natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Henset hertil skal begrebet ikke fortolkes på grundlag af subjektive omstændigheder, som f.eks. om den pågældende var bekendt med de begrænsninger, som de nationale myndigheder havde stillet som vilkår for hans ophold og/eller arbejde i værtsmedlemsstaten, hvorved han skulle være afskåret fra de rettigheder, der tilkommer ham i medfør af afgørelse nr. 1/80.
The decision merely regulates, in Article 6(2), the effect on the calculation of the periods of legal employment referred to in the three indents of Article 6(1) of certain periods of inactivity which are treated as periods of legal employment within the meaning of paragraph (1) or which do not cause the worker to lose entitlement to the rights acquired by virtue of earlier periods of legal employment.
I hovedsagen er forholdet, at den tyrkiske arbejdstagers opholdsret i værtsmedlemsstaten på ingen måde anfægtedes, og at hans situation ikke var foreløbig, således at den når som helst kunne drages i tvivl, da han i april 1992 havde fået tilladelse til at have en reel, faktisk erhvervsbeskæftigelse i denne stat uafbrudt igennem tre år, hvorfor hans retsstilling igennem hele denne periode havde været sikret.
The term 'legal employment' used by Article 6(1) is a concept of Community law which must be defined objectively and uniformly in the light of the spirit and the purpose of the provision.
Med dette spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret i det væsentlige oplyst, om artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 skal fortolkes således, at den foreskriver, at der ved beregningen af de perioder med lovlig beskæftigelse, der er omhandlet i denne bestemmelse, skal tages hensyn til kortere perioder, hvori den tyrkiske arbejdstager ikke havde en gyldig opholds- eller arbejdstilladelse i værtsmedlemsstaten, og som ikke falder ind under afgørelsens artikel 6, stk. 2.
Next, it should be recalled that, although Decision No 1/80 does not encroach upon the competence retained by the Member States to regulate both the entry into their territories of Turkish nationals and the conditions under which they may take up their first employment, it is settled case-law that the rights referred to in Article 6(1) are accorded irrespective of whether or not the authorities of the host Member State have issued a specific administrative document, such as a work permit or residence permit.
En arbejdstager, der har beskæftigelse på disse betingelser i en medlemsstat, skal følgelig også anses for at have haft lovlig beskæftigelse i den betydning, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, således at han, for så vidt han opfylder betingelserne, har et retskrav på de rettigheder, han er tillagt ved bestemmelsens forskellige led.
The progressively more extensive rights which the three indents of Article 6(1) confer on Turkish workers derive directly from Decision No 1/80; therefore those rights may not be denied to those entitled to them on the grounds which have been put forward, and no objection can be raised to reliance thereon in circumstances such as those in point in the main proceedings.
Ved besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål bemærkes for det første, at afgørelse nr. 1/80 ikke udtrykkeligt angiver, om beskæftigelsesperioder, som den tyrkiske arbejdstager har tilbagelagt i værtsmedlemsstaten uden gyldig arbejds- eller opholdstilladelse, får konsekvenser ved beregningen af de perioder med lovlig beskæftigelse, der er nævnt i de tre led i artikel 6, stk. 1.
Accordingly, the interpretation of the concept in question does not depend on subjective circumstances, such as the awareness on the part of the person concerned of the existence of restrictions, of such a kind as to deprive him of rights acquired under Decision No 1/80, to which the national authorities have made subject his residence and/or his work in the host Member State.
Heroverfor kan ikke indvendes, at den pågældende arbejdstager alene var blevet meddelt midlertidige, betingede opholds- og/eller arbejdstilladelser i værtsmedlemsstaten i overensstemmelse med gældende nationale bestemmelser.
Finally, it should be observed that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, first, the periods during which the Turkish worker did not hold in the host Member State a valid residence or work permit were of no more than a few days and, second, he received a new permit each time, the validity of which was moreover extended on two occasions with retroactive effect to the expiry date of the (previous) permit, without the competent authorities challenging on that ground the legality of the residence of the worker in the country.
Den omstændighed, at arbejdstageren, da han fik indrejsetilladelse til værtsmedlemsstatensområde, var blevet gjort bekendt med, at hans ophold og beskæftigelse var undergivet visse betingelser
By this question, the national court is asking essentially whether Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 is to be interpreted as meaning that it requires account to be taken, for the purpose of
Det bemærkes, at selvom det er korrekt, at afgørelse nr. 1/80 ikke berører medlemsstaternes kompetence til at udstede forskrifter såvel om tyrkiske statsborgeres indrejse til landet som om betingelserne for deres første beskæftigelse, fremgår det imidlertid af fast praksis, at de rettigheder, der ifølge artikel 6, stk. 1, er tillagt tyrkiske statsborgere, skal respekteres uden hensyn til et eventuelt administrativt dokument fra værtsmedlemsstatens myndigheder, som f.eks. en arbejds- eller opholdstilladelse.
A Turkish national who has been lawfully employed in a Member State for an uninterrupted period of more than one year as a specialist chef by the same employer is duly registered as belonging to the labour f orce of that Member State and is legally employed within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80. A Turkish national in that situation may accordingly seek the renewal of his permit to reside in the host Member State notwithstanding the fact that he was advised when the work and residence permits were granted that they were for a maximum of three years and restricted to specific work, in this case as a specialist chef, for a specific employer.
Det kan herefter ikke antages, at de begrænsede tidsrum, i hvilke den pågældende ikke havde gyldig opholds- eller arbejdstilladelse, kan øve indflydelse på forløbet af de perioder med lovlig beskæftigelse, der er omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80.
Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 is to be interpreted as requiring account to be taken, for the purpose of calculating the periods of legal employment referred to in that provision, of short periods during which the Turkish worker did not hold a valid residence or work permit in the host Member State and which are not covered by Article 6(2) of that decision, where the competent authorities of the host Member State have not called in question on that ground the legality of the residence of the worker in the country but have, on the contrary, issued him with a new residence or work permit.'
En tyrkisk statsborger, der uafbrudt i mere end ét år i en medlemsstat lovligt har arbejdet som specialitetskok hos én og samme arbejdsgiver, har tilknytning til det lovlige arbejdsmarked i denne medlemsstat og har lovlig beskæftigelse i den betydning, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 6, stk 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80. En sådan tyrkisk statsborger har således et retskrav på forlængelse af sin opholdstilladelse i værtsmedlemsstaten, selv om han ved udstedelsen af sine arbejds- og opholdstilladelser var blevet gjort bekendt med, at tilladelserne alene var meddelt ham for maksimalt treår og alene med henblik på en bestemt beskæftigelse, nemlig som specialitetskok, hos en ved navn benævnt arbejdsgiver.
Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Association Council established by the agreement creating an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 and concluded on behalf of the Community by Decision 64/732/EEC of the Council of 23 December 1963, is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the period of legal employment within the meaning of that provision, account must be taken of a period during which the worker in question did not have a valid residence or work permit, where the competent authorities of the host country did not challenge on that basis the lawfulness of the residence in the territory of the State but regularized the residence a posteriori by issuing a new residence or work permit.
Artikel 6, stk 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 skal fortolkes således, at den foreskriver, at der ved beregningen af de perioder med lovlig beskæftigelse, der er omhandlet i denne bestemmelse, skal tages hensyn til kortere perioder, hvori den tyrkiske arbejdstager ikke havde gyldig opholds- etter arbejdstilladelse i værtsmedlemsstaten, og som ikke falder ind under afgørelsens artikel 6, stk 2, når de ¡competente myndigheder i værtsmedlemsstaten ikke af denne grund har anfægtet lovligheden af den pågældendes ophold på statens område, men derimod påny har meddelt ham opholds- etter arbejdstilladelse.*
That provision is also to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker who carries out a paid activity as a specialist chef in a Member State must be considered to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force and that Member States cannot prevent the worker in question from acquiring
Generaladvokat M.B. Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ÍSjette Afdeling) den 29. april 1997.
rights under that provision by imposing restrictions in time or other restrictions on his residence and work permits.
Han foreslog at besvare de stillede spørgsmål således:
European Parliament — Part-sessions)
Den nævnte bestemmelse skal endvidere fortolkes således, at en tyrkisk arbejdstager, der udøver lønnet beskæftigelse som specialitetskok i en medlemsstat, må anses for at have tilknytning til det lovlige arbejdsmarked, og at medlemsstaterne ikke ved at indsætte tidsmæssige eller andre begrænsninger i den tyrkiske statsborgers opholds- eller arbejdstilladelse kan begrænse den pågældendes rettigheder efter bestemmelsen.
By application lodged at the Court of Justice on 7 November 1995, the French Republic brought an action seeking annulment of the vote of the European Parliament of 20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of partsessions of the institution for 1996 ('the contested vote').
Bestemmelsen i artikel 6, stk. 3, i den nævnte afgørelse nr. 1/80, hvorefter gennemførelsesbestemmelserne til artikel 6, stk. 1, fastsættes ved nationale bestemmelser, skal fortolkes således, at den ikke giver medlemsstaterne hjemmel til at fravige bestemmelsen i artikel 6, stk. 1.«
On 12 December 1992, the representatives of the Governments of the Member States took a decision by common agreement on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities, on the basis of Articles 216 of the EEC Treaty, 77 of the ECSC Treaty and 189 of the EAEC Treaty ('the Edinburgh Decision').
Sag C-345/95 Den Franske Republik / Europa-Parlamentet Regler for institutionerne
However, following the adoption of amendment 9, tabled by Mrs Green on behalf of the PSE (Party of European Socialists) Group, the partsession from 7 to 11 October 1996 was deleted, with the result that 11 plenary partsessions were to be held in Strasbourg in 19%.
»Institutionernes hjemsted — Europa-Parlamentet — mødeperioder* (Domstolens plenum)
In support of its application, the French Government puts forward three pleas in law: infringement of the Edinburgh Decision, breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolen den 7. november 1995 har Den Franske Republik anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Europa- Parlamentets afgørelse af 20. september 1995 om fastlæggelse af tidsplanen for Parlamentets arbejde i 19% (herefter »den anfægtede afgørelse«).
It is to be noted, at the outset, that by virtue of Articles 77 of the ECSC Treaty, 216 of the EC Treaty and 189 of the EAEC Treaty, the seat of
Det bestemmes i afgørelsens artikel 1, litra a):
organization, conferred by Articles 25 of the ECSC Treaty, 142 of the EC Treaty and 112 of the EAEC Treaty.
Europa-Parlamentets Generalsekretariat og dets tjenester er fortsat placeret i Luxembourg.«
the institutions of the Community is to be determined by common accord of the Governments of the Member States.
Medlemsstaternes regeringer har således villet fastslå, at Parlamentets hjemsted i Strasbourg er det sted, hvor Parlamentet primært holder ordinære plenarmøder, og de har i denne forbindelse med bindende virkning fastslået, hvor mange mødeperioder der skal holdes dér.
By adopting the Edinburgh Decision, therefore, the Governments of the Member States have now discharged their obligation by definitively locating the seat of the Parliament in Strasbourg, whilst maintaining several places of work for that institution.
Ved den anfægtede afgørelse fastsatte Parlamentet tidsplanen for 1996 ved afstemning, og udfaldet heraf blev indført i den foreløbige mødeprotokol.
Whilst the Parliament is authorized, under that power of internal organization, to take appropriate measures to ensure the proper functioning and conduct of its proceedings, its decisions in that regard must respect the competence of the Governments of the Member States to determine the seat of the institutions.
I denne forbindelse havde Formandskonferencen besluttet at foreslå en tidsplan med tolv femdages perioder, heraf to mødeperioder i oktober, hvoraf den første skulle afholdes fra den 7. til den 11. oktober 1996 og den anden fra den 21. til den 25. oktober 1996, samt otte mødeperioder med en varighed på to halve dage.
Given a plurality of working places, the exercise of that competence involved not only the obligation to determine the location of the seat of the Parliament but also the implied power to give precision to that term by indicating the activities which must take place there.
Edinburghafgørelsen må herefter fortolkes således, at Parlamentets hjemsted defineres som det sted, hvor institutionen med regelmæssige mellemrum skal holde tolv ordinære plenarmødeperioder, herunder de mødeperioder, hvor Parlamentet udøver de beføjelser vedrørende budgettet, det er tillagt ved traktaten.
The Court has also held that the Member States have the duty, in exercising their competence to determine the seat of the institutions, to respect the Parliament's power to determine its own internal organization and to ensure that such decisions do not stand in the way of the proper functioning of that institution.
Der kan således kun fastsættes yderligere plenarmødeperioder på et andet arbejdssted, hvis Parlamentet holder tolv ordinære plenarmødeperioder i Strasbourg, der er institutionens hjemsted.
Whilst it is true that the Edinburgh Decision does place certain constraints on the Parliament as regards the organization of its work, those constraints are inherent in the need to determine its seat while maintaining several places of work for the institution.
Efter vedtagelsen af ændringsforslag nr. 9, der var stillet af Pauline Green for PSE-gruppen (De Europæiske Socialdemokraters gruppe), bortfaldt mødeperioden fra den 7. til den 11. oktober 1996, hvilket indebar, at der skulle afholdes elleve plenarmødeperioder i Strasbourg i 1996.
The intention of the Governments of the Member States was therefore to provide that the seat of the Parliament, in Strasbourg, be the principal place where it meets in ordinary plenary sitting, and to that end to specify the mandatory number of partsessions which must be held there.
I modsætning til, hvad Parlamentet har anført, har medlemsstaternes regeringer ved på denne måde at definere Parlamentets hjemsted ikke krænket den beføjelse, Parlamentet har i henhold til EKSF-traktatens artikel 25, EF-traktatens artikel 142 og Euratom-traktatens artikel 112, til selv at tilrettelægge sit arbejde internt.
That finding is not called into question by the need for the Parliament to refrain from holding ordinary plenary partsessions during electoral campaigns, thus derogating every five years from its obligation to hold 12 ordinary plenary partsessions at the seat of the institution. That derogation is justified for reasons inherent in the organization of elections for new representatives.
Det første anbringende støttes på en tilsidesættelse af Edinburgh-aftalen, det andet støttes på, at væsentlige formkrav er tilsidesat, og det tredje støttes på, at EF-traktatens artikel 190 er tilsidesat.
Additional plenary partsessions cannot therefore be scheduled for any other place of work unless the Parliament holds the 12 ordinary plenary partsessions in Strasbourg, where it has its seat.
Det bemærkes i denne forbindelse for det første, at selv om Parlamentet i henhold til denne beføjelse til at tilrettelægge sit arbejde internt kan træffe egnede foranstaltninger for at sikre en god afvikling af Parlamentets arbejde og procedurer, skal Parlamentets vedtagelser respektere medlemsstaternes kompetence til at fastlægge institutionernes hjemsted.
Contrary to the Parliament's contention, the Governments of the Member States have not, by so defining its seat, encroached upon the power of the Parliament to determine its own internal
Det bemærkes indledningsvis, at hjemstedet for Fællesskabets institutioner ifølge EKSF-Traktatens artikel 77, EF-Traktatens artikel 216 og Euratom-Traktatens artikel 189 fastlægges ved overenskomst mellem medlemsstaternes regeringer.
Consequently, it being unnecessary to examine the other pleas in law put forward in the application, the vote of the European Parliament of 20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of partsessions of the institution for 19% must be annulled to the extent that it does not provide for 12 ordinary plenary partsessions in Strasbourg in 1996.
Det må herefter fastslås, at medlemsstaternes regeringer ved vedtagelsen af Edinburghafgørelsen nu har opfyldt deres forpligtelse, idet Strasbourg endeligt er fastlagt som Parlamentets hjemsted samtidig med, at det fortsat har flere arbejdssteder.
The vote of the European Parliament of 20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of partsessions of the institution f or 1996 is annulled to the extent that it does not provide for 12 ordinary plenary partsessions in Strasbourg in 1996;
3) Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg bærer sine egne omkostninger.*
Public servant — Part-time employment
Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 4. februar 1997.
Preliminary ruling (Equal treatment for men and Calculation of length of service) (Sixth Chamber)
Præjudiciel »Ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder — tjenestemand — deltidsbeskæftigelse — beregning af anciennitet*
Article 119 of the Treaty lays down the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work.
(Sjette Afdeling) opfyldt, idet der for det første skal være en ledig stilling i en højere lønklasse, og den pågældende for det andet skal have fastholdt sin placering på forfremmelseslisten.
According to settled case-law, indirect discrimination arises where a national measure, although formulated in neutral terms, works to the disadvantage of far more women than men.
Ved kendelse af 23. november 1994, indgået til Domstolen den 5. januar 1995, har Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach forelagt tre præjudiciellespørgsmålvedrørendefortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 119, Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF af 10. februar 1975.
of candidates eligible for promotion, his progression to a higher grade, and accordingly to a higher level of remuneration, is not a right but a mere possibility. Actual promotion depends on various factors such as, first, the availability of a post in the higher grade and, secondly, the maintenance of his position on the list of persons eligible for promotion.
De i hovedsagen omhandlede regler har ganske vist en indirekte sammenhæng med lønnen, men de drejer sig om adgangen til forfremmelse.
The rules which apply in the present case, albeit indirectly linked to pay, concern access to career advancement.
En ulighed i så henseende falder således ikke ind under traktatens artikel 119 og direktiv 75/117.
Inequality in this context does not therefore fall within the scope of Article 119 of the Treaty or of Directive 75/117.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag, som Hellen Gerster har anlagt mod Freistaat Bayern i anledning af sidstnævntes afslag på Hellen Gersters ansøgning om en stilling, der skulle besættes ved forfremmelse.
It is common ground that the provision of national law at issue in the main proceedings treats part-time employees less favourably than full-time employees in so far as, since the former accrue length of service more slowly, they perforce gain promotion later.
Traktatens artikel 119 opstiller som nævnt princippet om lige løn til mænd og kvinder for samme arbejde.
Mrs Gerster maintains that, in the department where she completed her period of service, 87% of part-time employees are women.
Som det allerede blev fastslået af Domstolen i dommen af 8. april 1976 i Defrenne II-sagen, hører dette princip til Fællesskabets grundlag.
According to the national court's findings, this percentage reflects the situation across the board in the Bavarian civil service.
Med sit tredje spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret reelt at få oplyst, om direktiv 76/207 er til hinder for en national bestemmelse om, at beskæftigelsesperioder, hvori arbejdstiden har været mindst halvdelen af den normale arbejdstid og op til to tredjedele heraf, ved beregningen af tjenestemænds anciennitet kun medregnes med to tredjedele.
By the third question, the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht essentially asks whether Directive 76/207 precludes a provision of national law requiring that, for the purposes of calculating the length of service of public servants, periods of employment during which the hours worked are between one-half and twothirds of normal working hours are counted only as twothirds of normal working hours.
Det bemærkes, at den i hovedsagen omhandlede nationale bestemmelse ikke indebærer en direkte forskelsbehandling, idet den beregningsmetode for ancienniteten, der gælder for deltidsansatte, ikke fastlægges ud fra deres køn.
The provision of national law at issue in the main proceedings does not discriminate directly, since the method of calculating length of service in the case of part-time employees is not determined by gender.
Det skal derfor undersøges, om en sådan bestemmelse kan udgøre en indirekte forskelsbehandling.
It is therefore necessary
Det ville være i strid med formålet med artikel 119 at holde offentligt ansatte uden for bestemmelsens anvendelsesområde. Domstolen har i øvrigt i dommen af 21. maj 1985 i sagen Kommissionen mod Tyskland fastslået, at direktiv 76/207 - ligesom direktiv 75/117 - finder anvendelse på ansættelsesforhold i den offentlige sektor.
In a situation of that kind, it must be concluded that in practice provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings result in discrimination against women employees as compared with men and must in principle be regarded as contrary to Directive 76/207.
Domstolen understregede endvidere, at direktiverne i lighed med traktatens artikel 119 i overensstemmelse med det deri fastsatte princip har en generel rækkevidde.
The position would be different only if the distinction between those two categories of employee were justified by factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
Det står fast, at den i hovedsagen omhandlede nationale bestemmelse stiller deltidsansatte ringere end fuldtidsansatte, idet deres anciennitet erhverves langsommere, hvorfor de først kan forfremmes på et senere tidspunkt.
A provision of national law which requires that, for the purposes of calculating the length of service of public servants, periods of employment during which the hours worked are between one-half and twothirds of normal working hours are counted only as twothirds of normal working hours does not fall with the scope of Article 119 of the Treaty or of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women