natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolen den 12. september 1995 har Girish Ojha iværksat appel af en af Retten i Første Instans den 6. juli 1995 afsagt dom, Ojha mod Kommissionen, herefter »den appellerede dom«), hvorved Retten i Første Instans frifandt Kommissionen for appellantens påstand om annullation af
Mr Ojha accuses the Court of First Instance of infringing Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by holding, that the administration's duty to assist officials contained in'that provision existed only when the administration decided to bring disciplinary proceedings against the official concerned.
Under appelsagen har appellanten fremført en række klagepunkter vedrørende den appellerede dom, som kan grupperes i følgende seks anbringender.
service, having regard to a tense situation within the Commission's Dacca delegation.
Appellanten har endvidere kritiseret Retten for, at den har tilsidesat artikel 24 i vedtægten for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber (herefter »vedtægten«) ved at antage, at administrationen efter denne vedtægtsbestemmelse kun har bistandspligt over for tjenestemændene, såfremt den beslutter at indlede en disciplinær forfølgning mod den pågældende tjenestemand.
It should be pointed out in that respect that the institution's duty to assist under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is in no way dependent upon the bringing of disciplinary proceedings against the official concerned.
Appellantens sjette anbringende er navnlig, at Retten har gjort sig skyldig i en retsvildfarelse ved at antage på grundlag af en rapport af 21. maj 1992 fra chefen for delegationen — som appellanten ikke blev gjort bekendt med, og som alene blev fremlagt under sagen ved Retten i Første Instans — at den anfægtede afgørelse kunne begrundes i hensynet til tjenestens interesse, fordi arbejdsforholdene ved Kommissionens delegation i Dacca var spændt.
Thus, in Case 53/72 Guillot ν Commission [1974] ECR 791, the Commission's decision not to bring disciplinary proceedings against the official concerned did not prevent the Court from holding that it had infringed Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by not taking all measures necessary to examine whether the accusations by the official's superior were well-founded.
Herom bemærkes for det første, at vedtægtens artikel 26 har til formål at forhindre, at de af ansættelsesmyndighedens afgørelser, som berører den pågældende tjenestemands tjenesteretlige stilling og karriere, træffes på grundlag af omstændigheder ved hans adfærd, der ikke er omtalt i hans personlige aktmappe, og som han ikke er blevet gjort bekendt med.
A decision to reassign an official necessarily affects his administrative status, since it alters the place and the conditions for the performance of his duties and also their nature. It may also affect his career by influencing his future prospects, since some functions, whilst being equally classified with others, lead more readily to promotion by reason of the nature of the responsibilities exercised.
Herom bemærkes, at en institutions bistandspligt efter vedtægtens artikel 24 på ingen måde er betinget af, at der indledes disciplinær forfølgning mod den pågældende tjenestemand.
The interpretation of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations adopted by the Court of First Instance must therefore be regarded as erroneous.
Den omstændighed, at Kommissionen i en sag havde truffet afgørelse om ikke at indlede disciplinær forfølgning mod en tjenestemand, forhindrede således ikke Domstolen i sin dom af 11. juli 1974 i sagen Guillot mod Kommissionen at fastslå, at Kommissionen havde tilsidesat vedtægtens artikel 24 ved ikke at træffe alle de foranstaltninger, som var nødvendige for at undersøge, om den overordnedes beskyldninger var berettigede.
Nevertheless, it is not capable of resulting in the contested judgment being set aside, since the operative part of the judgment appears to be well founded on other legal grounds.
Følgelig må den fortolkning, som Retten har anlagt af vedtægtens artikel 24, anses for fejlagtig.
Suffice it to say in that respect that the plea alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations was irrelevant in the circumstances.
Den kan dog ikke medføre annullation af den appellerede dom, idet domskonklusionen fremgår at være baseret på andre retlige grunde.
Since a transfer or reassignment may be decided on the basis of the mere existence of complaints, where the interests of the service so require, the institution cannot be impugned for adopting such a measure without first opening an enquiry in order to determine whether those complaints are well-founded.
En afgørelse om omplacering af en tjenestemand vil imidlertid i sagens natur berøre den pågældendes tjenesteretlige stilling, da den ændrer hans tjenestested og vilkårene for udøvelsen af hans funktioner og disses karakter.
By holding, on the one hand, that the purpose of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations is to ensure compliance with the official's defence rights by preventing decisions by the appointing authority which affect his administrative status and career from being based on facts concerning his conduct which are not mentioned in his personal file, and at the same time holding that the contested reassignment decision did not affect either Mr Ojha's administrative status or his career, the Court of First Instance therefore misinterpreted Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.
Endvidere kan afgørelsen have betydning for tjenestemandens karriere, da den kan påvirke hans fremtidsudsigter inden for tjenesten, idet visse hverv, selv om de har samme lønmæssige indplacering, lettere kan medføre en forfremmelse end andre på grund af opgavernes karakter.
By holding, in consequence, that documents not communicated to Mr Ojha and relating to his conduct in the service could be used against him, the Court of First Instance more particularly misinterpreted the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.
Det er herom tilstrækkeligt at fastslå, at anbringendet om, at vedtægtens artikel 24 var tilsidesat, var uden virkning i den foreliggende sag.
In his fourth and fifth pleas, Mr Ojha essentially accuses the Court of First Instance of infringing Article 26 of the Staff Regulations by holding that the reassignment decision could validly be based on documents which did not appear in his file and had not been communicated to him, on the ground that the decision did not affect either his administrative status or his career.
Når der nemlig kan træffes beslutning om en forflyttelse eller omplacering af en tjenestemand, såfremt dette er nødvendigt af hensyn til tjenestens interesse, alene fordi der er indgivet klager over den pågældende, kan institutionen
In his sixth plea, Mr Ojha more specifically accuses the Court of First Instance of committing an error in law and reasoning by holding, on the basis of a report of 21 May 1992 from the Head of Delegation, not communicated to him and placed exclusively on the court file in the context of the legal proceedings, that the contested decision was justifiable in the interests of the
Retten har derfor tilsidesat vedtægtens artikel 26, idet den antog, dels at denne vedtægtsbestemmelse har til formål at sikre tjenestemanden ret til kontradiktion ved at forhindre, at afgørelser fra
Since the state of the proceedings does so permit, the Court will give final judgment on the fourth, fifth and sixth pleas, which were wrongly rejected by the Court of First Instance.
Hvad angår de fire klager, som er omtalt af appellanten, må det konstateres, at der var tale om mundtlige klager, og at der blev givet et resumé af dem i en skrivelse af 8. maj 1992, som blev tilsendt appellanten. Denne har endvidere erkendt, at chefen for delegationen i Dacca den 30. juni 1992 også gjorde ham bekendt med klagen af 18. juni 1992 fra Bangladesh' ministerium for Jute.
1992, which was sent to him.
Ifølge artikel 54, stk. 1, i EF-statutten for Domstolen, ophæver Domstolen, hvis den giver appellanten medhold, den af Retten trufne afgørelse. Domstolen kan i denne forbindelse enten selv træffe endelig afgørelse, hvis sagen er moden til påkendelse, eller hjemvise den til Retten til afgørelse.
Mr Ojha accuses the Commission of taking the contested decision on the basis of four complaints mentioned in the letter to him from the Director of DG I, Mr Fossati, of 8 May 1992, whilst those complaints, which contained assessments of his conduct in the service, were neither brought to his knowledge nor placed in his file.
Da sagen er moden til påkendelse, bør der træffes endelig afgørelse om det fjerde, femte og sjette anbringende, som med urette blev forkastet af Retten.
He also argues that a series of documents, annexed by the Commission to its defence, were never previously communicated to him.
Derimod fik appellanten først efter sagens anlæg tilsendt den interne rapport af 21. maj 1992 fra chefen for Kommissionens delegation i Dacca, den skriftlige klage af 22. april 1992 fra foreningen Médecins sans frontières, skrivelsen af 13. juli 1992, hvorved der ansøgtes om appellantens omplacering, samt skrivelsen af 14. september 1992, der indeholdt et referat af mødet den 9. september s.a.
By contrast, the internal report of 21 May 1992 by the head of the Commission's Dacca delegation, the written complaint of 22 April 1992 from Médecins sans Frontières, the memorandum of 13 July 1992 in which it was requested that Mr Ojha be reassigned, and the memorandum of 14 September 1992 reporting on the meeting of 9 September 1992 were not sent to Mr Ojha until after the bringing of the legal action.
Appellanten har kritiseret Kommissionen for at have truffet den anfægtede afgørelse på grundlag af de fire klager, som var nævnt i den skrivelse, som direktøren i GD I tilstillede ham den 8. maj 1992, selv om disse klager, som indeholdt visse vurderinger vedrørende appellantens adfærd i tjenesten, hverken blev bragt til hans kundskab eller indsat i hans personlige aktmappe.
It should be pointed out first that, as held in paragraphs 57 to 59 of this judgment, Article 26 of the Staff Regulations applied in this case, since the contested decision affected Mr Ojha's administrative status and career.
Det må dog fastslås, at de forhold som helhed, der var omhandlet i skrivelsen af 8. maj 1992 og i klagen af 18. juni 1992, i sig selv retfærdiggjorde, at appellanten blev omplaceret i tjenestens interesse.
The Court finds, however, that the matters contained in the memorandum of 8 May 1992 and the complaint of 18 June 1992 are enough to justify reassignment in the interests of the service.
Det fremgår nemlig af disse dokumenter, at appellanten havde alvorlige kommunikationsvanskeligheder i delegationens eksterne forbindelser, og at forholdene var så spændte, at Ministeriet for Jute som konklusion på skrivelsen af 18. juni 1992 meddelte chefen for Kommissionens delegation, at Ojha ikke længere ville blive indbudt til nogen møder, ligesom man tilskyndede delegationen til at udnævne en anden i stedet for ham.
Those documents show that Mr Ojha had serious communication difficulties in the context of the context of the external relations of the delegation. The tension was of such a level that, concluding its letter of 18 June 1992, the Ministry for Jute announced to the head of the Commission delegation that Mr Ojha would not be invited to any further meetings and suggested that another person should be appointed in his place.
Det bemærkes for det første, at vedtægtens artikel 26 fandt anvendelse i denne sag, da den anfægtede afgørelse berørte appellantens tjenesteretlige stilling og karriere.
The mere fact that documents were not placed in an official's personal file is not enough to justify the annulment of a measure adversely affecting him if they were in fact brought to his knowledge.
Under disse omstændigheder findes det ikke godtgjort, at de dokumenter, som appellanten ikke blev gjort bekendt med, har kunnet have afgørende indflydelse på vedtagelsen af den anfægtede afgørelse.
As for the four complaints referred to by Mr Ojha, the Court finds that they were oral, and were summarized in the memorandum of 8 May
Endvidere bemærkes, at en overtrædelse af denne vedtægtsbestemmelse kun kan medføre annullation af en retsakt, såfremt det godtgøres, at de pågældende dokumenter har haft en afgørende indflydelse på den anfægtede afgørelse.
In those circumstances, it has not been shown that the documents which were not communicated could have exercised a decisive influence on the adoption of the contested decision.
»1) Dommen afsagt den 6. juli 1995 af Retten i Første Instans i sag T-36/93, Ojha mod Kommissionen, ophæves i det omfang, det heri kendesfor ret, at artikel 26 i vedtægten for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber ikke fandt anvendelse, og at der ikke var sket nogen tilsidesættelse af vedtægtens artikel 26, stk. 2.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-36/93 Ojha ν Commission is set aside in so far as it holds that Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities did not apply and that no finding of infringement of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations could be made.
I øvrigt forkastes appellen.
For the rest, the appeal is dismissed
Søgsmålet forkastes i det omfang, det er baseret på, at der er sket en tilsidesættelse af vedtægtens artikel 26.
The action, in so far as it is based on an infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, is dismissed.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 4. juli 1996.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 4 July 1996.
»1) Rettens dom af 6. juli 1995 i sag T-36/93 annulleres i det omfang, det heri fastslås, at artikel 26 i vedtægten for tjenestemænd ved De Europæiske Fællesskaber ikke fandt anvendelse, at appellantens kontradiktionsret ikke var tilsidesat, og at appellantens krav om godtgørelse af hans ikke-økonomiske skade som følge heraf var ubegrundet.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-36/93 Ojha ν Commission is set aside in so far as it holds that Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities was not applicable and that no infringement of defence rights could be found, and in so far as it deduces therefrom that the claim for compensation for non-material loss was unfounded.
I øvrigt forkastes appellen.
For the rest, the appeal is dismissed.
Hvad angår realiteten frifindes Kommissionen i det omfang, appellen støttes på, at vedtægtens artikel 26 og kontradiktionsprincippet er tilsidesat.
The Court, ruling on the merits, dismisses the action in so far as it is based on infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of compliance with the rights of the defence.
To tredjedele af sagens omkostninger betales af appellanten og en tredjedel af Kommissionen.«
The costs are to be borne as to two-thirds by Mr Ojha and as to one-third by the Commission.'
Præjudiciel »Varetagelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheder i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder, bedrifter eller dele af bedrifter — overførsel til erhververen af rettigheder og forpligtelser som følge af en arbejdskontrakt — overførselstidspunkt*
Preliminary ruling (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses — Transfer to the transferee of the rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment — Date of transfer) (Second Chamber)
Det bemærkes imidlertid, at ifølge direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, andet afsnit, er den automatiske overførsel af arbejdsforholdet til erhververen ikke til hinder for, at medlemsstaterne kan bestemme, at overdrageren og erhververen hæfter solidarisk.
transfer of the contracts of employment may not be made subject to the intention of the transferor or the transferee, and more particularly that the transferee may not obstruct the transfer by refusing to fulfil his obligations.
Ved dom af 7. november 1994, indgået til Domstolen den 18. november 1994, har Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF af 14. februar 1977 (herefter »direktivet«).
existing on the date of the transfer of an undertaking between the transferor and the workers employed in the undertaking transferred are automatically transferred from the transferor to the transferee by the mere fact of the transfer of the undertaking, despite the contrary intention of the transferor or transferee and despite the latter's refusal to fulfil his obligations.
Under hensyn til den forelæggende rets tvivl bemærkes endvidere, at overførsel af arbejdskontrakter — på grund af den præceptive karakter af den beskyttelse, som er foreskrevet ved direktivet, og idet der ellers ville være risiko for at arbejdstagerne fratages denne beskyttelse — ikke er undergivet overdragerens eller erhververens bestemmelse, hvilket navnlig betyder, at erhververen ikke kan modsætte sig dette ved at nægte at opfylde sine forpligtelser.
As the Court has repeatedly held, the Directive is intended to safeguard the rights of workers in the event of a change of employer by making it possible for them to continue to work for the new employer under the same conditions as those agreed with the transferor.
Overførsel af arbejdskontrakter og arbejdsforhold, der bestod på tidspunktet for overførslen
By the second part of its second question the national court asks whether the transfer of the contracts of employment and employment relationships pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Directive necessarily takes place on the date of the transfer of the undertaking, or whether it may be postponed to another date at the will of the transferor or the transferee.
Tidspunktet for overførslen af arbejdskontrakter og arbejdsforhold
On this point, it must be observed firstly that it follows from the actual wording of the Directive that the transfer of the contracts of employment and employment relationships takes place on the date of the transfer of the undertaking.
Med andet spørgsmåls andet led ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om overførslen af arbejdskontrakter og arbejdsforhold i medfør af direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, uden undtagelse finder sted på tidspunktet for virksomhedsoverførslen, eller om den kan udskydes til et andet tidspunkt efter overdragerens eller erhververens valg.
It is likewise settled caselaw that the rules of the Directive, in particular those concerning the protection of workers against dismissal by reason of the transfer, must be considered to be mandatory, so that it is not possible to derogate from them in a manner unfavourable to employees.
Med det første spørgsmål og det andet spørgsmåls første led ønsker den nationale ret i det væsentlige oplyst, om direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at arbejdskontrakter og arbejdsforhold, som bestod på tidspunktet for overførselen af en virksomhed mellem overdrageren og de ansatte i den overførte virksomhed, automatisk overføres fra overdrageren til erhververen alene som følge af virksomhedsoverdragelsen, uanset overdragerens eller erhververens ønske om det modsatte og til trods for, at erhververen nægter at opfylde sine forpligtelser.
It follows that in the event of the transfer of an undertaking the contract of employment or employment relationship between the staff employed by the undertaking transferred may not be maintained with the transferor and is automatically continued with the transferee.
Hertil bemærkes for det første, at det fremgår af selve direktivets ordlyd, at overførsel af arbejdskontrakter og arbejdsforhold finder sted samtidig med virksomhedsoverførslen.
Secondly, the Court held in Joined Cases 144 and 145/87 Berg and Busschers [1988] ECR 2559 that Article 3(1) is to be interpreted as meaning that after the date of transfer the transferor is in principle discharged, by virtue of the transfer alone, from all obligations arising under the contract of employment or in the employment relationship.
Som Domstolen gentagne gange har fastslået, har direktivet til formål at sikre, at arbejdstagernes rettigheder opretholdes, når virksomheden skifter indehaver, idet arbejdstagerne kan forblive i virksomheden under den nye indehaver på de vilkår, der er aftalt med overdrageren.
It must, however, be stated that, according to the second subparagraph of Article 3(1), the automatic transfer of employment relationships to the transferee does not prevent the Member States from providing for joint liability of the transferor and transferee.
Det fremgår ligeledes af praksis, at direktivets regler, navnlig om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne mod afskedigelse som følge af overførslen, må betragtes som præceptive i den forstand, at de ikke kan fraviges til ugunst for arbejdstagerne.
In view of the doubts expressed by the national court, it should be added that, by reason of the mandatory nature of the protection afforded by the Directive, and in order not to deprive workers of that protection in practice, the
I dom af 5. maj 1988 i Berg og Busschers-sagen fastslog Domstolen, at artikel 3, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at overdrageren efter overførselstidspunktet som udgangspunkt er løst fra sine forpligtelser i henhold til en arbejdskontrakt eller et arbejdsforhold alene på grund af overførslen.
Thirdly, to allow the transferor or transferee the possibility of choosing the date from which the contract of employment or employment relationship is transferred would amount to allowing employers to derogate, at least temporarily, from the provisions of the Directive.
»1) Artikel 3, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 77/178/EØF af 14. februar 1977 om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varetagelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheder i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder, bedrifter eller dele af bedrifter, skal fortolkes således, at arbejdskontrakter og arbejdsforhold, som bestod på tidspunktet for overførslen af en virksomhed mellem overdrageren og de ansatte i den overførte virksomhed, automatisk overføres fra overdrageren til erhververen alene som følge af virksomhedsoverdragelsen, uanset overdragerens eller erhververens ønske om det modsatte og til trods for, at erhververen nægter at opfylde sine forpligtelser.
employed in the undertaking transferred are automatically transferred from the transferor to the transferee by the mere fact of the transfer of the undertaking, despite the contrary intention of the transferor or transferee and despite the latter's refusal to fulfil his obligations.
Overførsel af arbejdskontrakter og arbejdsforhold i medfør af direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, finder uden undtagelse sted på tidspunktet for virksomhedsoverførslen og kan ikke udskydes til et andet tidspunkt efter overdragerens euer erhververens valg.*
The transfer of the contracts of employment and employment relationships pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 necessarily takes place on the date of the transfer of the undertaking and cannot be postponed to another date at the will of the transferor or transferee.'
Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling') den 4. juli 1996.
Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 4 July 1996.
Artikel 3 i direktiv 77/187/EØF skal fortolkes således, at alle arbejdskontrakter, som bestod på overførselstidspunktet, og som vedrørte personale, der var beskæftiget i den overdragne virksomhed, overgår som følge af overførslen fra overdrageren til erhververen, uden at der herved indrømmes overdrageren eller erhververen noget valg.
Article 3 of Directive 77/187/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that all employment contracts existing on the date of the transfer and concerning staff employed in the undertaking transferred are, by virtue of the transfer, transferred from the transferor to the transferee without any option on the part of the transferor or the transferee.
Overførslen af personale sker uden videre, uanset om erhververen nægter at opfylde sine forpligtelser.
The staff are automatically transferred regardless of the refusal by the transferee to comply with his obligation.