natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
EFD betragtede de forelagte spørgsmål, som om de vedrørte adgangen til frivillige fratrædelsesordninger i forbindelse med den af staten fastsatte pensionsalder.
The ECJ considered the questions referred to it as re­lating to the access to voluntary redundancy schemes linked to State pensionable ages.
Derfor henviste EFD i sin besvarelse ikke til artikel 119, men til direktiv 76/207 om ligebehandling.
As a result, in ans­wering them, the ECJ did not turn to Article 119, but to Directive 76/207 on Equal Treatment.
Ifølge EFD faldt adgangen til sådanne pensionsordnin ger ind under begrebet »afskedigelse« i nævnte di rektivs artikel 5, som skulle fortolkes bredt.
According to the ECJ, access to such pension schemes falls within the term 'dismissal' contained in Article 5 of the aforesaid Directive, which has to be interpreted widely.
Alligevel blev forskellen mellem mænds og kvinders pensions alder ikke betragtet som diskriminerende, da samme direktivs artikel 1 udelukkede spørgsmål om social sikring fra direktivets anvendelsesområde.
Nevertheless, the difference in pensionable ages between men and women was not considered to be discriminatory, as Article 1 of the same Directive ex­cludes from its scope matters of social security.
De regler, der gjaldt på dette område, var fastsat i direktiv 79/7, hvori det udtrykkeligt blev overladt til medlems staterne at bestemme, hvad pensionsalderen skulle være (se dog sag C-9/91 — The Queen modEOQ.
The ap­plicable rules in that field are laid down in Directive 79/7, which explicitly leaves the determination of pen­sionable age to the discretion of the Member States (see, however, Case C-9/91 — The Queen ν EOQ.
Følgerne af denne dom blev senere indskrænket ved en streng fortolkning af artikel 1 i direktiv 76/207 (sa gerne 152/84 — Marshall, 262/84 — Beets-Proper og 151/84 — Roberts).
The effects of this judgment were later reduced by a strict interpretation of Article 1 of Directive 76/207 (Cases 1 52/84 — Marshall, 262/84 — Beets-Proper and 151/84 — Roberts).
Efter den dom, der blev afsagt i sag 262/88 — Barber— er det et spørgsmål, om denne sag stadig afspejler den fællesskabsret, der er gældende i dag.
After the judgment delivered in Case 262/88 — Barber, it is questionable whether this case still reflects the current state of Community law.
Sag 58/81 KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE
Case 58/81 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ν GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG.
FÆLLESSKABER MOD STORHERTUGDØMMET LUXEMBOURG.
Date of judgment: 9 June 1982.
stemand betragtes som familieforsørger, kan alene en gift kvindelig tjenestemand, hvis ægtefælle er erhvervsudygtig eller ramt af alvorlig sygdom, som forhindrer den pågældende i at sørge for familiens underhold, eller hvis indtægt er lavere end mind stelønnen, få denne status.
Article 9(2)(a), however, discriminated against married wo­men. Whereas a male married civil servant would be regarded as head of household, only a female married civil servant whose husband was subject to an infir­mity or serious illness rendering him incapable of pro­viding for the household expenses or whose hus­band received an income lower than the minimum social wage would be granted the same status.
Dato for dommen: 9. juni 1982.
Reference: [19821ECR2175.
Emne: Traktatbrud — lige løn (Artikel 8, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF af 10. februar 1975).
Equal pay (Article 8 (1 ) of EEC Council Directive 75/117 of 10 February 1975).
I artikel 3 i direktiv 75/117 om lige løn hedder det, at medlemsstaterne skal afskaffe sådan forskelsbe handling mellem mænd og kvinder, som følger af en administrativt eller ved lov fastsat bestemmelse, og som er i strid med ligelønsprincippet.
Article 3 of Directive 75/117 on Equal Pay provides that Member States are to abolish all discrimination between men and women arising from laws, regula­tions or administrative provisions which is contrary to the principle of equal pay.
I direktivets ar tikel 4 hedder det, at medlemsstaterne træffer de nødvendige foranstaltninger til, at de bestemmelser i kollektive overenskomster, lønskalaer eller lønaftaler eller i individuelle arbejdskontrakter, der er i strid med ligelønsprincippet, anses som ugyldige, kan erklæres ugyldige eller ændres.
Article 4 of the same Dir­ective envisages that Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that provisions ap­pearing in collective agreements, wage scales, wage agreements or individual contracts of employment which are contrary to the principle of equal pay must be, or may be declared, null and void or may be amended.
I direktivets artikel 8 pålægges det medlemsstaterne at sætte de nødvendi ge administrativt eller ved lov fastsatte bestemmel ser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet inden et år efter dets meddelelse og straks underrette Kommissionen herom.
Article 8 of the Directive places Member States under an obligation to put into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions neces­sary in order to comply with it within one year of its notification and to inform the Commission thereof immediately.
Ifølge regeringen var det yderligere nødvendigt at ændre reglerne for deltids ansættelse, hvilket først kunne ske efterforhandlinger med repræsentanter for de offentligt ansatte.
In the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the head of household allowance was granted to State civil ser­vants pursuant to the Law of 22 June 1963, as amended, laying down the scheme for remuneration of civil servants.
I Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg oppebærer statstjenestemænd forsørgertillæg i medfør af lov af 22. juni 1963 med senere ændringer.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg did not dispute the failure to fulfil its obligations with which it was charged but confined itself to stating that the delay in adopting the measures necessary to comply with the Directive in question resulted, on the one hand, from the need to enact legislation and, on the other hand, from the fact that implementation of the Dir­ective necessitated an assessment of the budgetary consequences.
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab bruar 1975 at have truffet de nødvendige for anstaltninger til at afskaffe forskelsbehandling ved tildeling af forsørgertillæg til offentligt ansatte.
Declares that by not adopting within the period prescribed in Article 8(1) of Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975, the measures necessary to eliminate discrimination in the con ditions for the grant of head of household allowances to civil servants, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil one of its obliga tions under the EEC Treaty;
Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg tilpligtes at af holde sagens omkostninger.
Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
EFD byggede sin dom på den kendsgerning, at den tidsfrist, der var fastsat i direktiv 75/117 om lige løn, udløb den 12. februar 1976.
The ECJ based its judgment on the fact that the time limit prescribed in Directive 75/117 on Equal Pay had elapsed on 12 February 1976.
Den fulgte således ikke det forslag til afgørelse, der var blevet fremlagt af ge neraladvokaten, som med rette havde påpeget, at det fremgik af sag 43/75 — Defrenne II, at artikel 119 skulle anvendes af medlemsstaterne allerede fra den 1. januar 1962, og at direktiv 75/117 ikke påvirkede denne frist.
Hence, it did not fol low the opinion of the Advocate General who had rightly pointed out that it followed from Case 43/75 — Defrenne II, that Article 119 had to be applied by the Member States already as from 1 January 1962, and that Directive 75/117 did not affect that time limit.
Sag 61/81 KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER MOD DET FORENEDE KONGERIGE STORBRITANNIEN OG NORDIRLAND.
Case 61/81 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
Dato for dommen: 6. juli 1982.
Date of judgment: 6 July 1982.
Emne: Lige løn til mænd og kvinder
Subject-matter: Equal pay for men and women (EEC Treaty, Article 119; and Article 1 of EEC Council Directive 75/117 of 10 February 1975).
(EØF-traktaten, artikel 119; og artikel 1 i Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF af 10. februar 1975).
The Commission therefore concluded that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligation under the Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regula­tions or administrative provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 75/117 and decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice as provided for in Article 169 of the Treaty.
På grundlag af, at britisk lovgivning ikke tillader ind førelse af et fagligt klassifikationssystem uden arbejds giverens samtykke, og at direktivets artikel 1 ikke si ger noget om en arbejdstagers ret til at insistere på at få fastsat sin løn på grundlag af et fagligt klassifika tionssystem, konkluderede Det Forenede Kongerige, at arbejdstageren ikke kunne kræve en vurderende sammenligning af forskellige job via en faglig klassifi kation, hvis indførelse afhang af arbejdsgiverens beslutning.
Based on the premise that British legislation did not permit the introduction of a job classification system without the employer's consent and that Article 1 of the Directive said nothing about the right of an em­ployee to insist on having pay determined by a job classification system, the United Kingdom concluded that the worker could not insist on a comparative evaluation of different work by the job classification method, the introduction of which was at the em­ployer's discretion.
Ifølge Domstolen indebar Det Forenede Kongeriges fortolkning, at der reelt ikke bestod nogen ret til lige løn for arbejde af samme værdi, når der ikke forelå en faglig klassifikation.
The reference to 'work to which equal value is attri­buted' was used in the United Kingdom in the Equal Pay Act 1970, as amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
En sådan retstilstand var ifølge Domstolen ikke i overensstemmelse med direktiv 75/117, hvis væsentlige formål var at gennemføre det i artikel 119 i traktaten omhandlede princip om lige løn til mænd og kvinder, samt at medlemsstaterne i første række måtte sikre gennemførelsen af dette princip ved hjælp af egnede administrativt eller ved lov fastsatte bestemmelser, således at alle arbejdstagere i Fællesskabet nød beskyttelse på dette område.
Section 1 (5) of that Act provided that a woman was to be regarded as employed on work rated as equivalent with that of any man if, but only if, her job and his job had been given an equal value, in terms of the demand made on the worker under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision), on a study undertaken with a view to evaluating in those terms the jobs to be done by all or any of the employees in an undertaking or group of undertak­ings, or would have been given an equal value but
Med dette for øje konkluderede Domstolen, at når der var uenighed om anvendelsen af begrebet »arbejde, som tillægges samme værdi«, skulle en arbejdstager for en kompetent myndighed have ret til at påstå, at
This position, said the Court, was not consonant with Directive 75/117 whose essential purpose was to implement the princi­ple that men and women should receive equal pay contained in Article 119 of the Treaty and that it was primarily the responsibility of the Member States to ensure the application of this principle by means of ap­propriate laws, regulations and administrative provi­sions in such a way that all employees in the Commun­ity could be protected in these matters. With this in
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab hans arbejde havde samme værdi som andet ar bejde, og til, hvis dette fandtes at være tilfældet, at få sine rettigheder i henhold til traktaten og direktivet anerkendt ved en bindende beslutning.
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community mind, the Court concluded that where there was disagreement as to the application of the concept of 'work to which equal value was attributed', a worker should be entitled to claim, before an appro priate authority, that his work had the same value as other work and, if that was found to be the case, to have his rights under the Treaty and the Directive acknowledged by a binding decision.
Følgelig forhindrede enhver metode, som udelukkede denne mu lighed, opfyldelsen af direktivets mål.
Consequently any method which excluded that option prevented the aims of the Directive from being achieved.
Endvidere nægtede Domstolen at tilslutte sig Det Forenede Kongeriges synspunkt, at kriteriet »arbejde af samme værdi« var for abstrakt til at blive anvendt af retter ne.
More over, the Court refused to endorse the United King dom's view that the criterion of work of equal value was too abstract to be applied by the courts.
Efter Domstolens opfattelse skulle medlemsstaten udstyre en myndighed med de fornødne beføjelser til at afgøre spørgsmålet, om et arbejde havde samme værdi som et andet.
In the Court's opinion, the Member State should endow an authority with the requisite jurisdiction to decide whether work had the same value as other work.
På denne baggrund statuerede Domstolen:
On those grounds, the Court,
Det Forenede Kongerige har tilsidesat sine for pligtelser i medfør af traktaten ved ikke i sine nationale regler til gennemførelse af Rådets direk tiv 75/17 7/EØF af 10. februar 1975 at have indført de bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for, at enhver arbejdstager, som anser sig for krænket gennem tilsidesættelse af princippet om lige løn til mænd og kvinder forarbejde, der tillægges samme værdi, og for hvilket der ikke gælder et fag ligt klassifikationssystem, kan få fastslået, at der foreligger arbejde af samme værdi.
Declares that, by failing to introduce into its national legal system in implementation of the provisions of Council Directive 75/11 7/EEC of 10 February 1975 such measures as are necessary to enable all employees who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal pay for men and women for work to which equal value is attributed and for which no sys tem of job classification exists to obtain recognition of such equivalence, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligation under the Treaty.
Det Forenede Kongerige betaler sagens omkostninger. ninger.
Orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Sag 163/82
Case 163/82
KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER MOD DEN ITALIENSKE REPUBLIK
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ν ITALIAN REPUBLIC.
Dato for dommen: 26. oktober 1983.
Date of judgment: 26 October 1983.
støtte i stedet for den arbejdende moder, eller hvor barnet er overdraget i faderens varetægt.
to take leave of absence from work and to the allowances, even if he was a father by adoption or a guardian, in lieu of the working mother or where the care and custody of the children were given to him.
Ved artikel 1 5 gives der søgsmålsadgang i de tilfælde, hvor lo vens artikler 1 og 5 er overtrådt.
Article 1 5 provided legal remedies in case of breach of the provisions of Articles 1 and 5 of the law.
Endvidere er artikel 15 i lov nr. 300 af 20. maj 1970 ændret ved artikel 13 i ovennævnte lov således, at enhver aftale eller hand ling, hvorved en arbejdstager på grund af sit køn afskediges eller påføres skade, skal være uden retsvirk ning.
Moreover, Article 1 5 of Law No 300 of 20 May 1970 was amended by Article 13 of the abovementioned law so as to render void any agreement or measure based on sex aimed at dismissing a worker or adversely affecting him.
Emne: Traktatbrud — ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder
Subject-matter: Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations — Equal treatment for men and women (Articles 5 and 6 of EEC Council Directive 76/207 of 9 February 1976).
Da Kommissionen fandt, at den italienske lov nr. 903 gennemførte artiklerne 5 og 6 i direktiv 76/207 i italiensk ret i et omfang og på en måde, der ikke var i overensstemmelse med direktivets ånd og bogstav, besluttede den at indlede den i traktatens artikel 169 fastsatte procedure.
The Commission being of the opinion that Italian Law No 903 transposed the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the Directive 76/207 into Italian law to an extent and in a manner not in conformity with the spirit and the letter of the Community instrument, decided to initiate proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty.
Kommissionen gjorde for det første gældende, at selv om den italienske lovgivning dækkede visse ar bejdsvilkår såsom aflønning, pensionsalder og ret til arbejdsfrihed i forbindelse med adoption, dækkede den ikke alle arbejdsvilkår på trods af den mere om fattende karakter af bestemmelserne i direktivets arti kel 5.
The purpose of Council Directive 76/207 is to give effect, in the Member States, to the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, including promotion and vocational training and working conditions, referred to as 'the principle of equal treatment' (Article 1(1)).
Den Italienske Republik har udstedt lov nr. 903 af 9. december 1977 om ligebehandling af mænd og kvin der med hensyn til beskæftigelse.
The Italian Republic adopted Law No 903 of 9 December 1977, concerning equal treatment for men and women in relation to employment.
I loven forbydes forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn, for så vidt an går adgangen til beskæftigelse, erhvervsvejledning, erhvervsuddannelse, faglig videreuddannelse og oms koling (artikel 1), løn og faglige klassifikationssyste mer (artikel 2), stillingsbetegnelser, arbejdsopgaver og karrieremuligheder (artikel 3) og pensionsalder (arti kel 4).
This law stated that discrimination based on sex was prohi­bited in relation to: access to employment, voca­tional guidance, vocational training, advanced voca­tional training and retraining (Article 1 ), remuneration and job classification systems for deter­mining remuneration (Article 2), assignment of grading, duties and career development (Article 3), and retirement age (Article 4).
Ifølge artikel 6 har kvindelige arbejdstagere, der har adopteret et barn, ret til at kræve moderskabsorlov og til en hertil knyttet økonomisk støtte i de tre første måneder efter, at barnet er optaget i adoptiveller plejefamilien.
Article 6 regulated in relation to adoptive working women the right to claim compulsory leave and the corresponding financial allowance during the first three months following the date on which the child was united with its adoptive family or the family which had been given custody thereof.
Ved artikel 7 får arbejdende fædre, herunder adoptivfædre og plejefædre, ret til ar bejdsfrihed og til den hertil knyttede økonomiske
Article 7 granted a working father the right
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab nogle lakuner i forhold til direktivets anvendelses område.
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community
På denne baggrund statuerede Domstolen:
On these grounds, the Court:
Sagsøgte frifindes.
Dismisses the application;
Kommissionen anførte i anden række med hensyn til artiklerne 6 og 7 i den italienske lov, at adoptivfaderen ikke havde den ret, der gaves adoptivmoderen til moderskabsorlov i de tre første måneder efter, at bar net var optaget i adoptivfamilien.
In the second place, in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Italian Law, the Commission alleged that the adop­tive father did not have the right given to the adop­tive mother of maternity leave for the first three months following the actual entry of the child into the adoptive family.
Kommissionen udtalte, at denne forskellige behandling udgjorde en forskelsbehandling med hensyn til arbejdsvilkår i di rektivets forstand.
It was said that such different treatment amounted to discrimination in working conditions within the meaning of the Directive.
Domstolen var enig med den ita lienske regering i, at denne sondring var retfærdiggjort af det legitime ønske om så vidt muligt at sidestille et barns ankomst i en adoptivfamilie med et nyfødt barns ankomst i familien i den første meget vanskelige tid.
The Court agreed with the Italian Government's view that that distinction was justified by the legitimate concern to assimilate as far as possible the condi­tions of entry of the child into the adoptive family to those of the arrival of a newborn child in the family during the very delicate initial period.
Med hensyn til orlov fra ar bejdet efter den første tremåneders periode havde adoptivfaderen de samme rettigheder som adoptiv moderen.
As regards leave from work after the initial period of three months the adoptive father had the same rights as the adop­tive mother.
Domstolen fastslog, at under disse omstændigheder kunne den af Kommissionen kriti serede forskellige behandling ikke betragtes som for skelsbehandling i direktivets forstand.
The Court held that in those circum­stances the difference in treatment criticized by the Commission could not be regarded as discrimina­tion within the meaning of the Directive.
I denne sag gjorde EFD det klart, at direktiv 76/207 om ligebehandling ikke krævede særlige gennemførel sesforanstaltninger.
In this case, the ECJ made clear that Directive 76/207 on Equal Treatment does not require specific implementing measures.
Medlemsstaterne kunne ind skrænke sig til (passende) nationale bestemmelser af generel art. Endvidere udtalte EFD, at spørgsmålet om orlov for adoptivforældre skulle behandles på sam me måde som barselsorlov.
The Member States can confine themselves to (adequate) national provisions of a general nature. Furthermore, the ECJ held that the issue of leave for adoptive parents should be simi­larly treated as that of maternity leave.
Derfor var begge spørgsmål omfattet af den i artikel 2, stk. 3, i ovennævnte direktiv fastsatte undtagelse.
Consequent­ly, both issues were brought within the exception pro­vided for in Article 2(3) of the abovementioned Directive.
Men bar selsorlov havde til formål at beskytte moderen selv (se sag 184/83 — Hofmann), mens sådanne hensyn ikke spillede ind, for så vidt angår adopf/Vmødre. Der for syntes det, som om det ville være mere logisk at betragte orlov i forbindelse med adoption som »ar bejdsvilkår« i henhold til direktivets artikel 5 (se tilli ge sag 248/83 — Kommissionen mod Tyskland).
Maternity leave, however, aims at the pro­tection of the mother herself (see Case 184/83 — Hof­mann), whereas such considerations do not play a role as far as adoptive mothers are concerned.
Kommissionens sidste klagepunkt var, at Den Ita lienske Republik skulle have undladt at efterkomme di rektivets artikel 6.
The Commission's last complaint related to the al­leged failure by the Italian Republic to comply with Ar­ticle 6 of the Directive.
Kommissionen anførte, at efter artikel 15 i lov nr. 903 af 1977 var der kun søgsmålsadgang i de tilfælde, hvor lovens artikel 1 og 5 var overtrådt, hvorimod der ikke var søgsmålsadgang for den arbejdstager, der mente sig krænket ved en tilsi desættelse af andre af direktivets bestemmelser.
The Commission stated that Article 1 5 of Law No 903 of 1977 restricted the legal remedies it provided for to cases of breach of the provisions of Articles 1 and 5 of that Law, but failed to give a legal remedy to a worker who consid­ered himself adversely affected by failure to comply with the other provisions of the Directive.
Den italienske regering gjorde gældende, at proceduren i artikel 15 i ovennævnte lov var en hasteprocedure, og bemærkede, at direktivet ikke stillede krav om en så dan med hensyn til enhver form for forskelsbehand ling. Den italienske regering nævnte derefter artikel 700 i den italienske civile retsplejelov, ifølge hvilken de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at undgå uoprettelig skade kunne iværksættes efter en hasteprocedure, og artikel 24 i den italienske grundlov, ¡følge hvilken enhver for domstolene kunne påberåbe sig sine lovmæssige rettigheder og interesser.
The Italian Government contended that the procedure referred to in the aforesaid Article 15 was an emergency one but emphasized that there was nothing in the Direc­tive which required such a procedure for all cases of discrimination. The Italian Government then men­tioned Article 700 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure which allowed the measures required to avoid irre­mediable damage to be obtained urgently and Article 24 of the Italian Constitution which provided that any person could bring proceedings to protect his rights and lawful interests.