natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dog omformulerede EFD afgørelsen i Achterberg-te Ä/e/e-sagen ved at anføre, at direktivet fandt anven delse på den ikke-erhvervsaktive befolkning, personer, der søgte beskæftigelse, og personer, hvis beskæfti gelse var blevet afbrudt af en af de i direktivets artikel 3 nævnte risici. Betydningen heraf blev klar i sag C31/90 —Johnson, som blev afgjort samme dag.
However, the EG re phrased its ruling in Achterberg-te Riele by positively stating that the Directive applied to the non-working population, those seeking employment, as well as those whose employment had been interrupted by one of the risks mentioned in Article 3 of this Directive.
Endvidere fandt EFD, at retten til at påberåbe sig direkti vet ikke var absolut begrænset til de personer, der var omfattet af dets personelle anvendelsesområde.
Furthermore, the EG held that the right to rely on the Directive is not absolutely restricted to those who fall within its per sonal scope.
Også andre med en direkte interesse i, at det i artikel 4 fastsatte forbud mod forskelsbehandling blev over holdt, kunne undervisse (nationale) betingelser ligele des påberåbe sig det.
Others, with a direct interest in seeing the non-discriminatory principle laid down in Article 4 respected, may rely on it as well, under certain (national) conditions.
Med hensyn til det temporale anvendelsesområde bekræftede EFD, at dens afgørelse i sagerne 384/85 — Borrie Clarke og 80/87 — Dik ikke alene gjaldt overgangsbestemmelser, men alle tilfælde, hvor følgerne af en tidligere diskrimineren de bestemmelse kunne påvirke pensionsrettigheder opnået efter den 23. december 1984.
As to the temporal scope, the EG confirmed that its rulings in Cases 384/85 —Borrie Clarke and 80/87 — Dik, not only apply to transitional provisions, but to all cases where the effects of a previous discriminatory provision might effect entitle ment accrued after 23 December 1984.
Enhver, der var udelukket fra social forsikring på grund af forskels behandling før nævnte dato, skal behandles, som om han eller hun var forsikret.
Any person who was excluded from social insurance on discrimina tory grounds before the said date has to be treated as if he/she was insured.
En borger kan for en national ret påberåbe sig bestemmelserne i direktiv 79/7, når han omfat tes af en national, diskriminerende bestemmelse
Article 2 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementa tion of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as referring to the scope ratione personae of that Directive, the content of which cannot vary according to the scope ratione mater iae, under Article 3 thereof.
Dato for dommen: 11. juli 1991.
Date of judgment: 11 July 1991.
Reference: Endnu ikke offentliggjort.
Reference: Not yet reported.
Den 17. august 1987 indgav fru Johnson gennem et Citizens' Advice Bureau ansøgning om SDA i henhold til ovennævnte regulation.
On 17 August 1987, Mrs Johnson made a claim through a citizens' advice bureau for a severe disable­ment allowance based on the aforesaid regulation.
Adjudication Officer af slog ansøgningen ved afgørelse af 13. november 1987, der blev stadfæstet af Sutton Social Security Appeal Tribunal ved afgørelse af 24. oktober 1988.
The Adjudication Officer rejected that claim by a deci­sion dated 13 November 1987 and her appeal was dismissed by the Sutton Social Security Appeal Tribunal by a decision of 24 October 1988.
Af gørelsen blev indbragt for Social Security Commis-
She then ap­pealed to the Social Security Commissioners.
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hen syn til social sikring (Artiklerne 2 og 4 i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978).
Subject-matter: Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security
2) Spørgsmål, der blev forelagt EFD
(Articles 2 and 4 of EEC Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978).
Ved afgørelse af 25. januar 1990 forelagde Social Security Commissioners i medfør af EØF-traktatens ar tikel 177 Domstolen fire præjudicielle spørgsmål:
By a decision of 25 January 1990, the Social Security Commissioners referred four questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 1 77 of the EEC Treaty:
1 ) Skal artikel 2 i direktiv 79/7/EØF fortolkes såle des, at direktivets personelle anvendelsesområ de omfatter en kvinde (eller mand), som har været i arbejde, men er holdt op med at arbejde for at sørge for et barn, og som senere er blevet afskåret fra at tage arbejde igen på grund af sygdom?
(1 ) Is Article 2 of Directive 79/7/EEC to be interpret­ed as including within its personal scope a woman (or man) who was a worker but who left employment for the purposes of child care and who was later prevented from returning to em­ployment by illness?
2) Det ønskes navnlig oplyst, om en sådan kvinde (eller mand) skal anses for at være omfattet af direktivets personelle anvendelsesområde, hvis hun ville have været i arbejde eller have været ar bejdssøgende, hvis hun ikke havde været syg, eller kræves det i alle tilfælde, at en person, som hævder at være omfattet af direktivets personelle anvendelsesområde, oprindelig skal være holdt
(2) In particular, is such a woman (or man) to be re­garded as included within the personal scope of the Directive if she would be working or seeking employment but for illness, or is it necessary in all cases for a person who claims to be within the personal scope of the Directive to have left em­ployment in the first place not because of child care but because of the materialization of one of the risks referred to in Article 3?
Fru Johnson holdt op med at arbejde omkring 1970 for at sørge for sin datter, som på det tidspunkt var seks år, og som hun boede alene sammen med. I 1980 ønskede hun at begynde at arbejde igen, men var ikke i stand hertil på grund af en ryglidelse.
Mrs Johnson ceased working in about 1970 to look after her daughter, who was then aged six and with whom she lived alone. In 1980, she wished to re­sume working but was unable to do so because of a back condition.
I 1981 fik hun på grund af uarbejdsdygtighed tilkendt en invalidepension, som ikke var betinget af, at der var indbetalt bidrag (Non Contributory Invalidity Pen sion, herefter benævnt »NCIP«), i medfør af section 36, stk. 2, i den dagældende Social Security Aet 1975.
In 1981, by reason of her incapacity for work she was awarded a non-contributory invali­dity pension pursuant to Section 36(2) of the Social Security Act 1975 which was then in force.
Imidlertid ophørte udbetalingen af NCIP, da fru Johnson flyttede sammen med sin nuværende samle ver, fordi hun ikke kunne godtgøre, at hun opfyldte den yderligere betingelse, der i henhold til section 36, stk. 2, gjaldt for kvinder, der levede i et fast sam livsforhold, nemlig at hun skulle være ude af stand til at udføre normalt arbejde i hjemmet.
However, payment of that pension was stopped when Mrs Johnson began to cohabit with her present partner on the ground that she could not establish that she ful­filled the additional condition imposed by Section 36(2) on cohabiting women, namely that she should be incapable of performing normal household duties.
I henhold til section 11 i Health and Social Security Aet 1984 blev NCIP ophævet med virkning fra den 20. november op med at arbejde, ikke for at sørge for et barn, men fordi en af de i artikel 3 nævnte risici er indtrådt?
By Section 11 of the Health and Social Secur­ity Act 1984, the non-contributory invalidity pension was abolished as from 20 November 1984, and the new benefit, the severe disablement allowance, which was open to claimants of both sexes on the same conditions, was introduced with effect from 29 November 1984.
1984, og der indførtes en ny ydelse, Severe Disablement Allowance (i det følgende benævnt »SDA«) — som både mænd og kvinder kunne få udbetalt under samme betingelser — med virkning fra den 29. no vember 1984.1 henhold til regulation 20(1) i Social
However, Regulation 20(1) of the Social Security (Severe Disablement Allowance) Regula­tions 1984, allowed persons who could have claimed the old non-contributory invalidity pension to benefit automatically from the new severe disable­
3) Har det betydning for afgørelsen af, hvorledes en sådan kvinde er stillet i forhold til direktivets artikel 2, at få fastslået, om hun har søgt arbejde i den tid, der er gået, fra hendes forpligtelser til
(3) Is it material for the consideration of the posi­tion of such a woman in relation to Article 2 of the Directive to determine whether or not she has sought employment in the period between the end of her child care responsibilities and the onset of the illness that now prevents her from working?
4) Har artikel 4 i direktiv 79/7/EØF direkte virkning, således at en kvinde i henhold til denne bestem melse er berettiget til en ydelse (ydelse »B«) for ti den efter, at hun har indgivet sin ansøgning un der følgende omstændigheder: i)
(4) Does Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC have direct effect so as to provide a woman with a right to benefit (benefit 'B') for the period after she makes her claims in circumstances where:
En medlemsstat havde en invaliditetsydelse (som f.eks. den ydelse uden bidragspligt, der var tale om i C/ar/ce-sagen) (ydelse »A«), som var underlagt en bestemmelse om, at gifte eller samlevende kvinder ikke var berettiget til ydelsen, medmindre de opfyldte yderligere betingelser, som ikke gjaldt for mænd.
(i) a Member State had provided an invalidity benefit (such as the non-contributory invalidity benefit considered in Clarke) (benefit 'A') that was subject to a provision preventing married or cohabiting women qualifying for it unless they met an additional test not ap plied to any man;
ii) Ydelse »A« er blevet ophævet og afløst af ydelse »B«.
(ii) benefit 'A' has been abolished and replaced by benefit 'B';
iii) Retten til ydelse »B« er, i det mindste i nogle tilfælde, betinget af, at den pågældende tid ligere var berettiget til den ophævede ydelse »A«.
(iii) entitlement to benefit 'B' is at least in some cases based on prior entitlement to the abolished benefit 'A';
iv) Kvinden opnåede ikke ret til ydelse »A« i henhold til national ret ved at ansøge om ydelsen, før den blev ophævet, og hun ville ikke opnå ret til ydelsen, hvis hun indgav en an søgning nu, fordi der ikke kan opnås ret til ydelsen for en periode, der ligger mere end 12 måneder forud for det tidspunkt, hvor der indgives ansøgning om ydelsen?
(iv) the woman did not establish entitlement to benefit 'A' as a matter of domestic law, by making a claim for it before its abolition, and any claim now made would secure entitle ment to benefit because entitlement cannot be obtained for any period more than 12 months before the date on which a claim for the benefit is made?
De forelagte spørgsmål rejste to forskellige proble mer: For det første fastlæggelsen af direktiv 79/7/EØF's personelle anvendelsesområde (spørgsmål 1, 2 og 3), og for det andet betydningen af det i artikel 4 i det samme direktiv omhandlede ligebehandlingsprincip, for så vidt angår betingelserne for at opnå en social sikringsydelse (spørgsmål 4).
The questions referred to the Court raised two dis tinct issues: first, the determination of the personal scope of Directive 79/7/EEC (first, second and third questions) and, secondly, the determination of the meaning of the principle of equal treatment referred to in Article 4 of the same Directive with regard to the conditions for obtaining a social security benefit (fourth question).
Med hensyn til direktiv 79/7's personelle anvendel sesområde udtalte Domstolen, at det fremgik af artikel
As far as the personal scope of the Directive was concerned, the Court stated that it followed from Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 79/7, read in conjunction, that the Directive applied only to persons who were available on the labour market or who had ceased to be so owing to the materialization of one of the risks specified in the Directive. Therefore, a person
Med hensyn til betydningen af ligebehandlingsprin cippet i artikel 4 i direktiv 79/7 erindrede Domstolen indledningsvis om sin afgørelse i sag 384/85 — Bor rie Clarke, hvori den havde fastslået, at direktivet ikke indeholdt nogen undtagelse fra ligebehandlings princippet i artikel 4, stk. 1, der kunne hjemle opret holdelse af en diskrimination, der bestod efter tidli gere gældende national lovgivning.
With reference to the determination of the meaning of the principle of equal treatment referred to in Article 4 of Directive 79/7, the Court started its reasoning by recalling its ruling in Case 384/85 — Borrie Clarke. There it had held that the Directive did not provide for any derogation from the principle of equal treat ment laid down in its Article 4(1), so as to authorize the continuation of the discriminatory effects of earlier provisions of national law.
En medlemsstat måtte derfor ikke opretholde en forskelsbehandling efter den 22. december 1984, hvor den i direktivet fastsatte frist for at bringe den nationale lovgivning i overensstemmelse med direktivet, udløb.
Therefore, after 22 De cember 1984, the date on which the period laid down by the Directive for bringing national legislation into conformity with it expired, a Member State could not maintain any inequalities of treatment.
Følgelig fastslog Domstolen, at den britiske lovgivning, hvor-
Accordingly, the Court stated that the British legislation which made entitlement to a benefit subject to the pre-
EF-Domstolens afgørelser gennemført, er disse samme regler det eneste gyldige retsgrundlag.
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community
4) Bemærkninger efter retten til en ydelse var betinget af, at der tidli gere var indgivet ansøgning om en anden ydelse, hvor til der var knyttet en betingelse, der var diskrimine rende over for erhvervsaktive kvinder, måtte anses for uforenelig med artikel 4, stk. 1, i direktiv 79/7.
Comments vious submission of a claim for a different benefit which entailed a condition discriminating against fe male workers, should be regarded as incompatible with Article 4(1 ) of Directive 79/7.
I de forenede sager C-87, 88 og 89/90 — Verholen omformulerede EFD sin afgørelse i forenede sager 48, 106 og 107/88 —Achterberg-te Riele.
In Joined Cases C-87, 88 and 89/90 — Verholen, the EG rephrased its ruling given in Joined Cases 48, 106 and 107/88 — Achterberg-te Riele.
Betydningen af dette blev klar i den foreliggende sag.
The impor tance of this became clear in the present case.
For så vidt an går det personelle anvendelsesområde for direktiv 79/7 statuerede EFD, at direktivet finder anvendelse på arbejdssøgende personer, uanset hvorfor de er ar bejdsløse.
As to the personal scope of Directive 79/7, the EG held that the Directive applies to persons seeking work, irrespective of the reasons why they are unemployed.
Således finder direktivet anvendelse på per soner, der har haft et arbejde, der ikke er blevet af brudt af en af de i artikel 3 (gruppe ii) i Achterberg) nævnte risici, forudsat at de var arbejdssøgende, da risikoen indtrådte.
Hence, the Directive does apply to persons who have had an occupation which was not interrupted by one of the risks mentioned in Article 3 (group (ii) in Achterberg), provided they were seeking work when the risk materialized.
Med henblik herpå skal den pågældende faktisk godtgøre, at han?hun allerede har taget konkrete skridt, der viser et ønske om at komme i arbejde.
To this end, the person has to demonstrate factual evidence which proves that he/she had already taken concrete steps that showed the wish to take up employment.
Derfor omfattes et større udsnit af den kvindelige befolkning af direktivet, herunder kvin der som fru Johnson, som holdt op med at arbejde for at sørge for sit barn, og kvinder, som aldrig har haft lejlighed til at komme ind på arbejdsmarkedet på grund af børnepasning, men som eventuelt ønsker at komme i arbejde på et senere tidspunkt.
Consequently, a larger section of the female population is covered by the Directive, including women like Mrs Johnson who ceased work to take care of her child, as well as women who never had a chance to enter the labour market because of child-raising but who may wish to take up employment at a later stage.
For så vidt angår det temporale anvendelsesområde fastslog EFD — lige som i Verno/en-sagen, at ethvert nation alt krav, der indebærer en fortsættelse af en forskelsbe handling af kvinder efter den 23. august 1984, er i strid med fællesskabsretten.
As to the tem poral scope, the EG held — like in Verholen — that any national requirement which has the effect of perpetuating discrimination against women, after 23 December 1984, is against Community law.
Artikel 4 i direktiv 79/7/EØF har kunnet påberå bes fra den 23. december 1984, således at en national lov bliver retligt uvirksom, når den gør ret ten til en ydelse betinget af, at der forinden er indgivet ansøgning om en anden, nu afskaffet ydelse, og når den ved en af sine betingelser var diskriminerende over for kvindelige arbejdstagere.
Since 23 December 1 984, it has been possible to rely on Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC in order to have set aside national legislation which makes entitlement to a benefit subject to the previous submission of a claim in respect of a different benefit which has since been abolished and which entailed a condition discriminating against female workers.
I mangel afpassende foranstaltninger til gen nemførelse af artikel 4 i direktiv 79/7/EØF har kvin der, der fortsat rammes af denne forskelsbe handling, krav på at blive behandlet på samme måde og efter samme regler som mænd i sam me situation, og så længe direktivet ikke er blevet
In the absence of appropriate mea sures for implementing Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC, women placed at a disadvantage by the maintenance of the discrimination are entitled to be treated in the same manner and to have the same rules applied to them as men who are in the same situation, since, where the Directive has not been implemented correctly, those rules remain the only valid point of reference.
Dato for dommen: 25. juli 1991.
Date of judgment: 25 July 1991.
hvori det hed, at skifteholdsarbejdet betragtedes som en undtagelse, og at Suma ville gå tilbage til kun at arbejde om dagen, så snart de økonomiske vans keligheder var overvundet.
character and that Suma would return to the initial situation as soon as its economic difficulties had disap­peared.
For at give de kvindelige an satte de samme muligheder som de mandlige ansat te, blev stillingerne tilbudt såvel mænd som kvinder, efter at flertallet af de kvindelige ansatte havde stemt for den nye ordning med skifteholdsarbejde.
In order to give equal opportunities to fe­male employees, the available jobs were offered to both men and women, after the majority of the women had voted in favour of the new system of shift­work.
Reference: Endnu ikke offentliggjort.
Reference: Not yet reported."
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — forbud ved lov mod, at kvinder arbejder om natten (Artikel 5 i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. fe bruar 1976).
Subject-matter: Equal treatment for men and women — Legislation prohibiting night work for women (Article 5 of EEC Council Directive 76/207 of 9 February 1976).
For Tribunal de Police gjorde hr. Stoeckel gældende, at artikel L 213-1 i Code du Travail var i strid med arti kel 5 i direktiv 76/207 og med dommen i sag 312/86 — Kommissionen mod Frankrig, hvori Domsto len havde fastslået, at Den Franske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser med hensyn til vedtagelsen af de i direktivet nævnte foranstaltninger, som var nødvendige for at fjerne de uligheder, der var forbudt i henhold til direktivet.
In the proceedings before the tribunal de police, Mr Stoeckel maintained that Article L213­1 of the Code du Travail contravened Article 5 of Directive 76/207 and the ruling in Case 312/86 — Commission ν France, whereby the Court had held that the French Repub­lic had failed to fulfil its obligations regarding the adoption of all measures mentioned therein, which were needed for removing the inequalities prohibited under that Directive.
Ved dom af 4. oktober 1989 forelagde Tribunal de Police, lllkirch (Frankrig) i medfør af traktatens artikel 177 Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål:
By a judgment of 4 October 1989, the Tribunal de Police, lllkirch (France), referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty:
Den 28. oktober 1988 blev direktør Stoeckel, Suma SA i Frankrig, tiltalt for at have beskæftiget 77 kvinder om natten, hvilket var en overtrædelse af artikel L 213-1 i den franske Code du travail (lov om arbejds markedsforhold).
(1 ) Is Article 5 of Directive 76/207 precise to impose on a Member State an obligation not to lay down in its legislation the principle that night work by women is prohibited, as in Article L213­1 of the French Code du Travail?
1 ) Er artikel 5 i direktiv 76/207 tilstrækkelig præcis til, at en medlemsstat efter bestemmelsen ikke ved lov kan fastsætte et principielt forbud mod, at kvinder arbejder om natten, således som det er sketved artikel L 213-1 i den franske Code du Tra vail?
A certain number of derogations regarding, for in­stance, female members of the board, work of a tech­nical character, or in cases of national interest were envisaged providing that certain requirements would be fulfilled and the applicable procedures followed.
Den nævnte artikel bestemte, at kvinder ikke måtte beskæftiges med nogen form for natarbejde i f.eks. fa brikker, værker og værksteder, uanset art. Artiklen indeholdt en række undtagelser, f.eks. med hensyn til ledende stilliger eller teknisk arbejde og situationer, hvor hensynet til almenvellet krævede det.
Asa result of foreign competition, Suma suffered economic constraints and had filed applications for dismissal permits regarding 200 of its employees. Based on the assumption that this number could be reduced by creating a system of shift­work, thus en­abling a continuous production, day and night, Suma had entered into negotiations with the trade un­ions.
Loven inde holdt de nærmere betingelser herfor og den frem gangsmåde, der i så fald skulle følges.
The resulting agreement provided that the system of shift­work was considered to be of exceptional
På grundlag af en formodning om, at dette antal kunne reduceres ved at indføre skifteholdsarbejde, som sikrede uafbrudt produktion dag og nat, havde Suma indledt forhand linger med fagforeningerne. Dette førte til en aftale,
Summary partially based on the English report of this judgment provided in the Proceedings of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance of the European Communities, No 15/91.
Domstolen gentog indledningsvis, at direktiv 76/207 tilsigtede gennemførelse i medlemsstaterne af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder, bl.a. med hensyn til adgang til beskæftigelse og ar bejdsvilkår.
The Court commenced by reiterating that the pur­pose of Directive 76/207 was to introduce the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards, for instance, access to work and working conditions.
Derefter bemærkede Domstolen, at som den havde statueret i sag 152/84 — Marshall, hjemle de artikel 5 i direktivet ikke nogen som helst mulig hed for, at medlemsstaterne kunne begrænse anven-
Subsequently, the Court stated that, as it had held in Case 1 52/84 — Marshall, Article 5 of the said Direc­tive did not confer on the Member States the right to limit the application of the principle of equal treat­ment, or to subject it to any conditions.
Artikel 5 i direktiv 76/207 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder, for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsud dannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår er til strækkelig præcis til, at en medlemsstat ikke ved lov principielt kan forbyde, at kvinder arbejder om natten — selv om der er fastsat undtagelser — når det ikke er forbudt, at mænd arbejder om natten.
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community tional training and promotion, and working condi tions, is sufficiently precise to impose on the Member States the obligation not to lay down by legislation the principle that night-work by women is prohibited, even if that obligation is subject to exceptions, where night work for men is not prohibited.