natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dette indebærer, at statsansatte er bedre stillet end privatansatte.
This implies that State employees are better off than private employees.
De negative følger af denne del af dommen begrænses imidlertid af afgørelsen i sagerne 14/83 — von Colson, 79/83 — Harz, C-322/88 — Grimaldi, C-106/89 — Marleasing, C-188/89 — Foster og C-6 og 9/90 — Francovich.
The negative effects of this part of the judgment are, however, reduced by the ruling in Cases 14/83 — von Colson, 79/83 — Harz, C-322/88 — Grimaldi, C-106/89 — Marleasing, C-188/89 — Foster and C-6 and 9/90 — Francovich.
Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — afskedi gelsesvilkår (Artiklerne 1, stk. 2, og 5, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 og artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. decem ber 1978).
Subject-matter: Equality of treatment for men and women — conditions governing dismissal (Articles 1 (2) and 5(1 ) of EEC Council Directive 76/207 of 9 February 1976 and Article 7 (1 ) (a) of EEC Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978).
Da Arrondissementsrechtbank ikke tog hendes be gæring til følge, appellerede hun kendelsen til Ge rechtshof, Amsterdam, som ved dom af 19. maj 1983 stadfæstede afgørelsen truffet af den lavere in stans.
By a writ of 16 September 1982, Mrs Beets-Proper applied to the president of the Arrondissementsrecht­bank (District Court), Amsterdam, for an interlocu­tory injunction requiring Van Lanschot to allow her to resume work and to pay her salary from 1 September 1982, until such time as the contract of employment should be terminated in a legally valid manner.
Fru Beets-Proper ankede denne dom til kassation for Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.
Mrs Beets-Proper brought an appeal on a point of law against the latter judgment before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.
Ved kendelse af 2. november 1984 forelagde Hoge Raad der Nederlanden i medfør af EØF-traktatens arti kel 177 Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål:
Mrs Beets-Proper worked as a secretary with Ver­meer & Co. Bankers, of Amsterdam, from 1969 until that company's amalgamation in 1972 with F. Van Lanschot Bankiers NV ('Van Lanschot'), and from then until the end of August 1982 with the latter. The employment relationship between the parties was go­verned by the collective agreement for the banking sector for the years 1980 and 1981 and the pension scheme of the 'F. Van Lanschot Pension Fund'. Arti­cle 3 of that scheme provided that the persons affiliat­ed to it were entitled to an oldage pension 'from the date of retirement'. That date was defined in Arti­cle 1 as 'the first day of the month following the month in which a person affiliated to the scheme at­tained the age of 65 in the case of a man and 60 in the case of a woman'. By an order of 2 November 1984, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:
Fru Beets-Proper arbejdede som sekretær i bankierfirmaet Vermeer & Co., Amsterdam, fra 1969 indtil dettes fusion i 1972 med F. Van Lanschot Bankiers NV (i det følgende benævnt »Van Lanschot«), og deref ter i sidstnævnte firma indtil slutningen af august 1982. Ansættelsesforholdet mellem parterne var regu leret af den kollektive overenskomst for bankvirksomheder 1980 og 1981 samt af pensionsordningen inden for rammerne af »Pensionsfond F. Van Lanschot«. Ordningens artikel 3 bestemte, at de af ordnin gen omfattede personer havde ret til alderspension »fra pensionstidspunktet«. Ifølge ordningens artikel 1 indtrådte pensionstidspunktet »den første i måne den efter, at mandlige pensionsberettigede er fyldt 65 år og kvindelige pensionsberettigede 60 år«. Da fru Beets-Proper fyldte 60 år i august 1982, anså Van Lanschot ansættelsesforholdet for ophørt med virkning fra den 1. september 1982, idet firmaet henviste til en stiltiende betingelse i arbejdsaftalen om, at ansættelsesforholdet var ophørt, og at det ikke var nødvendigt med en egentlig opsigelse. Ved skrivel
Since Mrs Beets-Proper reached the age of 60 in August 1982, Van Lanschot took the view that the employment relationship automatically ended on 1 September 1982, by virtue of an implied condition to that effect in the contract of employment, without
1 ) Er det i strid med Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976, at en medlemsstat bestemmer, at de arbejdsvilkår, som er undergivet direktivets bestemmelser om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder, ikke omfatter en udtrykkelig eller stiltiende betingelse vedrørende en arbejdsaftales ophør på grund af arbejdstagerens alder, når betingelsen er knyttet til den aldersgrænse, der gælder for arbejdstagerens ret til pension?
(1) Does Council Directive No 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 allow the Member States the freedom not to include among the conditions of
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community employment in respect of which equal treat ment for men and women must be laid down pursuant to that Directive an express or implied condition concerning the termination of the contract of employment on the ground of the age attained by the employee, where that condition relates to the age at which the employee becomes entitled to a pension?
Domstolens ræsonnement i denne sag var nøjagtig det samme som for det første spørgsmål i den foregå ende sag (sag 152/84 — Marshall).
The Court's reasoning in the present case is exactly the same as for question 1 of the previous case (Case 152/84 — Marshall).
Men på grund af ordlyden af det forelagte spørgsmål var Domstolens af gørelse forskellig:
However, in view of the word ing of the question referred to it, the Court gave a dif ferent ruling:
Artikel 5, stk. 7, /' direktiv 76/207 skal fortolkes således, at medlemsstaterne ikke kan bestem me, at princippet om ligebehandling ikke skal om fatte en udtrykkelig eller stiltiende betingelse i en arbejdsaftale, der er indgået som led i en kol lektiv overenskomst, og som har den retsvirk ning, at ansættelsesforholdet ophører, når arbejds tageren når en vis — for mænd og kvinder forskellig — pensionsberettigende alder.
Article 5(1 ) of Directive No 76/207 must be in terpreted as meaning that it does not allow the Member States the freedom to exempt from the application of the principle of equality of treat ment an express or implied condition in a contract of employment concluded on the basis of a col lective wage agreement, if that condition has the effect of terminating the contract of employ ment on the ground of the age attained by the employee and the relevant age is determined by the age — which is different for men and women — at which the employee becomes entitled to a retirement pension.
Ligesom sag 19/81 — Roberts vedrørte denne sag fastsættelsen af en aldersgrænse for et ansættelsesforholds ophør.
As in Case 19/81 — Roberts, this case concerned the fixing of an age limit with regard to the termina tion of employment.
Da EFD's afgørelse lignede afgørelsen i /toberts-sagen, bortset fra, at kontraktbestemmelserne i nærværende sag blev betragtet som diskrimineren de i henhold til artikel 5 i direktiv 76/207, henvises der til bemærkningerne til nævnte sag.
As the EG's ruling was similar to the Roberts case, with the exception that in the pre sent case the contractual provisions were consi dered to be discriminatory in the sense of Article 5 of Directive 76/207, reference is made to the com ments made in that case.
Se tillige sag 1 52/84 — Marshall.
See also Case 152/84 — Marshall.
Dato for dommen: 13. maj 1986.
Date of judgment: 13 May 1986.
1 ) Foreligger der en overtrædelse af EØF-traktatens artikel 119 i form af »indirekte forskelsbehand ling«, dersom en varehusvirksomhed, der overve jende beskæftiger kvinder, undtager deltidsan satte fra sin overenskomstmæssige pensions ordning, skønt denne undtagelse rammer uforholdsmæssigt flere kvinder end mænd?
(1 ) May there be an infringement of Article 119 of the EEC Treaty in the form of 'indirect discrimin­ation' where a department store which employs predominantly women excludes parttime em­ployees from benefits under its occupational pen­sion scheme although such exclusion affects disproportionately more women than men?
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — deltids ansatte — udelukkelse fra virksomhedspensionsordning (EØF-traktaten, artikel 119)
(a) Can the undertaking justify that disadvan­tage on the ground that its objective is to employ as few parttime workers as possible even though in the department store sector there are no reasons of commercial expediency which necessitate such a staff policy?
1) Faktiske omstændigheder a) Kan virksomheden begrunde denne ringere stilling med, at den tilsigter at beskæftige færrest mulige deltidsansatte, selv om drifts økonomiske hensyn ikke taler for en sådan personalepolitik inden for varehusområdet?
(b) Is the undertaking under a duty to structure its pension scheme in such a way that ap­propriate account is taken of the special diffi­culties experienced by employees with family commitments in fulfilling the require­ments for an occupational pension?
b) Skal virksomheden udforme sin pensionsord ning således, at der i fornødent omfang ta ges hensyn til de særlige vanskeligheder, som består for arbejdstagere med familieforplig telser, med hensyn til opfyldelse af betingelser ne for at få udbetalt pension fra virksomhe den?
For several years, Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH ('Bilka'), which belonged to a group of department stores in the Federal Republic of Germany employing several thousand persons, had a supplementary (occupa­tional) pension scheme for its employees. This scheme, which had been modified on several occa­sions, was regarded as an integral part of the con­tracts of employment between Bilka and its employees.
Efter at have arbejdet på fuld tid valgte hun at arbejde på deltid fra den 1. oktober 1972, og indtil ansættelsesforholdet ophørte.
After initially working full time, she chose to work parttime from 1 October 1972, until her employment came to an end.
Da hun ikke havde arbejdet på fuld tid i mindst 15 år, nægtede Bilka hende virksomhedspension. Fru Weber anfægtede lov ligheden heraf ved de tyske arbejdsretlige instanser, idet hun bl.a. gjorde gældende, at virksomhedens pen sionsordning tilsidesatte princippet om lige løn for mænd og kvinder, som var fastslået i EØF-traktatens artikel 119. Sagen førte til en revisionsankesag ved Bundesarbeitsgericht.
Since she had not worked full time for the minimum period of 1 5 years, Bilka refused to pay her an occupational pen­sion under its scheme.
Før Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål, gjorde den det klart, at i modsætning til Defrenne /-sa gen, som vedrørte lovbestemte socialsikringsordnin ger, der var direkte reguleret ved lovgivning og derfor ikke betragtedes som løn i artikel 119's forstand, var den virksomhedspensionsordning, der var tale om i denne sag, selv om den var vedtaget i henhold til tysk lovgivning, af overenskomstmæssig karakter.
Before answering the questions referred to it, the Court made clear that, contrary to its judgment in De­frenne I, which concerned statutory social security schemes directly governed by legislation and therefore not considered as pay within the meaning of Article 11 9, the occupational pension scheme at issue, alth­ough adopted in accordance with German legisla­tion, was of a contractual nature.
Der for konkluderede Domstolen, at de ydelser, der be taltes til de ansatte i medfør af sådanne ordninger, var ydelser, som arbejdstageren som følge af arbejdsfor holdet modtog fra arbejdsgiveren, jf. artikel 119, stk. 2.
Because of this, the Court concluded, benefits paid to employees under such scheme constituted consideration received by the
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab delsesområde kun problemet om forskelsbehandling med hensyn til mandlige og kvindelige arbejdstageres løn.
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community worker from the employer in respect of his employ ment, as referred to in the second paragraph of Article 119.
Derfor faldt det uden for artikel 119's anvendel sesområde at pålægge en forpligtelse af den type, den nationale ret havde omtalt i sit spørgsmål, og der var på fællesskabsrettens daværende udviklingstrin hel ler ikke noget andet grundlag herfor.
Finally, in answer to question 2(b), the Court point ed out that, as stated in the judgment of Case 149/77 — Defrenne III, the scope of Article 119 was res tricted to the question of pay discrimination between men and women workers. Consequently, the imposition of an obligation such as that envisaged by the national court in its question went beyond the scope of Article 119 and had no other basis in Com munity law as it stood.
I besvarelse af de forelagte spørgsmål statuerede Domstolen:
In answer to the questions submitted to it, the Court held that:
En varehusvirksomhed, som udelukker deltids ansatte fra virksomhedens pensionsordning, overtræder EØF-traktatens artikel 119, når denne foranstaltning rammer et meget større antal kvinder end mænd, medmindre virksomheden godtgør, at den nævnte foranstaltning kan for klares ved andre — objektivt begrundede — fakto rer end forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
Article 119 of the EEC Treaty is infringed by a department store company which excludes parttime employees from its occupational pension scheme, where that exclusion affects a far greater number of women than men, unless the undertaking shows that the exclusion is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any dis crimination on grounds of sex.
For at besvare det første spørgsmål sammenlignede Domstolen denne sag og sag 96/80 —Jenkins.
In order to reply to question 1, the Court made a comparison between the present case and Case 96/80 —Jenkins.
Selv om Bilka ikke betalte forskellig timeløn for deltidsan satte og fuldtidsansatte (som ¡Ven/c/ns-sagen), ydede den kun fuldtidsansatte virksomhedspension.
Although Bilka did not pay different hourly rates to parttime and fulltime workers (as in Jenkins), it granted only fulltime workers an occu pational pension.
Da en sådan pension var omfattet af begrebet løn i artikel 119, stk. 2, var den samlede løn, som Bilka betalte fuldtidsansatte, højere ved det samme antal arbejdstimer end den, der betaltes til deltidsansatte.
Since such a pension fell within the concept of pay for the purposes of the second para graph of Article 119, it followed that, hour for hour, the total remuneration paid by Bilka to fulltime workers was higher than that paid to parttime workers.
Derfor gjaldt det resultat, som Domstolen var nået til i Jen-/c/'ns-dommen, også for nærværende sag.
The conclusion reached by the Court in its judgment in Jenkins was therefore equally valid in the context of this case.
Hvis det derfor skulle vise sig, at en betydelig mindre procentdel af kvinder end af mænd arbejdede på fuld tid, ville udelukkelsen af deltidsansatte fra virksomhedens pen sionsordning være i strid med traktatens artikel 119, når denne foranstaltning — under hensyntagen til de vanskeligheder, som kvindelige arbejdstagere havde ved at arbejde på fuld tid — ikke kunne forklares ved faktorer, der udelukkede en forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
That is to say, if it should be found that a much lower proportion of women than of men worked full time, the exclusion of parttime workers from the occupational pension scheme would be contrary to Article 119 of the Treaty where, taking into account the difficulties encountered by wo men workers in working full-time, that measure could not be explained by factors which excluded any discrimination on grounds of sex.
Kun hvis virksomheden kunne godt gøre, at dens lønpolitik kunne forklares ved andre — objektivt begrundede — faktorer end forskelsbe handling på grundlag af køn, ville der ikke foreligge nogen overtrædelse af artikel 119.
Only if the under taking was able to show that its pay practice could be explained by objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex there would be no breach of Article 119.
Artikel 17 9 bevirker ikke, at en arbejdsgiver er forpligtet til at udforme sin pensionsordning for de ansatte således, at der tages hensyn til de særli ge vanskeligheder for ansatte med familiemæs sige forpligtelser i forbindelse med konstateringen af, om de betingelser, der giver ret til en sådan pension, er opfyldt.
Article 119 does not have the effect of requiring an employer to organize its occupational pen sion scheme in such a manner as to take into ac count the particular difficulties faced by persons with family responsibilities in meeting the condi tions for entitlement to such a pension.
Denne sag omfatter tre emner — deltidsarbejde, erhvervstilknyttede pensioner og indirekte forskelsbe handling — som allerede er behandlet i nogle af de
The case in question involved three issues — parttime work, occupational pensions and indirect discri-
Endelig påpegede Domstolen i besvarelse af spørgsmål 2 b), at som det var antaget i dommen i sag 149/77 — Defrenne III, vedrørte artikel 119's anven-
In examining question 2(a), the Court said that it was for the national court, which had sole jurisdiction to make findings of fact, to determine whether and to what extent the grounds put forward by an em ployer to explain the adoption of a given pay practice could be regarded as objectively justified economic grounds.
EF-Domstolens afgørelser foregående sager.
Case-law of the European Court of Justice mination — which have already been discussed in some of the previous cases.
For det første skal det bemærkes, at EFD her bekræftede, at erhvervstilknyttede pensions ordninger kunne falde ind under begrebet »løn« i artikel 119's forstand.
First of all, it should be said that the EG confirmed here that occupational pension schemes might fall within the meaning of the term 'pay' for the purposes of Article 119.
Rent overenskomstmæssige ord ninger falder ikke ind under den gruppe, der er bes krevet i sag 80/70 — Defrenne I. For det andet har EFD i denne sag omformuleret og udvidet sin afgørelse i sag 96/80 —Jenkins.
Purely contractual schemes do not fall within the group described in Case 80/70 — Defrenne I. Secondly, in this case the EG reformulated and extended its ruling in Case 96/80 — Jenkins.
I sit svar på spørgsmål 1 fastslog EFD, at det først måtte undersøges, om der var tale om forskelsbehandling mellem mænd og kvinder, ved at fastslå, om den ulige behandling påvirkede et langt større antal kvinder end mænd.
In answering question 1, the EG established the need to verify first whether there is discriminatory treatment between men and women by determining if the inequality of treat ment affects a far greater number of women than men.
Bevisbyrden i en sådan situation ligger hos arbejdstageren.
The burden of proof in such a situation lies on the employee.
Det følger af svaret på spørgsmål 2, at såfremt der sker forskelsbehandling, skal de nationale retter afgøre, om forskelsbehandlingen skyldes objektivt begrundede økonomiske årsager (eller andre årsager end køn).
It follows from the reply to question 2 that if there is discriminatory treatment, national courts should determine whether such practice is ob jectively justifiable on economic grounds (or grounds other than sex).
Endvidere skal arbejdsgiveren bevise, at de af ham valgte foranstaltninger a) opfylder et reelt behov hos virksomheden, b) er egnede med henblik på at opnå de forfulgte mål og c) er nødvendige med henblik herpå.
Moreover, the employer has to prove that the measures chosen by him (a) corre spond to a real need on the part of the undertaking, (b) are appropriate with a view to achieving the ob jectives pursued and (c) are necessary to that end.
Dette viser således, at de, der anklages for at udøve indirekte forskelsbehandling, skal bevise an det og mere, end at de ikke havde til hensigt at for skelsbehandle. EFD taler faktisk om proportionalitet.
This shows, therefore, that those charged with indirect discrimination have to do more than demonstrate that they had no intention to discriminate.
Det kan konkluderes, at den nye fremgangsmåde, der skal følges af de nationale retter, er, at for at en be grundelse, der bygger på andet end køn, kan være ob jektiv og derfor ikke-diskriminerende, skal den være proportional.
In conclusion, the new approach to be followed by the national courts is that for a justification, other than on grounds of sex, to be objective and, therefore, non-discriminatory, it must also be proportional.
Et tilsvarende standpunkt blev senere indtaget med hensyn til statsforanstaltninger (se sa gerne 30/85 — Teuling og 171/88 — Rinner-Kuhn).
A similar approach was later adopted in respect of State measures (see Cases 30/85 — Teuling and 171/88 — Rinner-Kuhn).
For så vidt angår konsekvenserne af en ordning, der betragtes som værende indirekte diskriminerende, se sag 102/88 — Ruzius-Wilbrink.
With reference to the consequences of a scheme considered to be indirectly discriminatory, see Case 102/88 — Ruzius-Wilbrink.
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community general duties of a uniformed police officer, and was not armed when carrying out those duties.
Sag 222/84 bejdsopgaver, der alene blev varetaget af kvindelige ansatte.
In 1980, the Chief Constable refused to renew her contract because of the new policy mentioned above.
Dato for dommen: 15. maj 1986.
Date of judgment: 15 May 1986.
Emne: Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — bevæbnet medlem af et reservepolitikorps (Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976).
Subject-matter: Equal treatment for men and women —Armed member of a police reserve force (EEC Council Directive 76/207 of 9 February 1976).
Fru Johnston anlagde sag ved Industrial Tribunal, hvorunder hun anfægtede beslutningen om ikke at forlænge hendes kontrakt og uddanne hende i be tjening af skydevåben.
Mrs Johnston lodged an application with the indus­trial tribunal challenging the decision to refuse to renew her contract and to give her training in the handling of firearms.
Hun gjorde gældende, at hun var blevet udsat for en ulovlig forskelsbehandling i strid med Sex Discrimination Order og direktiv 76/207.
She contended that she had suf­fered unlawful discrimination prohibited by the Sex Discrimination Order and Directive 76/207.
Under sagen for Industrial Tribunal fremlagde politi direktøren en erklæring udstedt af ministeren for Nordirland i medfør af artikel 53 i Sex Discrimination Order.
In the pro­ceedings before the industrial tribunal, the Chief Constable produced a certificate issued by the Secre­tary of State in accordance with Article 53 of the Sex Discrimination Order.
I denne bestemmelse var det fastsat, at en handling, der krænkede forbuddet mod forskelsbe handling, ikke var ulovlig, såfremt den var begrundet i hensynet til at værne statens sikkerhed og oprethol de den offentlige orden, og at en erklæring fra mini steren om, at en handling var begrundet i sådanne hensyn, skulle være endeligt bevis for, at dette var tilfældet.
That article provided that an act contravening the prohibition of discrimination should not be unlawful if it was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security or of protecting public safety or public order and that a certificate signed by the Secretary of State certifying that an act was done for such purposes should be conclusive evidence that it was done for such purposes.
Ved kendelse af 8. august 1984 forelagde Industrial Tribunal of Northern Ireland, Belfast, i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 Domstolen følgende præjudi cielle spørgsmål:
By a decision dated 8 August 1984, the Industrial Tribunal of Northern Ireland, Belfast, referred the fol­lowing questions to the Court for a preliminary rul­ing under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:
I Det Forenede Kongerige bærer politibetjente nor malt ikke skydevåben under udførelsen af deres opga ver.
In the United Kingdom, police officers did not as a general rule carry firearms in the performance of their duties.