natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 4. juni 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt en sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler den i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 48 (efter ændring nu artikel 39 EF), på grund af den administrative og kontraktlige praksis, der er indført af visse offentlige universiteter, og som giver sig udslag i, at de rettigheder, der er erhvervet af tidligere lektorer i fremmedsprog, ikke anerkendes, skønt en sådan anerkendelse er sikret alle indenlandske arbejdstagere.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 4 June 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, because of the administrative and contractual practices applied by some public universities, which result in the non-recognition of the acquired rights of former foreign-language assistants, even though such recognition is guaranteed to all national workers, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC).
Efter lov nr. 236's ikrafttræden modtog Kommissionen flere klager fra tidligere lektorer i fremmedsprog, der gjorde opmærksom på den diskriminerende behandling, som de italienske universiteter hævdedes at anvende i anledning af overgangen til den ordning, som den nye lovgivning indførte.
After Law No 236 came into force, the Commission received several complaints from former foreign-language assistants, directed against the allegedly discriminatory treatment by Italian universities at the time of changeover to the system established by the new legislation.
Kommissionen indledte efter disse klager en traktatbrudsprocedure mod Den Italienske Republik ved den 23. december 1996 at tilsende denne en åbningsskrivelse.
It should be noted at the outset that, when a worker whose employment relationship is governed by private law is entitled, under Law No 230, to have his fixed-term employment contract converted into one of indeterminate duration, all his acquired rights are guaranteed from the date of his original recruitment.
Den italienske regering besvaredeåbningsskrivelsen ved skrivelse af 12. marts 1997.
That guarantee has consequences not only with regard to increases in salary, but also with regard to seniority and to payment, by the employer, of social security contributions.
Da Kommissionen var af den opfattelse, at overtrædelsen fortsat bestod, besluttede den at anlægge nærværende sag for Domstolen.
Since it considered that the Treaty infringement had not been remedied, the Commission decided to bring the present action before the Court.
italienske statsborgere, til følge, at foranstaltninger overfor disse lektorer hovedsagelig vedrører arbejdstagere, der er statsborgere i andre medlemsstater, hvilket i mangel af en begrundelse kan udgøre en indirekte forskelsbehandling.
As the Court held in its judgment in AIM and Coonan, the fact that only 25% of foreign­language assistants are Italian nationals means that measures taken in relation to assistants essentially concern workers who are nationals of other Member States and may therefore, in the absence of justification, constitute an indirect form of discrimination.
Det følger heraf, at lov nr. 230, der finder anvendelse på alle indenlandske arbejdstagere,
It follows that Law No 230, which applies to all national workers whose employment relationships are governed by private­law contracts, must serve as a measure of comparison to decide whether the new system applying to former foreign­language assistants is similar to the general system applying to the national work­force or whether, on the contrary, it affords them a lower level of protection.
Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland bærer sine egne omkostninger.·
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs.'
Generaladvokat L.A. Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 20. marts 2001.
Advocate General LA Geelhoed delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 20 March 2001.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
He proposed that the Court should hold the Italian Republic in breach of its obligations.
Præjudiciel »Lige løn til mænd og kvinder — betingelser f or anvendelse — lønforskel — begreberne samme arbejde og arbejde af samme værdi — indplacering i samme faggruppe ifølge en kollektiv overenskomst — bevisbyrde — objektiv begrundelse for lønmæssig forskelsbehandling — kvaliteten af det arbejde, der udføres af en bestemt arbejdstager· (Sjette Afdeling)
(Equal pay formen and women - Conditions of application - Difference in pay -Definition of the same work and work of equal value - Classification, under a collective agreement, in the same job category - Burden of proof - Objective justification for unequal pay -Effectiveness of a specific employee's work)
Susanna Brunnhofer har heraf udledt, at hun udførte samme arbejde som sin mandlige kollega eller i det mindste arbejde af samme værdi.
From this circumstance Ms Brunnhofer concludes that she was performing the same work as her male colleague or at any rate work of equal value.
Ved kendelse af 15. juni 1999, indgået til Domstolen den 8. oktober 1999, har Oberlandesgericht Wien i medfør af artikel 234 EF forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 119 (EFtraktatens artikel 117-120 er erstattet af artikel 136 EF-143 EF) og af Rådets direktiv 75/117/EØF af 10. februar 1975 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivninger om gennemførelse af princippet om lige løn til mænd og kvinder (EFT L 45 , s. 19, herefter »direktivet«).
By order of 15 June 1999, the Oberlandsgericht Wien referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC a number of questions on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and 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.
Det fremgår af sagen, at Susanna Brunnhofer var ansat i bankens udlandsafdeling og skulle føre kontrol med lån. Det var forventet, at hun efter en oplæringsperiode skulle overtage ledelsen af afdelingen.
The questions were raised in proceedings between Susanna Brunnhofer and the Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG concerning the difference between the remuneration paid by the Bank to Ms Brunnhofer and that paid to one of her male colleagues.
På grund af såvel faglige som personlige problemer, der viste sig på et tidspunkt, hvor hendes mandlige kollega endnu ikke var ansat, blev hun imidlertid ikke udnævnt i denne stilling, men blev placeret i retsafdelingen, hvor hun tilsyneladende heller ikke opfyldte de forventninger, man havde til hende, og hun blev afskediget med virkning fra den 31. juli 1997.
It was expected that after a period of training she would be appointed to a management post in that department.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem Susanna Brunnhofer og Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (herefter »banken«) vedrørende forskellen mellem den løn, banken har udbetalt til Susanna Brunnhofer, og den løn, som en af hendes mandlige kolleger har fået.
As a result of professional and personal problems which arose before her male colleague was appointed, she did not, however, obtain such an appointment, but was posted to the legal service where, it seems, her work was not considered satisfactory either. She was dismissed on 31 July 1997.
Hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
The main proceedings and the questions referred to the Court
Det fremgår af forelæggelseskendelsen, at Susanna Brunnhofer, som var ansat i banken fra den 1. juli 1993 til den 31. juli 1997, er af den opfattelse, at hun var udsat for forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn i strid med ligelønsprincippet, idet den månedsløn, hun fik udbetalt, var lavere end den, der blev udbetalt til en mandlig kollega, som banken ansatte den 1. august 1994.
According to the order for reference, Ms Brunnhofer, who was employed by the Bank from 1 July 1993 to 31 July 1997, considers that she has suffered discrimination based on sex, contrary to the principle of equal pay, on the ground that she received a monthly salary lower than that paid to a male colleague recruited by the Bank on 1 August 1994.
Susanna Brunnhofer anlagde herefter sag ved Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Østrig) med påstand om, at banken tilpligtedes at betale hende en godtgørelse på over 160 000 ATS som følge af den lønmæssige forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn, hun hævdede at have været udsat for.
Ms Brunnhofer then brought a legal action before the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Austria) asking that the Bank be ordered to pay her more than ATS 160 000 as compensation for the salary discrimination on grounds of sex which she claimed to have suffered.
For Oberlandesgericht bestred banken, at den forskelsbehandling, Susanna Brunnhofer hævdede at have været udsat for, var i strid med ligelønsprincippet.
The Bank denies that Ms Brunnhofer suffered any discrimination contrary to the principal of equal pay.
Det er ubestridt, at Susanna Brunnhofer og hendes mandlige kollega ved deres tiltrædelse blev indplaceret på samme løntrin i faggruppe V, som blandt andet omfatter ansatte, der har en bankuddannelse, og som selvstændigt varetager kvalificeret bankarbejde, således som fastsat i den kollektive overenskomst for ansatte i banker og bankiervirksomheder i Østrig.
The national court found that, although their basic salary was identical, the difference in salary between the two employees arose from the fact that, under his employment contract, Ms Brunnhofer's male colleague received an individual supplement the monthly amount of which was approximately ATS 2 000 higher than the supplement which she received under her contract with the Bank.
Banken anførte for det første, at den samlede løn for de to berørte arbejdstagere reelt ikke var forskellig, idet Susanna Brunnhofer i modsætning til sin mandlige kollega ikke havde været nødt til regelmæssigt at udføre det overarbejde, der indgik i det rådighedstillæg, som banken havde ydet hende.
First, it contends that the total salary of the two employees concerned was not in fact different, since, unlike her male colleague, Ms Brunnhofer was not required regularly to work the full overtime hours allotted to her.
Banken gjorde for det andet gældende, at objektive grunde kunne forklare forskellen mellem de personlige løntillæg, de to arbejdstagere hver især fik udbetalt.
Second, it contends that there were objective reasons for the difference in the individual supplement awarded to each of them.
Er det forhold blandt de i punkt 1) a) beskrevne omstændigheder, nemlig at der er tale om samme klassificering ifølge den kollektive overenskomst, et udtryk for, at der foreligger samme arbejde eller arbejde af samme værdi ifølge EF-traktatens artikel 119 (nu artikel 141 EF) og direktiv 75/117/EØF, således at det påhviler arbejdsgiveren at føre bevis for, at der er tale om forskelligt arbejde?
It is common ground that, when they took up their duties, Ms Brunnhofer and her male colleague were classified in salary group V, which covers employees with training in banking who carry out skilled banking work on their own, as provided for by the collective agreement applicable to banking employees and bankers in Austria.
Kan arbejdsgiveren som begrundelse for forskellig aflønning påberåbe sig omstændigheder, der ikke er taget hensyn til i de kollektive overenskomster?
Can the employer rely on circumstances not taken into account in the collective agreements in order to justify a difference in pay?
Såfremt spørgsmål 1) a) eller 1) b) besvares bekræftende:
If the reply to Question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the affirmative:
Banken tilføjede, at kvaliteten af disse to ansattes arbejde havde været forskellig.
According to the Bank, even though the two jobs in question were initially regarded as being of equal value, Ms Brunnhofer's male colleague in fact carried out more important functions in so far as he was responsible for important customers and was authorised to enter into binding commitments on behalf of the Bank.
Efter en lovende begyndelse var Susanna Brunnhofer's arbejdsydelser således blevet stadig ringere, navnlig fra begyndelsen af 1994, dvs. på et tidspunkt, hvor hendes mandlige kollega endnu ikke var blevet ansat.
No such authority was given to Ms Brunnhofer, who had less client contact, which explains why she received a lower salary supplement than that given to her male colleague.
Oberlandesgericht Wien har herefter udsat sagen og forelagt Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
The Oberlandesgericht Wien decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court:
Bygger EF-traktatens artikel 119 (nu artikel 141 EF) og direktiv 75/117/EØF på et i hvert fald for så vidt fælles arbejdstagerbegreb, således at arbejdstagerens forpligtelser ifølge arbejdsaftalen ikke alene afhænger af generelt fastsatte standarder, men således at der herved tillige skal tages hensyn til den enkelte arbejdstagers personlige præstationsniveau?
Are Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC based on a definition of "worker" which is uniform at least in so far as the worker's obligations under the contract of employment depend not only on generally defined standards but also on the individual capacity of the worker himself?
Er det ved afgørelsen af spørgsmålet, om der er tale om 'samme arbejde' eller 'samme slags arbejde' i EF-traktatens artikel 119's forstand (nu artikel 141 EF), eller om der foreligger samme arbejde eller arbejde, som tillægges samme værdi, i direktiv 75/117/EØF's forstand, i forbindelse med de ved individuel kontrakt fastsatte tillæg til de ved kollektiv overenskomst fastsatte lønninger tilstrækkeligt at lægge vægt på, at begge de arbejdstagere, der sammenlignes, er indplaceret i samme faggruppe ifølge den kollektive overenskomst?
In assessing whether work is "equal work" or constitutes "the same job" within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Article 141 EC) or is "the same work" or "work to which equal value is attributed" within the meaning of Directive 75/117/EEC, is it sufficient, where individual contracts of employment stipulate supplements to pay fixed by collective agreement, to ascertain whether the two workers being compared are classified in the same job, category under the collective agreement?
Skal henholdsvis EF-traktatens artikel 119 (nu artikel 141 EF) og/eller artikel 1 i direktiv 75/117/EØF fortolkes således, at en objektiv begrundelse for fastsættelse af en forskellig løn også kan støttes på senere bevislige omstændigheder, herunder særligt en bestemt arbejdstagers arbejdsmæssige resultater?«
In the situation described in Question 1(a), is the same classification under the collective agreement evidence of the same work or work of equal value within the meaning of Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and of Directive 75/117/EEC, with the result that it is for the employer to prove that the work is different?
De præjudicielle spørgsmål
In order to help the national court, those various elements must be considered in turn.
Indledende bemærkninger om de pågældende arbejdstagere kan anses for at befinde sig i en sammenlignelig situation (jf- i samme retning dom af 31.5.1995, sag C-400/93, Royal Copenhagen, og af 11.5.1999, sag C-309/97, Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse).
them out and the working conditions in which the activities are actually carried out, those persons are in fact performing the same work or comparable work.
Med henblik på at give den forelæggende ret en relevant besvarelse skal disse forskellige forhold herefter behandles ét for ét.
Existence of unequal pay between men and women
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der er tale om lønmæssig forskelsbehandling af mænd og kvinder
It is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to find and assess the facts, to determine whether, in the light of the actual nature of the activities carried out by those concerned, equal value can be attributed to them (CaseC-236/98/ämO).
Det tilkommer den nationale ret, der er enekompetent til at konstatere og vurdere de faktiske omstændigheder, at afgøre, om de konkrete former for arbejde, de berørte arbejdstagere udfører, kan tillægges samme værdi (jf. JämO-dommen).
The national court identified quite rightly an inequality between the unequal amount of individual salary supplement paid monthly to the plaintiff and that paid to her male comparator, although it is undisputed that the two employees concerned receive the same basic pay and regardless of the Bank's contention that their overall salary is identical.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der er tale om samme arbejde eller arbejde af samme værdi
Determining whether work is the same or of equal value
Hertil bemærkes først, at det normalt påhviler den, der fremfører omstændigheder til støtte for en påstand, at bevise, at de er rigtige.
It is normally for the person alleging facts in support of a claim to adduce proof of such facts.
Bevisbyrden for, at der foreligger lønmæssig forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn, påhviler således i princippet den arbejdstager, der mener at være udsat for en sådan forskelsbehandling og derfor anlægger sag mod sin arbejdsgiver for at få den ophævet (jf. dom af 27.10.1993, sag C127/92, Enderby).
Thus, in principle, the burden of proving the existence of sex discrimination in the matter of pay lies with the worker who, believing himself to be the victim of such discrimination, brings legal proceedings against his employer with a view to having the discrimination removed (see Case C-127/92 Enderby).
Med henblik på besvarelsen af dette punkt i de præjudicielle spørgsmål bemærkes, at det fremgår af Domstolens praksis, at rækkevidden af begreberne »samme arbejde«, »samme slags arbejde« og »arbejde af samme værdi« i traktatens artikel 119 og direktivets artikel 1 er af rent kvalitativ karakter, idet de udelukkende angår arten af de arbejdsydelser, de berørte arbejdstagere faktisk har udført (jf. Macarthysdommen, præmis 11, og dom af 1.7.1986, sag 237/85, Rummier).
In replying to this point raised by the reference, it must be borne in mind that it is clear from the Court's case-law that the terms 'the same work', 'the same job' and "work of equal value' in Article 119 of the Treaty and Article 1 of the Directive are entirely qualitative in character in that they are exclusively concerned with the nature of the work actually performed (see Macarthys, cited above, at paragraph 11, and Case 237/85 Rummler).
Det påhviler sagsøgeren i hovedsagen med alle retlige midler at bevise, at hun fik udbetalt en løn, der var lavere end den, som banken udbetalte den mandlige kollega, der sammenlignes med, og at hun reelt udførte samme arbejde eller arbejde af samme værdi, der kunne sammenlignes med det, som hendes mandlige kollega udførte, og at hun således umiddelbart var udsat for en form for forskelsbehandling, som kun kunne forklares med forskellen med hensyn til køn.
It is for the plaintiff to prove by any form of allowable evidence that the pay she receives from the Bank is less than that of her chosen comparator, and that she does the same work or work of equal value, comparable to that performed by him, so that prima facie she is the victim of discrimination which can be explained only by the difference in sex.
Der kan i den forbindelse henvises til retspraksis, hvorefter en forskellig aflønning af kvindelige
It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether, when a number of factors are taken into account, such as the nature of the activities actually entrusted to each of the employees in question in the case, the training requirements for carrying
Domstolen har da også i en række afgørelser udtalt, at ved vurderingen af, om arbejdstagere udfører samme arbejde eller arbejde, der må tillægges samme værdi, må det ud fra en helhed af faktorer, herunder arbejdets art, uddannelseskrav og arbejdsforhold, undersøges,
It is appropriate to recall here the case-law according to which a difference in the remuneration paid to women in relation to that paid to men for the same work or work of equal value must, in principle, be considered contrary to Article 119 of the Treaty and, consequently, to the Directive.
forskellige behandling er begrundet i objektive forhold, som intet har at gøre med forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn (jf. bl.a. Macarthys- og Hill og Stapleton-dommen).
'The principle of equal pay f or men and women laid down in Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and elaborated by 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 must be interpreted as follows:
arbejdstagere i forhold til mandlige arbejdstagere for samme arbejde eller arbejde af samme værdi i princippet må antages at være i strid med traktatens artikel 119 og følgelig med direktivet. Det vil kun forholde sig anderledes, såfremt den
— a monthly salary supplement to which the employees concerned are entitled under their individual employment contracts, paid by the employer in respect of their employment, constitutes pay within the scope of Article 119 of the Treaty and the Directive; equal pay must be ensured not only on the basis of an overall assessment of all the consideration granted to employees but also in the tight of each aspect of pay taken in isolation;
— Et månedligt løntillæg, som de berørte arbejdstagere har ret til i medfør af deres individuelle ansættelseskontrakt, og som arbejdsgiveren udbetaler som følge af arbejdsforholdet, udgør løn, som er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for artikel 119 og af direktiv 75/117. Ligelønsprincippet skal overholdes, ikke alene ud fra en samlet vurdering af de ydelser, arbejdstagerne modtager, men også, når hvert enkelt lønelement betragtes i sig selv.
— the fact that a female employee who claims to be the victim of discrimination on grounds of sex and the male comparator are classified in the same job category under the collective agreement governing their employment is not in itself sufficient for concluding that the two employees concerned are performing the same work or work to which equal value is attributed within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty and Article 1 of the Directive, since this fact is only one indication amongst others that this criterion is met;
— Den omstændighed, at den kvindelige arbejdstager, som hævder at være udsat for forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn, og den mandlige arbejdstager, der sammenlignes med, er indplaceret i samme faggruppe ifølge den kollektive overenskomst, der regulerer deres ansættelsesforhold, er ikke i sig selv tilstrækkelig til, at det må fastslås, at disse to arbejdstagere udfører samme arbejde eller arbejde, som tillægges samme værdi som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 119 og direktivets artikel 1, idet denne omstændighed b lot er én faktor blandt andre til støtte for, at dette kriterium, er opfyldt.
— as a general rule, it is for employees who consider themselves to be the victims of discrimination to prove that they are receiving lower pay than that paid by the employer to a colleague of the other sex and that they are in fact performing the same work or work of equal value, comparable to that performed by the chosen comparator, the employer may then not only dispute the fact that the conditions for the application of the principle of equal pay f or men and women are met in the case but also put forward objective grounds, unrelated to any discrimination based on sex, to justify the difference in pay;