiffs in the main proceedings were all women employed as civil servants.
De var gift, og de res ægtemænd var ligeledes offentligt ansat.
They were mar­ried and their husbands were also employed in the civil service.
Tjene stemænd var omfattet af to pensionsordninger, nemlig dels Algemene Ouderdomswet (lov om almindelig alderdomsforsikring) (i det følgende benævnt AOW), og Algemene Weduwen en Wezenwet (lov om al mindelig forsikring for enker og for børn, der har mi stet begge forældre olier en af dem) (i det følgende benævnt AWW), som indeholdt almindelige pensionsbestemmelser for personer bosiddende i Nederlandene, dels Algemene Burgerlijke Pensionenwet (almin delig borgerlig pensionslov) (i det følgende benævnt ABPW), som indeholdt en pensionsordning for tjene stemænd.
Civil servants were covered by two sets of pension rules: the Algemene Ouderdomswet (General Law on Old-Age Insurance Law— 'The Old-Age Law') and the Algemene Weduwen en Wezenwet (Wi­dows and Orphans General Insurance Law — 'the Widows and Orphans Law'), establishing a general pension scheme for persons residing in the Nether­lands, and secondly the Algemene Burgerlijke Pen­sioenwet (General Civil Pensions Law), laying down pension arrangements for civil servants.
I 1972 og 1973 blev der indført en række lovbe stemmelser for at bringe den såkaldte »overkompensa tion« til ophør.
In 1972 and 1973, legislation was introduced to terminate the so-called 'over-compensation'.
Det drejede sig om Wet Gemeen schappelijke Bepalingen Overheidspensioenwetten (lov om fælles bestemmelser for pensionslove for offent ligt ansatte), Uitvoeringsbesluit Beperking Meervoudi ge Overneming AOW/AWW-Premie (gennemførel sesbekendtgørelse om begrænsning af flerdobbelt overtagelse af betalingen af AOW/AWW-bidraget) og forskellige gennemførelsesbestemmelser.
It con­sisted of the Wet Gemeenschappelijke Bepalingen Overheidspensioenwetten (Law laying down common provisions with regard to laws governing the pen­sions of civil servants), the Uitvoeringsbesluit Beperking Meervoudige Overneming AOW/AWW — Premie (Order restricting the payment of contributions due under the Old-Age Insurance Law and the Wi­dows and Orphans Insurance Law by more than one institution) and various implementing provisions.
Ved disse bestemmelser blev der indført en administrativ ord ning, hvorved de forskellige offentlige myndigheder gensidigt informerede hinanden om de enkelte bidragsindbetalinger for én og samme tjenestemand el ler for ét og samme ægtepar.
Those provisions together had created an administra­tive system under which the various public authori­ties kept one another informed about the separate payment of contributions for the same civil servant or married couple.
Når der fra et arbejds sted var indbetalt det maksimale bidrag, betaltes der ikke længere bidrag fra et andet arbejdssted.
Once the maximum amount of con­tributions had been paid in respect of employment in one place, no further contributions were paid in re­spect of employment elsewhere.
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen anlagde sag ved Ambte narengerecht Amsterdam, Arnhem, Hertogenbosch og Utrecht og gjorde herunder gældende, at »kompen sation« og »overkompensation« var løn i den i trakta tens artikel 119 forudsatte betydning, og at afskaf felsen af udbetalingen af »overkompensation« følgelig var uforenelig med denne artikel, fordi den i vidt omfang berørte de bidrag, der skulle indbetales for gif te kvindelige tjenestemænd.
The plaintiffs in the main proceedings made applica tions to the Ambtenarengerecht (civil servants' tri bunal), in Amsterdam, Arnhem, 's-Hertogenbosch, and Utrecht, contending that the 'compensation' and 'over-compensation' were considered as 'pay' within the meaning of Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and that, consequently, the abolition of the pay ment of 'over-compensation' was contrary to that article as it largely affected contributions payable in re spect of married female civil servants.
Deres påstande blev i første instans ikke taget til følge, og de appellerede derfor til Centrale Raad van Beroep i Utrecht.
Their applications were dismissed at first instance and they appealed to the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Court of last instance in social security matters) Utrecht.
Ved kendelse af 20. januar 1983 forelagde Centrale Raad van Beroep, Utrecht, i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål:
By order of 20 January 1983, the Centrale Raad van Beroep, Utrecht, submitted two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:
Domstolen udtalte ved sin gennemgang af denne sag, at det fremgik af praksis, særlig i sag 69/80 — Worringham, at selv om den arbejdsgiverne påhvilende del af finansieringen af de lovbestemte sociale sikringsordninger, som både arbejdstagerne og ar bejdsgiverne bidrog til, ikke var løn i den i traktatens artikel 119 forudsatte betydning, forholdt det sig anderledes med beløb, som indgik i beregningen af den ansattes bruttoløn, og som direkte var afgøren de for beregningen af andre til lønnen knyttede fordele.
In analysing the present case, the Court said that it followed from its previous decisions, and in particular, from Case 69/80 — Worringham, that, although the portion which employers were liable to contribute to the financing of statutory social security schemes to which both employees and employers contributed did not constitute pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty, the same was not true of sums which were included in the calculation of the gross salary payable to the employee and which directly de termined the calculation of other advantages linked to the salary.
Dette gjaldt også, hvis de pågældende beløb umiddelbart indeholdtes af arbejdsgiveren for at blive indbetalt til en pensionsfond på den ansattes vegne.
That was also the case if the amounts in question were immediately deducted by the em ployer and paid to a pension fund on behalf of the em ployee.
Domstolen konkluderede, at princippet om lige løn til mænd og kvinder for samme arbejde i den i artikel 119 forudsatte betydning var blevet tilsidesat i det om fang, disse andre fordele, der var knyttet til lønnen og bestemtes af bruttolønnen, ikke var de samme for mandlige tjenestemænd og for kvindelige tjene stemænd, der var gift med en tjenestemand.
The Court concluded by saying that the prin ciple that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work, as laid down in Article 119, had not therefore been complied with in so far as those other advantages linked to the salary and determined by the gross salary were not the same for male civil servants and for female civil servants whose husbands were also civil servants.
På grundlag af disse argumenter statuerede Dom stolen:
Based on these arguments, the Court held that:
En social sikringsordning, hvorefter
A social security scheme under which:
2) Såfremt ovenstående spørgsmål besvares bekræftende, skal traktatens artikel 119 da for tolkes således, at den i Nederlandene gældende ordning, der er baseret på loven om fælles be stemmelser for pensionslove for offentligt ansatte — og hvorefter bidraget i de tilfælde, hvor det samlede AOW/AWW-bidrag for tjenestemandsan satte ægtefæller overstiger det maksimale bi drag, primært betales af mandens offentlige ar bejdsgiver, og kvindens offentlige arbejdsgiver kun indbetaler bidrag, for så vidt det maksimale bidrag ikke er overskredet, må anses for at være i strid med princippet om lige løn til mænd og kvinder for samme arbejde i samme artikel 119?
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 119 of the Treaty be con strued as meaning that the system applying in the Netherlands based on the Wet Gemeenschappelijke Bepalingen Overheidspensioenwetten must be regarded as being contrary to the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work laid down in Article 119 because, under that system, in those cases in which the joint contributions due under the Algemene Ouderdomswet and the Algemene Weduwen en Wezenwet for a married couple employed in the
3. den offentlige myndighed skal indbetale de bi drag for sin ansatte, som påhviler denne
1. the contributions are calculated on the basis of the employee's salary but may not exceed a cer tain limit,
4. den myndighed, der er mandens arbejdsgiver, i første række skal indbetale bidrag, når ægtefæller begge er tjenestemænd, og den myn dighed, der er hustruens arbejdsgiver, kun skal indbetale bidrag, forså vidt maksimumsbeløbet ikke nås med de bidrag, der indbetales for man den er uforenelig med princippet om lige løn til mænd og kvinder for samme arbejde, som er fastslået i traktatens artikel 7 79, forså vidt de der af følgende forskelle mellem bruttolønnen for en kvindelig tjenestemand, der er gift med en tje nestemand, og en mandlig tjenestemands løn er direkte afgørende for beregningen af andre til lønnen knyttede fordele, såsom fratrædelsesgodtgørelse, arbejdsløshedsydelser, familieydelser og lånemuligheder.
where husband and wife are both civil servants, the authority employing the husband is primarily responsible for paying the contributions and the authority employing the wife is required to pay the contributions only in so far as the upper limit is not reached by the contributions paid on behalf of the husband, is incompatible with the principle laid down in Article 119 of the EEC Treaty that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work, in so far as the resultant differences between the gross salary of a female civil servant whose husband is also a civil servant and the gross salary of a male civil servant directly affect the calculation of other benefits dependent on salary, such as severance pay, unemployment benefit, family allowances and loan facilities.
I denne sag indtog EFD samme holdning til arbejds givernes bidrag til finansieringen af lovbestemte sociale sikringsordninger som i sag 69/80 — Worringham.
In this case, the EG adopted the same approach towards employers' contributions to the financing of statutory social security schemes as in Case 69/80 — Worringham.
De beløb, der indbetales til disse ordninger, udgør ikke »løn« i den i artikel 119 forudsatte betydning.
The amounts contributed to these schemes do not constitute 'pay' in the sense of Art. 119.
Men da de medtages i beregningen af arbejdsta gernes bruttoløn, er de alligevel omfattet af nævnte artikel, for så vidt de andre til lønnen knyttede fordele beregnes direkte på dette grundlag.
However, as they are included in the calculation of the employees' gross pay, they do fall within the scope of that article in so far as they directly determine the calculation of other advantages linked to their salaries.
Med andre ord så EFD på ordningens følger for arbejdstageren.
In other words, the EG looked at the effect of the scheme on the employee.
Havde EFD set på disse ordningers retlige karakter, ville bi dragene ikke have været omfattet af artikel 119, jf. Domstolens dom i sag 80/70 — Defrenne II.
Had the EG consi dered the legal nature of these schemes, the contribu tions would have fallen outside the scope of Art. 119, taking into account its ruling in Case 80/70 — Defrenne II.
For så vidt angår ordninger, der påvirker nettoindkomsten, se sag 192/85 — Newstead.
As far as schemes which affect net in come are concerned, see Case 192/85 — Newstead.
EF-Domstolens afgørelser påstand om, at Kongeriget Danmark havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-traktaten.
Case-law of the European Court of Justice
Sag 143/83 KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER MOD KONGERIGET DANMARK
Case 143/83 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ν KINGDOM OF DENMARK.
Emne: Lige løn til mænd og kvinder (Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF af 10. februar 1975).
Subject-matter: Equal pay for men and women (EEC Council Directive 75/117 of 10 February 1975).
Den danske regering gjorde i sit forsvar gældende, at dansk ret fuldt ud var i overensstemmelse med di rektivet, da den faktisk sikrede lige løn ikke alene for samme arbejde, men tillige for arbejde af samme værdi.
In its defence, the Danish Government alleged that Danish law was entirely in conformity with the Direc­tive as it in fact guaranteed equal pay not only for the same work but also for work of equal value.
Loven af 4. februar 1976 udgjorde alene en subsidiær garanti for ligelønsprincippet, nemlig i det omfang princippet ikke allerede var sikret i medfør af kollektive overenskomster.
The Law of 4 February 1976, was only a subsidiary guar­antee of the principle of equal pay, in cases where ob­servance of that principle was not already ensured under collective agreements.
De kollektive overens komster, der regulerede de fleste arbejdsforhold i Danmark, gav klart udtryk for, at ligelønsprincippet også gjaldt for arbejde af samme værdi.
Collective agreements, which governed most employment relationships in Denmark, clearly upheld the idea that the principle of equal pay also applied to work of equal value.
Den danske regering støttede bl.a. denne fortolkning på 1971overenskomsten mellem hovedorganisationerne på arbejdsmarkedet, der udtrykkeligt fastslog, at ved »ligeløn« forstås, at for arbejde af samme værdi uafhængigt af køn betales samme løn.
The Danish Government based this interpretation in parti­cular on the 1971 agreement concluded by the main organizations on the labour market, which pro­vided expressly that 'equal pay' meant that the same salary was to be paid for work of the same value re­gardless of sex.
Rådets direktiv 75/117 af 10. februar 1975 præcise rer i visse henseender artikel 119's anvendelsesområde og indeholder forskellige bestemmelser, som i det væsentlige skal forbedre retsbeskyttelsen for de ar bejdstagere, som måtte blive krænket ved tilsi desættelsen af ligelønsprincippet.
Council Directive 75/117 of 10 February 1975, lays down detailed rules regarding aspects of the scope of Article 119 and enacts various provisions whose es­sential purpose is to improve the legal protection of workers who may be wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal pay.
Den 4. februar 1976 vedtog Kongeriget Danmark lov nr. 32 om lige løn til mænd og kvinder, hvor det i § 1 hed, at enhver ar bejdsgiver, som beskæftigede mænd og kvinder på samme arbejdsplads, skulle betale dem lige løn for samme arbejde, såfremt han ikke allerede var for pligtet hertil i henhold til en kollektiv overenskomst.
On 4 February 1976, the Kingdom of Denmark adopted Law No 32 on equal pay for men and women, which provided in its Article 1 that every person who employed men and women to work at the same place of work should pay them the same salary for the same work ('samme ar­bejde'), if he was not already required to do so pur­suant to a collective agreement.
Domstolen accepterede, at medlemsstaterne som udgangspunkt kunne overlade gennemførelsen af li gelønsprincippet til arbejdsmarkedets parter, men fastslog, at denne mulighed dog ikke fritog dem fra forpligtelsen til ved egnede administrativt eller ved lov fastsatte bestemmelser at sikre, at alle Fællesskabets arbejdstagere i fuld udstrækning kunne nyde godt af direktivets beskyttelse.
Whilst accepting that Member States could leave the implementation of the principle of equal pay in the first instance to representatives of management and labour, the Court maintained that that possibility did not, however, discharge them from the obligations of ensuring, by appropriate legislative and administra­tive provisions, that all workers in the Community were afforded the full protection provided for in the Directive.
Domstolen udtalte end videre, at selv om man godtog den danske regerings argumenter om, at princippet om lige løn til mænd og kvinder i den af direktivet tilsigtede betydning var sikret inden for rammerne af de kollektive overenskom ster, var det ikke godtgjort, at en tilsvarende anven delse af princippet var sikret arbejdstagere, hvis rettig heder ikke var fastlagt i sådanne overenskomster.
The Court further stated that, even if the arguments of the Danish Government were accepted, i.e. that the principle of equal pay for men and wo­men, in the broad sense required by the Directive, was implemented in collective agreements, it had not been shown that the same implementation of that principle was guaranteed for workers whose rights were not defined in such agreements.
Ifølge Domstolen forekom den danske lovs ordlyd, som ikke omtalte arbejde af samme værdi og
The principle of legal certainty and the protection of individuals thus required an unequivocal wording which would give
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab derved gav ligelønsprincippet en snævrere række vidde, ikke at opfylde nævnte krav.
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community the persons concerned a clear and precise under standing of their rights and obligations and would en able the courts to ensure that those rights and obli gations were observed.
Den omstændig hed, at den danske regering under det forberedende arbejde forud for vedtagelsen af direktiv 75/117 havde fået optaget en erklæring i Rådets forhandlingsprotokol, hvorefter »Danmark er af den opfattelse, at ud trykket 'samme arbejde' fortsat kan anvendes i danske arbejdsretlige regler«, blev betragtet som irrelevant.
Therefore, the fact that during the preparatory work which led to the adoption of Directive 75/117 the Danish Government entered a declaration in the Council minutes to the effect that 'Denmark was of the view that the expression "same work" could continue to be used in the context of Danish labour law' was con sidered to be irrelevant.
Efter Domstolens faste praksis kunne sådanne ensidige erklæringer ikke påberåbes ved fortolkningen af fællesskabsbestemmelser, da den objektive rækkevidde af regler, der var vedtaget af de fælles in stitutioner, ikke kunne ændres gennem forbehold eller indvendinger, som medlemsstaterne måtte for mulere under deres udarbejdelse.
In view of this, the Court re called that it had consistently held that such unilateral declarations could not be relied upon for the inter pretation of Community measures, since the objective scope of rules laid down by the common institu tions could not be modified by reservations or objec tions which Member States had made at the time the rules were being formulated.
Ved ikke inden for den fastsatte tidsfrist at ved tage alle nødvendige foranstaltninger til gen nemførelse af Rådets direktiv 75/117 af 10. febru ar 1975 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivninger om gennemførelse af princippet om lige løn til mænd og kvinder, har Kongeriget Danmark tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler det i henhold til EØF-traktaten.
Declares that by failing to adopt within the pre scribed period the measures necessary to imple ment Council Directive No 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the applica tion of the principle of equal pay for men and women, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligation under the EEC Treaty.
Kongeriget Danmark betaler sagens omkostninger. ger.
Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
Sag 248/83
Case 248/83