natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of Justice is now required to give a ruling in an appeal brought by Mr Campoli against the abovementioned judgment.
Euroopa Kohtul palutakse nüüd otsustada F. Campoli poolt eelviidatud kohtuotsuse peale esitatud apellatsioonkaebuse üle.
In the version applicable before the abovementioned reform, the part of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations that is of relevance in this case provided as follows:
Mainitud reformile eelnenud redaktsioonis sätestas personalieeskirjade artikkel 82 kõnesoleva vaidluse seisukohalt olulises osas järgmist:
The relevant regulations for the purposes of the present dispute are those governing
Kõnesoleva vaidlusega seonduvad normid, mis reguleerivad Euroopa ühenduste
2 — Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).
2 – Nõukogu 22. märtsi 2004. aasta määrus (EÜ, Euratom) nr 723/2004, millega muudetakse Euroopa ühenduste ametnike personalieeskirju ja Euroopa ühenduste muude teenistujate teenistustingimusi (ELT L 124, lk 1; ELT eriväljaanne 01/02, lk 130).
They shall be weighted at the rate fixed for the country inside the Communities where the recipient proves he has his residence.
nr 723/2004 põhjendus 30, mis on sõnastatud järgmiselt:
In the absence of specific provisions regarding the correction coefficient to be applied to pensions, the coefficient applied to serving officials of the Communities has always been used, the benchmark for which was the cost of living in the various capitals of the Member States (the so-called ‘capital method’).
Pensionidele kohaldatavaid paranduskoefitsiente käsitlevate erisätete puudumise tõttu on alati kasutatud ühenduste teenistuses olevate ametnike suhtes kohaldatavat koefitsienti, mille alusnäitajaks on erinevate liikmesriikide pealinnade elukallidus (nn „pealinna meetod”).
‘Deepened integration of the European Union and the free choice of pensioners of their place of residence within the European Union has made the system of correction coefficients for pensions obsolete.
„Euroopa Liidu süvenenud koostöö ja pensionäride vaba elukohavalik Euroopa Liidu piires on muutnud pensionide paranduskoefitsientide süsteemi vananenuks.
This system has also created monitoring problems as regards the place of residence of pensioners which should be overcome.
Kõnealune süsteem on juba tekitanud pensionäride elukohaga seotud järelevalveprobleeme, mis tuleks lahendada.
This system should therefore be abolished with an appropriate transition for pensioners and officials recruited before the entry into force of this Regulation.’
Seetõttu tuleks kõnealune süsteem kaotada, nähes ette asjaomase üleminekukorra pensionäride ja enne käesoleva määruse jõustumist töölevõetud ametnike jaoks.”
In the version applicable from 1 May 2004, by contrast, Article 82 reads as follows:
Alates 1. maist 2004 kehtivas redaktsioonis sätestab personalieeskirjade artikkel 82 seevastu, et:
The decision of the Community legislature to abolish the system of correction coefficients as far as pensions are concerned is explained, at least in part, in recital 30 in the
Ühenduse seadusandja valikut kaotada pensionide puhul paranduskoefitsientide süsteem selgitab vähemalt osaliselt määruse
In concrete terms, however, the period of transition laid down in the new version of the Staff Regulations is not, as the abovementioned recital might lead one to suppose, a period of transition from a pension calculated using a correction coefficient to a pension without such a coefficient.
Siiski ei ole uute personalieeskirjadega ettenähtud üleminekuperiood mõeldud üleminekuks paranduskoefitsienti kasutades arvutatud pensionilt sellist koefitsienti kohaldamata arvutatud pensionile, nagu võiks järeldada määruse eespool viidatud põhjendusest.
In fact, for all pension rights acquired before 1 May 2004 (and hence, in the case of the appellant, who has been retired since 2003, all his pension rights), the legislature simply laid down transitional arrangements for a gradual switch from a correction coefficient calculated using the ‘capital method’ to one calculated in accordance with the ‘country method’.
Reformi läbiviinud seadusandja nägi lihtsalt kõigi enne 1. maid 2004 omandatud pensioniõiguste jaoks (2003. aastal pensionile jäänud apellandi puhul seega kõigi pensioniõiguste jaoks) ette üleminekukorra järkjärguliseks üleminekuks „pealinna meetodil” arvutatud paranduskoefitsiendilt „riigi meetodil” arvutatud paranduskoefitsiendile.
In other words, for persons who acquired pension rights before 1 May 2004, the reference cost of living for calculating the correction coefficient is no longer solely that for the capital of the Member State where he resides but the average for all of the State in question.
Teiste sõnadega ei võeta enne 1. maid 2004 pensioniõigused omandanud isikute puhul enam paranduskoefitsiendi arvutamisel aluseks elukohariigi pealinna elukallidust, vaid kogu selle riigi keskmist elukallidust.
The appellant retired in February 2003.
Apellant jäi pensionile veebruaris 2003.
He then took up residence in London, in the United Kingdom.
Ta asus elama Londonisse Ühendkuningriigis.
Consequently, a correction coefficient of 139.6%, calculated on the basis of the cost of living in London (the ‘capital method’), was applied to his pension.
Sellest tulenevalt kohaldati tema pensionile paranduskoefitsienti 139,6%, mis oli arvutatud Londoni linna elukalliduse alusel („pealinna meetod”).
As a further safeguard for officials who retired before 1 May 2004, the first subparagraph of Article 24(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides that:
Enne 1. maid 2004 pensionile jäänud ametnike paremaks kaitseks sätestab personalieeskirjade XIII lisa artikli 24 lõike 2 esimene lõik, et:
‘When these provisions enter into force, the nominal amount of net pension received before 1 May 2004 shall be guaranteed. …’
„Nende sätete jõustumisel tagatakse enne 1. maid 2004 saadud netopensioni nominaalsumma. […]”.
With the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, that correction coefficient was gradually to decrease and become the coefficient calculated in accordance with the ‘country method’, subject, however, to the guarantee that the nominal amount of the pension received before 1 May 2004 would not be reduced.
Uute personalieeskirjade jõustumisega oli selline paranduskoefitsient määratud järk-järgult vähenema ja muutuma „riigi meetodil” arvutatud koefitsiendiks, ent siiski oli tagatud, et enne 1. maid 2004 saadud pensioni nominaalsummat ei vähendata.
However, the adjustment of correction coefficients provided for in the reform of the Staff Regulations came into effect for the first time only with the advent of Regulation No 31/2005, 3 which provided for the adjustment to apply with retroactive effect as from 1 July 2004.
Paranduskoefitsientide kohandamine, mis oli ette nähtud personalieeskirjade reformiga, viidi esmakordselt ellu alles määrusega nr 31/2005 3, mis sätestas sellise kohandamise tagasiulatuvalt alates 1. juulist 2004.
3 — Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 31/2005 of 20 December 2004 adjusting, with effect from 1 July 2004, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2005 L 8, p. 1).
3 – Nõukogu 20. detsembri 2004. aasta määrus (EÜ, Euratom) nr 31/2005, millega kohandatakse alates 1. juulist 2004 Euroopa ühenduste ametnike ja muude teenistujate töötasusid ja pensione ning nimetatud töötasude ja pensionide suhtes kohaldatavaid paranduskoefitsiente (ELT L 8, lk 1).
On 14 August 2004, the appellant submitted a complaint to the Appointing Authority under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, in which he asked for his pension statements for the months of May, June and July 2004 to be annulled.
14. augustil 2004 esitas apellant ametisse nimetavale asutusele personalieeskirjade artikli 90 alusel kaebuse, paludes tühistada oma 2004. aasta mai, juuni ja juuli pensioniteatised.
The complaint was rejected by decision of 13 December 2004.
Kaebus jäeti 13. detsembri 2004. aasta otsusega rahuldamata.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 29 March 2005, the appellant appealed against the abovementioned decision rejecting his complaint.
Apellant palus 29. märtsil 2005 Esimese Astme Kohtu kantseleisse saabunud hagis tühistada eespool mainitud otsus tema kaebuse rahuldamata jätmise kohta.
As regards the appellant’s arguments in support of his claim of a difference in treatment — which, as we shall see, are the only ones he reiterates in the appeal — the Court of First Instance first dismissed the claim that the correction coefficient based on the ‘country method’, unlike the coefficient based on the ‘capital method’, could not guarantee that all pensioners would have equal purchasing power, irrespective of their place of residence.
Seoses apellandi väidetega ebavõrdse kohtlemise kohta – mis, nagu allpool näeme, on ainsad, millele ta ka apellatsiooniastmes tugineb – lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus eeskätt tagasi teesi, mille kohaselt „riigi meetodil” põhinev paranduskoefitsient ei ole – erinevalt „pealinna meetodil” tuginevast koefitsiendist – kohane kõigi pensionäride võrdse ostujõu tagamiseks sõltumata nende elukohast.
In particular, the Court of First Instance observed that, since any system for adjusting pensions is by its very nature approximate, there is no reason to believe that, of itself, the choice of the ‘country method’ in place of the ‘capital method’ is less able to guarantee equal treatment, all the more so as the Community legislature has very wide discretion in that sphere. 4
Eelkõige leidis Esimese Astme Kohus, et kuna mis tahes pensionide kohandamise süsteem on oma laadist tulenevalt ligilähedane, ei ole põhjust väita, et „riigi meetodi” valimine „pealinna meetodi” asemel oleks võrdse kohtlemise tagamiseks iseenesest vähem sobiv. Seda enam, et ühenduse seadusandjale kuulub vastavas valdkonnas küllaltki ulatuslik kaalutlusruum. 4
By order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2005, the Council of the European Union was granted leave to intervene in the case.
Esimese Astme Kohtu teise koja esimehe 6. juuli 2005. aasta määrusega anti Euroopa Liidu Nõukogule luba menetlusse astuda.
As to the argument that the new coefficients are discriminatory in that the coefficient they apply to pensioners is based on a different method from that used for serving officials (for whom the ‘capital method’ continues to apply), the Court of First Instance noted that the situation of a serving official, who is tied to a specific place of employment, and that of a retired official, who is free to settle where he wishes, are not objectively comparable. 5
Esimese Astme Kohus tunnistas vaidlustatud kohtuotsuses ennekõike vastuvõetamatuks majapidamis- ja õppetoetuse arvutusmeetodit puudutava väite, kuna seda ei olnud kaebuses esitatud. Ka tunnistas Esimese Astme Kohus menetluse algatamise huvi puudumise tõttu vastuvõetamatuks 2004. aasta mai ja juuni pensioniteatiste vastu suunatud hagi osa, kuna paranduskoefitsientide kohandamine toimus – nagu märgitud – alles juulis 2004.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance first ruled that the criticism relating to the method of calculating the household allowance and the education allowance was inadmissible as it had not been raised in the complaint. It also ruled inadmissible, for lack of a legal interest in bringing proceedings, the part of the application directed against the pension statements for May and June 2004, since the adjustment of the correction coefficients did not take effect until July 2004, as we have seen.
Teise väite kohta, mille kohaselt on uued koefitsiendid diskrimineerivad, kuna pensionäridele kohaldatakse koefitsienti, mis põhineb erineval meetodil võrreldes sellega, millel tugineb teenistuses olevate ametnike puhul kasutatav koefitsient (neile kohaldatakse jätkuvalt „pealinna meetodit”), sedastas Esimese Astme Kohus, et konkreetse teenistuskohaga seotud töötava ametniku seisund ei ole objektiivselt võrreldav pensionil oleva ametniku olukorraga, kes võib asuda elama, kuhu soovib. 5
The Court of First Instance then rejected the argument on which the appellant based
Seejärel lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus tagasi apellandi väite, mille kohaselt kohel-
4 — The judgment under appeal, paragraphs 99 to 109.5 — Ibid., paragraphs 110 to 115.
4 – Vaidlustatud kohtuotsus, punktid 99–109.5 – Ibidem, punktid 110–115.
The Court of First Instance then dismissed the appellant’s pleas alleging breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, nonretroactivity, acquired rights, equal treatment, proportionality and good administration and alleging misuse of powers and lack of an adequate statement of reasons.
Esimese Astme Kohus lükkas seega tagasi apellandi poolt hagi toetuseks esitatud väited, mille kohaselt rikuti õiguspärase ootuse kaitse, õiguskindluse, tagasiulatuva jõu puudumise, omandatud õiguste, võrdse kohtlemise, proportsionaalsuse ja hea halduse põhimõtteid ning kuritarvitati võimu ja esitati ebapiisav põhjendus.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-71/07 P since to have accepted it would have entailed simply a reduction in the pensions of former officials living in ‘less expensive’ States and would have conferred no advantage on the appellant himself.
„madalama elukallidusega” riikides elavate endiste ametnike pensionide vähendamiseni, toomata apellandile endale mingit kasu.
In any event, the Court of First Instance also observed that the legislature’s introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% also for ‘less expensive’ Member States cannot be considered a manifestly arbitrary or inappropriate act. 7
Igal juhul leidis Esimese Astme Kohus selle kohta lisaks, et „madalama elukallidusega” riikide jaoks 100%-se minimaalse paranduskoefitsiendi kehtestamist seadusandja poolt ei saa pidada aktiks, mis on ilmselgelt omavoliline või ebasobiv. 7
V — Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought by the parties his claim of a difference in treatment in relation to pensioners living in Belgium, to whom a correction coefficient calculated on the basis of the cost of living in Brussels, instead of the entire territory of Belgium, continued to be applied, despite the switch to the ‘country method’.
V. Menetlus Euroopa Kohtus ja poolte nõuded dakse erinevalt Belgias elavaid pensionäre, kellele kohaldatakse vaatamata „riigi meetodile” üleminekule jätkuvalt Brüsseli ja mitte kogu Belgia elukalliduse alusel arvutatud paranduskoefitsienti.
The Court of First Instance observed that the rules of the new Staff Regulations on correction coefficients for pensioners make absolutely no reference to Brussels but simply to Belgium.
Esimese Astme Kohus leidis selles küsimuses, et pensionidele kohaldatavate paranduskoefitsientidega seonduvad sätted uutes personalieeskirjades ei viita kuidagi Brüsselile, vaid lihtsalt Belgiale.
The possible unlawfulness of which the appellant complains concerns not the Staff Regulations but only the practical procedures for implementing those rules.
Apellandi väidetud õigusvastasus ei puuduta personalieeskirju, vaid ainult selle praktilise rakendamise korda.
The Court of First Instance also noted that it is in fact the amount of pension paid to former officials resident in Belgium that constitutes the benchmark for applying any correction coefficients for pensioners living in other Member States.
Esimese Astme Kohus sedastas veel, et just Belgias elavatele endistele ametnikele makstava pensioni summa on alusnäitajaks võimalike paranduskoefitsientide kohaldamisel teistes liikmesriikides elavatele pensionäridele.
Finally, it stated that, in any event, the principle that no person may rely, in support of his claim, on unlawful acts committed in favour of third parties was to be heeded. 6
Lõpuks tuleb igal juhul meenutada põhimõtet, mille kohaselt ei saa keegi oma nõuete toetuseks tugineda teiste õigussubjektide kasuks sooritatud õigusrikkumisele. 6
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 8 February 2007, the appellant appealed against the abovementioned judgment.
Apellant taotles 8. veebruaril 2007 Euroopa Kohtu kantseleisse saabunud apellatsioonkaebuses vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse tühistamist.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
Apellant palub Euroopa Kohtul:
Lastly, the Court of First Instance rejected the appellant’s argument that he suffered discrimination by comparison with pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ Member States.
Viimaks lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus tagasi apellandi väite, mille kohaselt eksisteerib diskrimineerimine võrreldes „madalama elukallidusega” liikmesriikides elavate pensionäridega.
Before the reform, a correction coefficient of less than 100% was applied to the pensions of pensioners living in such States (in other words, their pensions were reduced in relation to the reference amount).
Enne reformi kohaldati neis riikides elavate pensionäride pensionisummadele 100%-st madalamat paranduskoefitsienti (teiste sõnadega oli nende pension võrdlussummast väiksem).
As a result of the reform, however, a minimum correction coefficient of 100% was applied to all pensioners, which means that no pensioner, irrespective of his place of residence, will henceforth be paid a lower pension than that paid to pensioners living in Belgium.
Reformi järel kohaldatakse aga kõigi pensionäride puhul minimaalset paranduskoefitsienti 100%, mis tähendab, et sõltumata elukohast ei ole ühegi pensionäri pension enam madalam sellest, mida makstakse Belgias elavatele pensionäridele.
The Court of First Instance held the appellant’s argument to be inadmissible,
Esimese Astme Kohus leidis, et apellandi väide on vastuvõetamatu, kuna selle võimalik rahuldamine viiks üksnes
7 — Ibid., paragraphs 131 to 139.
7 – Vaidlustatud kohtuotsus, punktid 131–139.
— order the appellant to pay the costs.
– mõista kohtukulud välja apellandilt.
annulling the decision on the complaint and his pension statements;
kaebuse osas tehtud otsus ning apellandi pensioniteatised;
— declare that the appeal is inadmissible;
– esimese võimalusena tunnistada apellatsioonkaebus vastuvõetamatuks;
In these appeal proceedings, the appellant pursues, among the many pleas in law relied on before the Court of First Instance, only the plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
Käesolevas apellatsioonimenetluses esitab apellant Esimese Astme Kohtus hagi põhjenduseks esitatud paljudest väidetest üksnes selle, mis seondub võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtte rikkumisega.
— in the alternative, dismiss the appeal in its entirety as unfounded;
– teise võimalusena jätta apellatsioonkaebus tervikuna põhjendamatuse tõttu rahuldamata;
— order the appellant to pay the costs in accordance with Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
– mõista kohtukulud välja apellandilt vastavalt Euroopa Kohtu kodukorra artiklile 122.
More specifically, the appellant focuses his criticism on the response of the Court of First Instance to three of the four arguments adduced in support of that plea: the appellant expressly states that he does not intend to call into question the findings of the Court of First Instance on the second of those arguments, relating to alleged discrimination between pensioners and serving officials. 8
Konkreetsemalt arvustab apellant Esimese Astme Kohtu vastuseid kolmele väitele neist neljast, mis ta esitas eelviidatud seisukoha põhjendamiseks: apellant tunnistab sõnaselgelt, et ei kavatse vaidlustada Esimese Astme Kohtu hinnangut nimetatud väidetest teisele, mis seondus pensionäride ja teenistuses olevate ametnike vahel väidetavalt asetleidva diskrimineerimisega. 8
Before examining the appellant’s criticism of the judgment under appeal, however,
Enne kui käsitleda vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse vastu suunatud apellandi kriitikat, tuleb
— dismiss the appeal as unfounded;
– jätta apellatsioonkaebus põhjendamatuse tõttu rahuldamata;
8 — See paragraph 14 of the appeal.
8 – Vt apellatsioonkaebuse punkt 14.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-71/07 P the outset are, as we have seen, the only ones repeated by the appellant in the appeal.
KOHTUJURIST MENGOZZI ETTEPANEK – KOHTUASI C-71/07 P komisjoni arvates pidanud algusest peale vastuvõetamatuks tunnistama.
it is necessary to assess the ‘cross-appeal’ brought by the Commission.
hinnata komisjoni esitatud „vastuapellatsioonkaebust”.
B — The Commission’s ‘cross-appeal’
B. Komisjoni esitatud „vastuapellatsioonkaebus”
The appellant, in his reply, maintains that the ‘cross-appeal’ is inadmissible, since the Commission was not unsuccessful in any of its submissions before the Court of First Instance, as required by Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
Apellant väidab repliigis, et „vastuapellatsioonkaebus” on vastuvõetamatu, kuna komisjoni poolt Esimese Astme Kohtule esitatud nõudeid ei ole jäetud mingis osas rahuldamata, mis on Euroopa Kohtu põhikirja artikli 56 kohaselt kohtuotsuse edasikaebamise eelduseks.
Indeed, according to the appellant, the Commission did not raise the present objection of inadmissibility before the Court of First Instance and was therefore not unsuccessful on that point.
Tegelikult ei esitanud komisjon Esimese Astme Kohtule kõnesolevat vastuvõetamatuse vastuväidet ning seega ei saadud tema vastavat nõuet rahuldamata jätta.
Furthermore, the appellant asserts that the Commission is not seeking the annulment or amendment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance but simply a ruling that the appeal is inadmissible.
Komisjon ei nõua apellandi väitel Esimese Astme Kohtu otsuse tühistamist või uue otsuse langetamist, vaid üksnes apellatsioonkaebuse vastuvõetamatuks tun -nistamist.
In the final part of its defence, the Commission lodges a ‘cross-appeal’, in which it claims that the Court of First Instance should have ruled, first and foremost, that the fourth argument alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment was inadmissible because it had been raised for the first time only in the reply.
Komisjon esitab apellatsioonkaebusele antud vastuse viimases osas „vastuapellatsioonkaebuse”, milles ta väidab, et Esimese Astme Kohus oleks pidanud ennekõike tunnistama vastuvõetamatuks neljanda väite võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtte rikkumise kohta, sest see esitati esimest korda alles repliigis.
I shall deal with this specific question below, as a preface to discussion of the substance of the argument itself.
Käsitlen seda konkreetset väidet edaspidi, sissejuhatusena vastava väite sisulisele uurimisele.
The appellant maintains, moreover, that the Commission’s cross-appeal is unfounded as to the substance, since infringement of the principle of equal treatment had previously been alleged in the complaint lodged under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.
Veel väidab apellant, et komisjoni vastuapellatsioonkaebus on põhjendamatu ka sisu osas, kuna võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtte rikkumist käsitlev väide esitati juba personalieeskirjade artikli 90 alusel esitatud kaebuses.
All of the arguments put forward in the proceedings before the Court in support of the claim alleging unequal treatment, although not specifically previously presented in the complaint, were nevertheless closely connected with the assertions previously made.
Kõik kohtumenetluses sellise ebavõrdsuse põhjendamiseks esitatud väited on vaatamata sellele, et nad ei sisaldunud konkreetselt kaebuses, seal esitatud väidetega otseselt seotud.
The Commission then maintains that the Court of First Instance should also have ruled that the first, third and (again) fourth arguments were inadmissible, since they had not been presented in the administrative complaint lodged by the appellant before bringing proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Komisjon väidab seejärel, et Esimese Astme Kohus oleks pidanud tunnistama vastuvõetamatuks ka esimese, kolmanda ja (samuti) neljanda väite, kuna apellant ei esitanud neid enne Esimese Astme Kohtusse pöördumist esitatud halduskaebuses.
Moreover, the three arguments which the Commission maintains the Court of First Instance should have ruled inadmissible from
Nagu me nägime, on apellant esitanud apellatsioonkaebuses uuesti üksnes need kolm väidet, mis Esimese Astme Kohus oleks