natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
† to enable a blind person who uses a guide dog to get to work more easily, the employer could change their working hours so they do not have to come in the rush hour.
s฀Juhtkoera kasutava pimeda tûû hýlbustamiseks peaks tûûandja muutma tûûtunde selliselt, et tûûletulek ei langeks liikluse tippajale.
An employer cannot claim that the burden, including financial burden, of providing reasonable accommodation for a disabled person is `disproportionate' if funding or other assistance is avail-able to assist employers in such circumstances.
Tûûandja ei saa viidata sellele, et tema koormus on 'ebaproportsionaalne' puudega inimeste tûû-tingimuste kohandamisel, kui sel eesmêrgil on výimalik saada toetust vastavatest fondidest výi mingit muud abi.
Both directives provide that associations and organisations with a legitimate interest can support victims of discrimination or take legal action on their behalf (with their approval).
Mýlemad direktiivid nêevad ette, et Ÿhingud ja organisatsioonid, kellel on 'ýigustatud huvid', výi-vad toetada diskrimineerimise ohvreid výi esineda kaebuse esitaja nimel ja nýusolekul.
Criteria defining which organisations have a `legitimate interest' are established by national law.
'Ýigusta-tud huvi' kriteeriumid on sêtestatud rahvuslikus ýiguses.
The directives require Member States to promote dialogue with social partners to encourage workplace agreements, codes of conduct, and so on, and with NGOs with a view to promoting the principle of equal treatment.
Direktiivid nýuavad liikmesriikidelt dialoogi arendamist sotsiaalsete partneritega edendamaks tûûkokkulepete sýlmimist jms., samuti valitsusvêliste organisatsioonidega tagamaks výrdse koht-lemise pýhimýtteid.
Specialised bodies
Výrdset kohtlemist toetavad organid
In the race directive (2000/43/EC) only, there is an obligation on each Member State to designate a body to promote equal treatment.
Ainult direktiiv 2000/43/Eâ nêeb ette liikmesriikide kohustuse luua organid, kelle Ÿlesandeks on kindlus-tada výrdne kohtlemine.
Their main tasks are to provide independent assistance to victims of discrimination, conduct independent surveys and studies, publish independent reports and make recommendations.
Nende peamine Ÿlesanne on osutada sýltumatut abi diskrimineerimise ohvri-tele, korraldada sýltumatuid vaatlusi ja uuringuid, avaldada sýltumatuid raporteid ja anda soovitusi.
The directives require Member States to take measures to publicise widely both their existing laws on equal treatment and non-discrimination and any new measures they adopt to bring their laws in line with the directives.
Direktiivides on nýue, et liikmesriigid tagaksid juba kehtivate ja direktiivide alusel vastuvýetavate diskrimineerimisvastaste sêtete laialdase avaldamise.
Member States must report to the EU on the application of the race directive (2000/43/EC) by 19 July 2005 and on the application of the employment framework directive (2000/78/EC) by 2 December 2005, and every five years thereafter.
Liikmesriigid peavad andma aru Euroopa Liidule nn rassi direktiivi (2000/43/Eâ) rakendamisest 19.juuliks 2005.a ja tûûhýive direktiivi (2000/78/Eâ) rakendamisest 2.detsembriks 2005.a., ning hiljem iga viie aasta jêrel.
In transposing the directives, Member States must ensure there are sanctions for infringement of their national anti-discrimination laws and that these sanctions are applied.
Direktiivide Ÿlevýtmise kêigus peavad liikmesriigid kindlustama, et kehtestataks sanktsioonid sise-riiklike diskrimineerimisvastaste seaduste rikkumise eest ning et neid sanktsioone rakendataks.
Sanctions for dis-crimination must be `effective, proportionate and dissuasive'; that is they should provide appropri-ate personal redress for the victim and should deter both the particular respondent and others from comparable acts of discrimination in the future.
Diskrimineerimise vastased sanktsioonid peavad olema 'týhusad, proportsionaalsed ja hoiatavad'; see têhendab, et nad výivad heastada ohvritele tekitatud kahju ja hoiatada nii s Ÿ Ÿ d l a s t kui teisi samalaadsete diskrimineerimise juhtude eest tulevikus.
Sanctions may comprise the payment of compensation, for which no upper limits can be imposed.
Sanktsioonid výivad ette nêha kompen-satsioonide maksmise, mille kýrgeimat mêêra ei kehtestata.
Shift of the burden of proof
Týendamiskoormus / týendamiskohustus
Recognising the difficulty of proving discrimination, Article 8 of the race directive and Article 10 of the framework employment directive provide for the shift of the burden of proof as follows:
Pidades silmas diskrimineerimise týestamise keerulisust, sêtestab Direktiiv 2000/43/Eâ artiklis 8 ja Direktiiv 2000/78/Eâ artiklis 10 týendamiskohustuse jêrgnevalt:
`„ when persons who consider themselves wronged because the princi-ple of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.'
¶...kýikidel isikutel, kes leiavad, et neid on výrdse kohtlemise pýhimýtte kohaldamata jêtmise týttu kannatanud, esitab kohtule výi muule pêdevale asutusele asjaolud, mille pýhjal výib eeldada, et on toimunud otsene výi kaudne diskrimineerimine, peab kostja týendama, et výrdse kohtlemise pýhimýtet ei ole rikutudƒ.
The burden of proof cannot be shifted in criminal proceedings.
Týendamiskoormust ei kohaldata vêiksemate s Ÿ Ÿ tffe g u d e kohtulikes menetlustes.
In some Member States it will not apply to investigative procedures.
Mýnes liikmes-riigis výib seda nýuet mitte rakendada ka uurimistoimingutes.
It is equally important to note that the shift of the burden of proof is not limited to court proceedings but that it extends to proceedings before any competent (i.e. administrative) authority.
Samas on oluline mêrkida, et týen-damiskoormuse kohaldamine pole piiratud vaid kohtuga, vaid see laieneb ka teistele pêdevatele, sealhulgas haldusorganeile.
The notion of the shift of the burden of proof made its way into EU law through ECJ case-law handed down in connection with equal pay cases ̌ where a woman could show difference in gender and difference in pay, and the court needed the employer to provide an explanation.
Týendamiskoormuse idee liikus Euroopa ýigusse Euroopa Kohtu pretsedendiseaduse kaudu seo-ses výrdse tûûtasu kaasusega, mil naisterahvas suutis týestada, et ebavýrdne palk johtus tema soost. Tûûandja pidi esitama selgituse. Seda tuntakse Enderby kaasusena (Enderby v. Frenchay Health Authority and the Secretary of State for Health, C-127/92).
There followed Council directive 97/80/EC on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex.
Sellele jêrgnes Nýukogu Direktiiv 97/80/Eâ, millega sêtestati týendamiskoormus soolise diskri-mineerimise korral.
The shift of the burden of proof has been closely linked to the importance of delivering effective judicial protection against acts of discrimination.
Týendamiskoormus on olnud tihedalt seotud tegusa juriidilise kaitse têht-sustamisega diskrimineerimise vastu.
The shift of the burden of proof which the directives allow is, however, not automatic.
Kummati ei kêivitu direktiivides lubatud týendamiskoor-mus automaatselt.
The onus of proof does not shift as soon as a plain-tiff simply claims that they were discriminated against but only after they establish facts from which it may be presumed that discrimination has occurred.
Týendamiskohustus ei kêivitu koheselt kui kaebaja teatab, et teda on diskrimineeritud, vaid alles pêrast seda, kui ta esitab faktid , millest výib jêreldada, et diskrimi-neerimine leidis aset.
What these facts might be is depend-ent on domestic legislation and case-law.
Millised need faktid výivad olla, sýltub rahvusliku ja pretsedendiýiguse mêêratlusest.
Evidence of discrimination
Diskrimineerimise týendid
The directives refer to discrimination `on grounds of' racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, dis-ability, sexual orientation and age.
Direktiivid viitavad diskrimineerimisele rassilise výi etnilise pêritolu, religiooni výi uskumuste, puude, seksuaalse sêttumuse ja vanuse týttu.
Case-law in countries like the United Kingdom and national legislation transposing the directives has generally clarified that `on grounds of' can include pro-tection against discrimination where the victim has the actual characteristics in question or is perceived to have such characteristics or is associated with persons having such characteristics.
Pretsedendiýigus nêiteks âhendkuningriigis ja direktiivid transponeerinud rahvuslik ýigus on Ÿldjoontes selgitanud, et nimetatud alused têhen-davad seda, et diskrimineeritud isikuid iseloomustavad nimetatud tunnused, výi eeldatakse, et need tunnused on tal olemas, výi ta on Ÿhenduses inimestega, kel need tunnused on.
For example, if someone is excluded from a restaurant because the proprietor says `No Roma' this is likely to be direct discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, whether the person is in fact Roma or whether their appearance suggests that they are Roma or because they are with Roma friends.
Nêiteks, kui kedagi ei lubata restorani ja portjee teatab, et 'mustlastele keelatud!', on selge, et inimest diskrimi-neeritakse tema rassi výi rahvuse pêrast, olenemata sellest, kas antud inimene on týesti mustlane, výi eeldatakse tema vêlimuse pýhjal, et tegemist on mustlasega, výi nii arvatakse tema mustlas-test sýprade pêrast.
This approach is likely to be particularly important in sexual orientation cases, since victims will not need to prove that they have a particular sexual orientation but merely to establish facts to show that they have suffered less favourable treatment or harassment on grounds of their perceived sexual orientation or their association with people of a particular sexual orientation.
See lêhenemine výib osutuda eriti oluliseks erilise seksuaalse sêttumuse korral, kuna ohvrid ei pea tingimata týestama, et neil on eriline seksuaalne orientatsioon, vaid esitama fakte, et neid on koheldud ebavýrdselt výi ahistatud nende eeldatava seksuaalse sêttumuse výi sidemete týttu taoliste inimestega.
There are many procedural instruments that can assist victims of discrimination to establish that discrimination may have occurred.
On olemas palju protseduure, kuidas saab abistada kannatanuid týendamaks, et neid on diskrimi-neeritud.
Such instruments include testing, the use of statistics, video and audio recordings and the so-called questionnaire procedure.
Selleks on testid, statistika kasutamine, video- ja audiosalvestused ja k Ÿ s i t l u s m e e t o d .
Testing is commonly used in the United States to prove direct discrimination in employment, housing and access to services.
Teste kasutatakse laialt USAs týestamaks otsest diskrimineerimist tûû, eluaseme ja teenuste saa-misel.
In Belgium testing is a piece of evidence acknowledged by law.
Belgias on test Ÿks osa seadusega sêtestatud týendeist.
NGOs in central and eastern Europe also use testers ̌ job seekers for instance ̌ who are selected to stand a comparison in all their characteristics, expect for the one (most often race) on the basis of which discrimination occurs.
Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopa k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n - d u s e d kasutavad samuti ¶testreidƒ nêiteks tûûle palkamise juures; nad valitakse vêlja sarnaste karakteristikute pýhjal teadaolevalt diskrimineeritud taotlejatega, kellest nad erinevad vaid Ÿhe tunnuse, sagedamini rassi poolest.
Audio and video recordings can be used as evidence in some countries, for example, in the Czech Republic, but not in others.
Tsehhi vabariigis saab audio- ja videosalvestusi kasutada tunnistusena.
In the United Kingdom the questionnaire procedure enables rejected job seekers to seek an immediate response from the employer as to the reasons for their rejection.
KŸsitlusprotseduur âhend-kuningriigis výimaldab tûûle mittevýetuil saada ettevýtjalt kohest vastust mittepalkamise pýhjus-te kohta.
Courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom can draw inferences of discrimination from the answers given to the questionnaire or from the failure of the employer to respond in time or respond at all.
Selle riigi kohtud saavad jêreldada diskrimineerimise olemasolu k Ÿ s i t l u s a n d m e tffe l e toe-tudes výi selle pýhjal, kui tûûandja ei anna vastust têhtajaks výi loobub Ÿldse vastamast.
Both the race directive (2000/43/EC) and the employment framework directive (2000/78/EC) in their preambles expressly mention that statistics may be used in cases of indirect discrimination.
Mýlema direktiivi (2000/43/Eâ) ja (2000/78/Eâ) sissejuhatuses on mêrgitud, et kaudse diskrimi-neerimise juhtudel výib tugineda ka statistikale.
Non-implementation of EU law
EL ýiguse mittetêitmine
Where a State which is a member of the EU, has not provided for the full (and correct) transposition of a directive (see nature of directives above) into national law by the time the date for implementa-tion has passed, an individual may nevertheless be able to rely on the provisions of the directives before national courts.
Kui EL liikmesriik ei výta Ÿle (transponeeri) direktiive têielikult ja ýigesti ettenêhtud têhtajaks (vt direktiivide iseloomustust eespool), výib isik sellele vaatamata tugineda nende direktiivide sêtete-le esitades oma hagi rahvuslikku kohtusse.
This is known as the principle of `direct effect'.
Seda tuntakse otsese toime pýhimýttena.
The aggrieved individual will have to show that the provision relied on is a precise and unconditional principle which is suffi-ciently operational to be applied by a national court and which is therefore capable of governing the legal position of individuals.
Hageja saab nêidata, et sête, millele tuginetakse, on têpne ja tingimusteta printsiip, mis on piisav asja arutami-seks kohtus ning viimane on seetýttu pêdev lahendama isiku k Ÿ s i m u s t .
However it is generally held that the principle of direct effect applies only to complaints directed against a public body or `emanation of the State'.
Samas on Ÿldine tava, et direktiivi otsese toime puhul kehtivad ainult avaliku výimu asutuste vastu esitatud kaebused.
As such, in relation to litigation between private individuals or entities, directives also have so-called `indirect effect'.
Sellisena on direktiivid 'kaudse toimega' eraisikute výi eraýiguslike isikute vaheliste ý i g u s t Ÿ l i d e puhul.
As discussed above, States and in particular domestic courts are obliged to do everything possible to achieve the results outlined in the directives.
Nagu nêhtub Ÿlaltoodust, peavad riigid ja eriti kohalikud kohtud tegema kýik selleks, et saavutataks direktiivides ettenêhtud tulemusi.
Indirect effect therefore requires domestic courts to interpret existing national law, as far as possible, in line with the direc-tive that should have been implemented.
Direktiivide mitteotsene mýju neis oludes nýuab, et kohalikud kohtud týlgendaksid rahvuslikke seadusi niipalju kui výimalik selliselt, et olla kooský-las direktiivide pýhimýtetega.
If a State fails to implement a directive within the time frame provided, the State is liable for dam-age that this causes to the individual.
Kui liikmesriik ei têida direktiivi ettenêhtud aja jooksul, on ta vastutav kahjude eest, mida see pýh-justab isiku jaoks.
This is referred to as Francovich damages as the principle was first laid down in the case of Francovich and Bonifaci v. Italy (Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90) decided by the European Court of Justice in 1991.
Antud printsiipi seostatakse Francovichi juhtumiga, kuna seda pýhimýtet raken-dati esmakordselt Francovichi ja Bonifaci hagi korral Itaalia vastu (Ÿhendatud kohtuasi C-6/90 ja C-9/90) Euroopa ýiguse kohtu otsuses 1991.a.
In the Francovich case, the ECJ listed three conditions which are both necessary and sufficient to establish liability under this principle. These are:
Francovichi asjas loetles Euroopa ýiguse kohus kolme vajalikku ja k Ÿ l l a l d a s t tingimust mêêra-maks selle pýhimýtte kohaselt riigi vastutust.
† there must be a causal link between the breach of the State's obligation and the loss and dam-age suffered by the injured individual.
Need olid: s฀reegliga, mida rikuti, pidi kaasuma isiku ýiguste kaitse; s฀nende ýiguste sisu peab olema kindlaks tehtud vastava direktiivi alusel; s฀peab olema pýhjuslik seos riigipoolse seaduse rikkumise ja kannatanule tekitatud kaotuse výi kahju vahel.
In addition, the breach of EU law must also be sufficiently serious for the individual to be entitled to damages.
Pealeselle on EL ýiguse týsisest rikkumisest tulenev kahju h Ÿ v i t i s e nýudmise eelduseks.
The Francovich damages remedy has been developed by the ECJ in later cases.
Kahju heastamine Francovichi juhtumi puhul sai oma arenduse EK jêrgnevas praktikas.
It is now clear that it is available for all breaches of EU law by a Member State, including failure to implement a direc-tive properly, in addition to complete non-implementation.
NŸŸdseks on selge, et kahju heastamine on výimalik mitte ainult sel juhul, kui liikmesriik ei têida EL ýigust Ÿldse, vaid ka siis, kui ta ei têida direktiive nagu kord ja kohus.
The text of the two directives and possibly summaries (see `National context' section).
*** Koolitaja peaks vêlja selgitama, kas rahvuslikud standardid výi h Ÿ v i t u s e d vastavad têielikult diskri-mineerimisvastastes direktiivides sêtestatud nýuetele.
The role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in combating discrimination
K o d a n i k u Ÿ h e n d u s tffe roll výitluses diskrimineerimise vastu
Intended learning outcomes
Selleks peaks varuma poolteist tundi.
† For the participants to have explored the roles NGOs can and should play in combating dis-crimination.
*** Kasutage koolituse metodoloogias pakutavaid meetodeid tûûks selle osaga.
It is normally a non-profit-making organisation, not affiliated with any government or private sector entity, or any political party.
Eeldatavad ýppe tulemused s Osavýtjaile saab selgeks, kuidas k o d a n i k u Ÿ h e n d u s e d peavad tegutsema diskrimineerimise vastu.
What is the role of a NGO in the field of combating discrimination?
Mis on k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s ?
When considering what role they can play in combating discrimination, NGOs should take full advantage of the special roles that have been given to them under Articles 7 and 12 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC, and Articles 9 and 14 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC.
*** Osavýtjaid osalevad diskussioonis ( a j u r Ÿ n n a k u s ) teemal, mis on ja millised peaksid olema k o d a n i - k e Ÿ h e n d u s e d , keskendudes sagedamini esinevatele k Ÿ s i m u s tffe l e selles valdkonnas, nagu: s Kas k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s výib kuuluda poliitilisse erakonda, výi peab ta jêêma eemale parteipolii-tikast?
In order for a country to achieve its goals of peace, democracy, good governance, health, prosper-ity and equality, NGOs are essential to successful development.
s Kui k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s on tihedalt seotud erakonnaga, mis saab siis, kui viimane lêheb valitsus-se?
The role of NGOs as instruments of civil society in the fight against discrimination can include:
s Kas usuorganisatsiooni, sh kirikut saab pidada k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s e k s ?
† providing a means for expressing and actively addressing the needs of people who are dis-criminated against;
s Kuidas k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s saab sêilitada oma rahastajatest sýltumatust (výi saada kompromi-teerituks)?
† supporting victims of discrimination in their access to justice;
s Millised inimesed peavad olema valitsemisasutustes?
† promoting diversity and equality in society;
Výi výivad nad ainult toetada valitsus eesmêrke?
† establishing the mechanisms to influence decision-making;
s Kust saavad k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s e d vajalikke vahendeid selleks, et palgata tûûtajaid oma tegevu-se jaoks?
† monitoring, documenting and denouncing discrimination;
Normaalselt on see m i tflt e t u l u n d u s Ÿ h i n g , Ÿhendamata Ÿhegi valitsusasutuse, eraettevýtte výi era-konnaga.
† maintaining equality on the political agenda and encouraging mobilisation.
Harilikult on tema eesmêrk týstatada sotsiaalseid ja ýiguslikke probleeme, sihiga soo-dustada Ÿldist heaolu ja osaleda výrdselt teiste demokraatlike institutsioonidega k o d a n i k e Ÿ h i s - k o n n a arendamises.
† work in partnership with other NGOs to achieve shared aims;
Milline on k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s tffe roll výitluses diskrimineerimise vastu?
† empower groups to engage in campaigns, to be self-advocates and to assert and enforce their rights;
*** Jêrgnevas osas esitavad osavýtjad oma nêgemuse k o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s tffe tegevusest výitluses diskri-mineerimise vastu.
† work, where appropriate, in partnership with governments to achieve common aims and objectives;
Selles osas esitatud tegevuste kirjeldust ei esitata ýppusest osavýtjaile enne kui nad on jýudnud selgusele probleemi olemuses, pigem on see abiks ýppuse juhendajale.
† work, where appropriate, against governments when those governments are promoting poli-cies which are contrary to the NGO's objectives;
Osavýtjad výivad esile tuua oma loendi kasutatavatest meetodeist.
† deliver services efficiently and effectively outside the framework of government policies when this is necessary and appropriate to promote the NGO's objectives, and to adopt, where appro-priate, strategies contrary to government policies;
Enne oma diskrimineerimisvastaste tegevuste kavandamist peavad koolitusest osavýtjad têielikult selgusele jýudma nende eriliste vahendite suhtes, mis on ette nêhtud direktiivi 2000/43/Eâ 7. ja 12. artiklis ning direktiivi 2000/78/Eâ 9. ja 14. artiklis.
† ensure the coordination of its own services and to engage government in discussions on the coordination of services between the government and NGOs;
K o d a n i k e Ÿ h e n d u s tffe roll on hêdavajalik selleks, et riik areneks rahumeelselt, demokraatlikult ja tagaks tervise, heaolu ja výrdsuse Ÿhiskonnas.
† keep track of and ensure that advantage is taken of all new developments in combating dis-crimination, for example, new legislation (national, EU and international), new policies (nation-al, EU and international), new sources of funding, and landmark judicial decisions (at both national, EU and international level);
K o d a n i k u Ÿ h e n d u s tffe roll výitluses diskrimineerimise vastu s otsustuste mýjutamise mehhanismide loomist; s mittediskrimineerimise ja výrdse kohtlemise poliitika kujundamist; (ka eesti keeles kasutatakse mýistet 'mainstreaming', mis têhendab, et teatud poliitikat výi meedet rakendatakse poliitika ja juhtimise eri valdkondades, tagamaks selle výimalikult ulatuslikku 'lêbivust'; týlkija mêrkus); s týukama výime ja ettevýtteid tegutsema diskrimineerimise vastu; s diskrimineerimise jêlgimist, dokumenteerimist ja protestimist; s kindlustama poliitika reeglite výrdsust ja julgustama poliitilist mobiliseerimist.
† increase the strength of NGO participation in civil society by forming networks and coalitions, and promoting original initiatives and solutions.
*** Osavýtjad peaksid avaldama arvamust, milliseid nimetatud meetmeist on neil kavas kasutada.
† appropriate national legislation in place regarding its establishment and functioning.
Kokkuvýttes saavad paljud k o d a n i k u Ÿ h e n d u s e d kontrollida, jêlgida ja kritiseerida valitsuse diskri-mineerimisvastast tegevust ja aidata Ÿksikisikuil ning gruppidel maksma panna oma ýigusi.
Why are NGOs better placed than other organisations to work towards combating discrimination?
Mida k o d a n i k u Ÿ h e n d u s saab konkreetselt teha diskrimineerimise vastu?
† Voluntary organisations play a crucial role in engaging with communities at the local, regional, national and international level.
*** Kasutades samu ýppevýtteid osavýtjad saavad juhendaja abiga tekitada oma loendi