natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under hensyntagen til den af EFD citerede retspraksis er denne dom ikke overraskende. Denne sag er et godt eksempel på anvendelsen af proportionalitetsprincippet.
Taking into account the existing case-law, cited by the EG, this judgment is not surprising.
I det foreliggende tilfælde kan formålet med den nationale lovgivning lige opnås ved alternative, mindre restriktive foranstaltninger.
In casu, the aim of the national legisla tion could have been reached by alternative, less restrictive, measures.
Et interessant spørgsmål, som EFD imidlertid ikke tog op, vedrører den kendsgerning, at ovennævnte franske lovgivning faktisk er en gennemførelse af ILO's kon vention nr. 89 af 9. juli 1948. Denne konvention, som er opsagt af flere medlemsstater, blev indgået, førend EØF-traktaten trådte i kraft.
An interesting issue which was not addressed by the EG, however, resulted from the fact that the French legislation mentioned above was in fact an implementation of Convention No 89 of the International Labour Organization, dated 9 July 1948.
I traktatens artikel 234 hedder det udtrykkeligt, at medlemsstaterne kan opretholde forpligtelser, der hidrører fra tidligere traktater.
Article 234 of the Treaty explicitly allows obligations resulting from earlier treaties to be maintained by the Member States.
delsen af princippet om ligebehandling eller gøre den betinget.
before a national court so as to avoid the applica tion of any national provision which did not conform with it.
Domstolen nævnte endvidere sin afgørelse i sag 222/84—Johnston, hvori den udtalte, at ovennævnte direktivs artikel 2, stk. 3, som ikke var til hinder for bestemmelser vedrørende beskyttelse af kvinder i forbindelse med graviditet og moder skab, havde til formål dels at beskytte kvindens fysiske tilstand, dels det særlige forhold mellem moderen og barnet.
The Court further mentioned its ruling in Case 222/84 —Johnston: Article 2(3) of the abovementioned Directive, which allowed provisions aimed at the protection of women with respect to pregnancy and maternity, intended to protect a woman's biological condition and the special rela tionship which exists between a woman and her child.
Den franske og italienske regering gjorde gældende, at forbuddet mod, at kvinder arbejdede om natten, fra hvilket der var talrige undtagelser, var begrundet i generelle hensyn til beskyttelse af kvin delige arbejdstagere og særlige sociale hensyn, f.eks. risikoen for overfald og den større arbejdsbyrde i fa milien, der hvilede på kvinder.
The French and Italian Governments argued that the prohibition of night work for women, qualified by numerous derogations, was in keeping with the general aims of protecting female employees and with special considerations of a social nature, such as the risks of assault and the greater burden of household work borne by women.
Hertil bemærkede Dom stolen, at for så vidt angik hensynet til beskyttelse af kvindelige arbejdstagere, kunne det ikke, undtagen under graviditet og moderskab, antages, at de risici, som kvinder herved var udsat for, i almindelighed og efter deres art adskilte sig fra de risici, som mænd var udsat for.
As regards the aims of pro tecting female employees, the Court held that it was not evident that, except in cases of pregnancy and maternity, the risks incurred by women in such work were broadly different in kind from the risks in curred by men.
Med hensyn til risikoen for overfald bemærkede Domstolen, at selv om den måtte være større om natten end om dagen, kunne der træffes passende foranstaltninger med henblik herpå uden at tilsidesætte det grundlæggende princip om ligebe handling.
As far as risks of assault were con cerned, the Court ruled that, on the assumption that they were greater at night then during the day, suitable measures could be adopted to deal with them without jeopardizing the fundamental principle of equal treatment.
Med hensyn til opgaverne inden for fami lien erindrede Domstolen om, at den i sag 184/83 — Hofmann, havde udtalt, at formålet med direktivet ikke var at regulere spørgsmål vedrørende familiens in terne forhold eller at ændre opgavefordelingen mel lem forældrene.
With regard to family responsi bilities, the Court recalled that in Case 184/83 —Hofmann, it had stated that the Directive is not de signed to settle questions concerned with the organization of the family, or to alter the division of responsibility between parents.
Endvidere påpegede Domstolen med hensyn til de talrige undtagelser fra forbuddet mod natarbejde for kvinder, som den franske og italienske regering havde henvist til, at de ikke var tilstrækkelige til at anse direktivet 76/207's formål for opfyldt, idet det efter direktivet var forbudt at opstille et ge nerelt princip om, at kvinder ikke måtte arbejde om natten, hvortil kom, at undtagelserne kunne være kilde til forskelsbehandling.
In addition, turning to the numerous derogations from the prohibition on night work for women, to which the French and Italian Governments had referred, the Court held that they were inadequate to give effect to Directive 76/207, since that Directive did not allow any general princi ple excluding women from night work; the derogations could, indeed, be a source of discrimination.
Sag C-208/90
Case C-208/90
afgjort spørgsmålet om ydelsernes tilbagevirkende gyldighed indtil den 23. december 1984 i McDermott og Cotter /-sagen, kunne der ikke træffes afgørelse i hendes sag.
The Irish auth­orities replied that, so long as the High Court had not settled the question of the retroactivity of the bene­fits to 23 December 1984, in the McDermott and Cot­ter! case, no decision could be taken in her case.
De lod hende dog forstå, at hendes ans øgning ville blive behandlet, så snart ovennævnte sag var afgjort.
However, they let it be understood that her application would be considered as soon as that case was set­tled.
Endelig opnåede fru Emmotts advoka ter i juli tilladelse til at indbringe sagen for High Court, dog med forbehold af Minister for Social Welfa re's og Attorney General's ret til at påberåbe sig, at søgsmålsfristerne ikke var overholdt.
In January 1988, Mrs Emmott finally instructed solicitors who, in July, obtained leave to bring an ac­tion before the High Court subject to the Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General's right to plead failure to observe the procedural time-limits.
De pågældende nationale myndigheder hævdede faktisk, at fru Em-mott's forsinkelse med at anlægge sag afskar hende fra at fremsætte sit krav.
The na­tional authorities concerned did in fact plead that Mrs Emmott's delay in initiating proceedings constitut­ed a bar to her claim.
Emne: Ligebehandling med hensyn til social sikring — ydelse i anledning af invaliditet — umiddelbar an vendelighed og nationale søgsmålsfrister (Artikel 4, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978).
Subject-matter: Equal treatment in matters of social security — Disability benefit — Direct effect and time-limits for initiating proceedings before national courts (Article 4(1 ) of EEC Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978).
1 ) Skal Domstolens dom af 24. marts 1987 i sag 286/85, McDermott og Cotter mod Minister for Social Welfare og Attorney General [1987] Sml. s. 1453, hvori Domstolen besvarede de spørgsmål, der af High Court var forelagt i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 177 vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 4, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978, med følgende:
By order of 22 June 1990, the High Court of Ireland referred the following question to the Court for a preli­minary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:
»1) Artikel 4, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978, der indeholder et forbud mod enhver form for forskelsbehand ling på grundlag af køn med hensyn til soci al sikring, har i tilfælde, hvor direktivet ikke er blevet gennemført, kunnet påberåbes fra den 23. december 1984, således at der heref ter ikke kan ske anvendelse af nogen natio nale bestemmelser, som strider mod denne bestemmelse i direktivet.
(1 ) Is the ruling of the Court of Justice of 24 March 1987 in Case 286/85 McDermott and Cotter ν Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General [1987] ECR 1453 whereby the Court of Justice answered the questions referred to it pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court in its interpretation of the provisions of Article 4(1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 as follows:
Fru Emmott varen gift kvinde, som siden december 1983 havde modtaget invaliditetsydelse i henhold til den irske socialsikringslovgivning.
Mrs Emmott was a married woman who, since December 1983, had been in receipt of disability benefit under Irish social security legislation.
Indtil den 18. maj 1985 fik hun denne ydelse udbetalt efter den lavere sats, der dengang gjaldt for alle gifte kvinder.
Until 18 May 1985, she received that benefit at the reduced rate applicable at the time to all married women.
Den 19. maj 1986 skete der en første justering af ydelsen på grundlag af den nye lovgivning, der var vedtaget til gennemførelse af direktiv 79/7. Fra dette tidspunkt modtog fru Emmott invaliditetsydelsen efter den sats, der gjaldt for en mand, der ikke havde forsørger pligter over for nogen voksne eller børn.
On 1 9 May 1986, a first adjustment to that benefit was made on the basis of the new legislation adopted in implementation of Directive 79/7; from then on, Mrs Emmott received the disability benefit at the rate applicable to a man who did not have any adult or child dependents.
Fra 17. no vember 1986 blev ydelsen forhøjet på grund af hendes tre børn, som hun forsørgede. I juni 1988 skete en tredje justering.
From 1 7 November 1986, the bene­fit was increased on account of her three dependent children.
Det var først efter afsigelsen af dom men af 24. marts 1987 i sag 286/85 McDermott og Cotter I, at hun lod til at blive klar over, at direktivet havde givet hende en ret til ligebehandling, som hun havde kunnet udøve siden den 23. december 1984.
It was only after the delivery on 24 March 1987 of the judgment of the Court in Case 286/85 — McDer­ mott and Cotter I that she seemed to have realized that the Directive had given her a right to equal treat­ment which she had been entitled to exercise since 23 December 1984. Some days later, she entered into
Nogle dage senere indledte hun en korre spondance med Minister for Social Welfare med hen blik på at blive omfattet af direktivets bestemmelser med virkning fra 23. december 1984.
(1) Where Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 1 9 December 1978 has not been implemented, Article 4(1) of the Directive, which prohibits all discrimination on grounds of sex in matters of social security, could be relied on as from 23 December 1984 in order to preclude the application of any national provision inconsis­tent with it.
De irske myndig heder svarede, at så længe High Court ikke havde
Summary partially based on the English version of this judgment published in 11991] IRLR 387.
I mangel af foranstaltninger til gennem førelse af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, har kvinder krav på at blive behandlet efter sam me vilkår som mænd, der opfylder de sam me betingelser, og så længe direktivet ikke er
(2) In the absence of measures implementing Article 4(1 ) of the Directive, women are en-
EF-Domstolens afgørelser blevet gennemført, er kvinders forhold ude lukkende reguleret af dette princip«
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community titled to have the same rules applied to them as are applied to men who are in the same situa tion since, where the Directive has not been imple mented, those rules remain the only valid point of reference.
Denne uvished for borgere bestod fortsat, selv efter en dom, hvorved Domstolen havde fastslået, at den pågældende medlemsstat ikke havde opfyldt sine forpligtelser i henhold til direktivet, og selv hvis Dom stolen havde anerkendt, at den ene eller den anden bestemmelse i direktivet var tilstrækkelig præcis og ubetinget til, at den kunne påberåbes for en natio nal domstol. Domstolen konkluderede, at indtil direkti vet var korrekt gennemført, således at der var skabt retssikkerhed, kunne den medlemsstat, som undlod dette, ikke påberåbe sig, at en sag, som en borger havde anlagt imod den med det formål at beskytte ret tigheder, som dette direktiv gav ham, var anlagt for sent, og at denne søgsmålsfrist efter national ret først kunne begynde at løbe fra dette tidspunkt.
To be understood as meaning that, in a claim before a national court or tribunal made in pur ported reliance upon Article 4(1) ofthat Direc tive by a married woman for equal treatment and for compensatory payments in respect of discri mination alleged to have been suffered by reason of the failure to apply to her the rules applicable to men in the same situation, it is contrary to the general principles of Community law for the re levant authorities of a Member State to rely upon national procedural rules, in particular rules re lating to timelimits, in bringing claims in defence of that claim such as to restrict or refuse such compensation?
Fællesskabsretten er til hinder for, at en medlems stats myndigheder kan påberåbe sig nationale søgsmålsfrister under en sag, som er anlagt mod dem af private for de nationale domstole for at beskyt te rettigheder, der direkte er tildelt vedkommende ved artikel 4, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 7 9. december 1978 om gradvis gennemførelse af prin cippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring, så længe medlemsstaten ikke forskriftsmæssigt har gennemført direktivets be stemmelser i sin nationale retsorden.
Community law precludes the competent authorities of a Member State from relying, in proceedings brought against them by an individual before the national courts in order to protect rights directly con ferred upon him by Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1979 on the progressive implementa tion of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, on national procedural rules relating to time-limits for bringing pro ceedings so long as that Member State has not proper ly transposed that directive into its domestic legal system.
I besvarelse af de forelagte spørgsmål erindrede Domstolen for det første om, at den konsekvent havde udtalt, at det tilkom hver medlemsstat i sin interne retsorden — i mangel af fællesskabsbestemmelser på området — at fastsætte procesreglerne for søgsmål til sikring af beskyttelsen af de rettigheder, som fællesskabsrettens direkte virkning afføder for bor gerne, idet disse regler dog ikke kan være mindre gun stige end dem, der gælder for tilsvarende nationale søgsmål, og ikke må være udformet således, at de i praksis umuliggør hævdelse af rettigheder, som hjemles ved fællesskabets retsorden.
In replying to the questions referred to it, the Court, first of all, recalled that it had consistently held that in the absence of Community rules on the subject, it was for the domestic legal system of each Member State to determine the procedural conditions governing actions at law intended to ensure the protec tion of rights which individuals derived from the dir ect effect of Community law, provided that such conditions were not less favourable than those re lating to similar actions of a domestic nature nor framed so as to render virtually impossible the exer cise of rights conferred by Community law.
Selvom fastsættelse af rimelige, præklusive søgsmålsfrister principielt opfyldte de to nævnte betingelser, skulle der dog tages hensyn til direktivers særlige karakter.
Whilst the laying down of reasonable time-limits which, if un observed, barred proceedings, in principle satisfied the two conditions mentioned above, account should nevertheless be taken of the particular nature of direc tives.
Domstolen understregede, at medlemsstaterne var forpligtet til at skaffe sikkerhed for, at direktiver blev efterlevet fuldt ud og med bestemthed og klarhed, så ledes at den af direktivet omfattede personkreds i det omfang, det ved direktivet tilsigtedes at skabe ret tigheder for private, blev sat i stand til at få fuldt kendskab til deres rettigheder og i givet fald til at håndhæve disse rettigheder ved nationale domstole.
The Court stressed that the Member States were required to ensure the full application of direc tives in a sufficiently clear and precise manner so that, where directives were intended to create rights for individuals, they could ascertain the full extent of
Denne afgørelse indeholder endnu et incitament for medlemsstaterne til at gennemføre direktiver i deres nationale lovgivning hurtigt og korrekt (se tillige for enede sager C-6 og 9/90 — Francovich).
This ruling contains yet another incentive for Member States to implement directives into their national legislation promptly and correctly (see also Joined Cases C-6 and 9/90 — Francovich). According to the EG, national procedural rules, generally left
Ifølge EFD su spenderes nationale procesregler, der i almindelig hed overlades til medlemsstaternes skøn, indtil det pågældende direktiv er korrekt gennemført.
Case-law of the European Court of Justice to the discretion of the Member States, are sus pended until the directive concerned has been correctly transposed.
Det er dog vigtigt at bemærke, at denne afgørelse gælder for vertikale forhold mellem private og medlemsstater ne.
It is important to note, however, that this ruling applies in vertical relationships between individuals and the Member States.
Implicit er det en anvendelse af »estoppel« princip pet, som f.eks. er anvendt i sag 152/84 — Marshall:
Implicitly, it is an application of the estoppel principle, used for in stance, in Case 152/84 — Marshall: a Member State in default of its obligations may not rely on national le gislation in order to deny rights before national courts.
Hun fik ikke tilkendt forhøjet pensions tillæg, fordi hun ikke opfyldte den yderligere betingel se, at hun modtog invalidepension.
premium did not apply to her because she did not fulfil the supplementary condition of being in receipt of an invalidity pension.
Da fr. Smithson var fyldt 67 år, kunne hun heller ikke udtræde af alderspensionsordningen med henblik på at få ud betalt invalidepension.
Since she was 67, Ms Smithson was also unable to elect to leave the pension scheme in order to draw an invalidity pension.
Hun anlagde da sag til prøvelse af afslaget og gjorde gældende, at den nationale lovgivning var uforenelig med forbuddet mod forskels behandling i artikel 4 i direktiv 79/7.
She then made an application for judicial review based on the argument that the national legislation was in­compatible with the prohibition of discrimination in Article 4 of Directive 79/7.
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — social sikring — invalidepension — boligtilskud (Artikel 4 i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. de cember 1978).
Subject-matter: Equal treatment of men and women — Social security — Invalidity pensions — Housing benefit (Art. 4 of EEC Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978).
1 ) Er det i strid med artikel 4 i Rådets direktiv 79/7, at en kvinde, der er mellem 65 og 70 år, ikke kan få tilkendt forhøjet pensionstillæg i henhold til paragraph 10(1) (b) (i) i Schedule 2 til Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987?
(1) Does the inability of a woman aged between 65 and 70 to claim and receive higher pension pre­mium on the basis of paragraph 10(1)(b)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 contravene Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7?
2) Er en kvinde, der er mellem 65 og 70 år, I medfør af section 2 i European Communities Act 1972, sammenholdt med artikel 4 i Rådets di rektiv 79/7 berettiget til at give meddelelse om, at hun udtræder af alderspensionsordningen i medfør af section 30(3) i Social Security Act 1975, til (hvis hun i øvrigt opfylder betingelserne) at få udbetalt invaliditetsydelse i henhold til sec tion 15 i nævnte lov og til at få tilkendt forhøjet pensionstillæg i henhold til paragraph 10(1 ) (b) (i) i Schedule 2 til Housing Benefit (General) Regu lations 1987?
(2) Is a woman aged between 65 and 70 entitled, by reason of the combined effect of Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 and Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7, to give notice of deretirement pursuant to Section 30(3) of the Social Security Act 1975, to claim and receive (if other­wise eligible) invalidity benefit under Section 15 of that Act, and to claim and receive higher pen­sion premium on the basis of paragraph 10(1 )(b)(i) of Schedule 2 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987?
I Det Forenede Kongerige udbetaltes der i medfør af Social Security Aet 1986 boligydelse til personer, hvis faktiske indkomst var lavere end en beregnet ind komst, det såkaldte »applicable amount«.
In the United Kingdom, housing benefit was paid pursuant to the Social Security Act 1986 to persons whose real income was lower than a notional in­come known as the 'applicable amount'.
Et af de for hold, der kunne tages i betragtning ved fastsættel sen af det nævnte »applicable amount«, var det forhøjede pensionstillæg (»higher pensioner premi um«), som bl.a. fandt anvendelse på enlige, som var fyldt 60, men ikke 80 år, og som modtog en eller flere andre sociale sikringsydelser, herunder navnlig in validepension.
One cf the elements which might be taken into account in order to determine that applicable amount was the 'higher pensioner premium' which was applicable, inter alia, to persons aged between 60 and 80, who lived alone and were in receipt of one or more other social security benefits, including, in particular, an invalidity pension.
I henhold til Social Security Aet 1975 udbetaltes invalidepensionen, indtil modtageren havde nået pensionsalderen, som var 60 år for kvinder og 65 år for mænd.
Under the Social Security Act 1975, an invalidity pension was payable up to pen­sionable age, which was 60 for women and 65 for men.
Der udbetaltes også invalidepension til personer over denne alder, som stadig havde fast beskæftigelse, i 5 år efter det tidspunkt, hvor de havde nået pensionsalderen.
Persons who had passed that age but remained in regular employment were also paid an invalidity pension for a period of five years after the date on which they reached pensionable age.
Personer, som havde taget deres afsked, men ikke var fyldt 65 år (for kvinders ved kommende) eller 70 år (for mænds vedkommende), kunne vælge at udtræde af alderspensionsord ningen med henblik på at få udbetalt invalidepension.
Anyone who had retired but not yet reached the age of 65 (for wo­men) or 70 (for men) might elect to withdraw from the pension scheme in order to obtain an invalidity pension.
Med hensyn til spørgsmål 1 bemærkede Domstolen for det første, at direktiv 79/7 ifølge dets artikel 3, stk. 1, fandt anvendelse på lovbestemte ordninger, der
With regards to question 1, the Court first men­tioned that according to its Article 3(1 ), Directive 79/7 applied to statutory schemes which provided pro­tection against, inter alia, the risk of invalidity or old age, and to provisions concerning social assistance,
Artikel 3, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 79. de cember 1978 om gradvis gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring skal fortolkes således, at den ikke om fatter en ordning om boligtilskud, som beregnes på grundlag af forholdet mellem en beregnet indkomst for modtageren og dennes faktiske indkomst, selv om der ved fastlæggelsen af den beregnede indkomst anvendes kriterier vedrørende beskyttelse mod visse af de af direktivet omfattede risici, såsom sygdom og invaliditet.
Case-law of the European Court of Justice women in matters of social security must be inter preted as not applying to a scheme for housing benefit the amount of which is calculated on the basis of the relationship between a notional income to which the beneficiary is deemed to be entitled and his or her actual income, even if criteria concerning protec tion against some of the risks listed by the Directive, such as sickness or invalidity, are applied in order to determine the amount of the notional income.