natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
- Dimitrios Gratsias
- Dimitrios Gratsias
- Guido Berardis
- Guido Berardis
Luxembourg, 19 September 2013
U Luxembourgu, 19. rujna 2013.
Judgment in Case C ‑ 435/11
Presuda u predmetu C-435/11
CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team4 Travel GmbH
CHS Tour Services GmbH / Team4 Travel GmbH
A commercial practice that misleads consumers is unfair and, therefore, prohibited, and there is no need to show that it is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence
Zavaravajuća poslovna praksa nepoštena je prema potrošaču i time zabranjena, a da nije potrebno dokazati da je protivna zahtjevima u odnosu na profesionalnu pažnju
Team4 Travel, a travel agency established in Innsbruck (Austria) and specialising in the sale of snow holidays and skiing lessons in Austria for British schoolchildren, stated in its English-language brochure for the 2012 winter season that various hotels could be booked for certain dates exclusively through its services.
Team4 Travel, putnička agencija sa sj edištem u Innsbrucku (Austrija) i specijalizirana za prodaju odmora na snijegu i tečajeva skijanja u Austriji za grupe britanskih učenika, navela je u svojoj brošuri na engleskom jeziku za zimsku sezonu 2012. da se različiti hoteli mogu rezervirati na naznačene datume isključivo putem njezinih usluga.
In fact, the hotels concerned had, by contract, guaranteed such exclusivity for Team4 Travel.
Ti hoteli doista su putem ugovora zajamčili Team4 Travelu takvu ekskluzivnost.
The hotels concerned did not, however, honour that exclusivity and granted certain quotas for the same dates to CHS Tour Services, a competing travel agency also located in Innsbruck, although Team4 Travel was not aware of that fact at the time its brochures were distributed.
Međutim , predmetni hoteli nisu poštivali ovu ekskluzivnost i dodijelili su određene smještajne kvote za iste datume CHS Tour Servicesu, konkurentskoj putničkoj agenciji koja također ima sjedište u Innsbrucku, no Team4 Travel nije znao za ovu činjenicu u trenutku kada je raspodijelio svoje brošure.
Being of the opinion that the exclusivity statement contained in Team4 Travel’s brochures infringed the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, CHS asked the Austrian courts to prohibit Team4 Travel from using the statement.
S matrajući da izjava o ekskluzivnosti koja je sadržana u brošurama Team4 Travel krši zabranu nepoštene poslovne prakse, CHS je zatražio od austrijskih sudova da zabrani Team4 Travelu uporabu navedene izjave.
In the light of the guarantees of exclusivity that it had been given by the hotels, Team4 Travel had complied with the requirements of professional diligence.
Štoviše, u odnosu na garancije ekskluzivnosti koje je dogovorio s navedenim hotelima, Team4 Travel je poštivao zahtjeve u pogledu profesionalne pažnje.
CHS then brought an appeal on a point of law before the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria).
CHS je podnio zahtjev za reviziju Oberster Gerichtshofu (Vrhovni sud, Austrija).
The Supreme Court observed that the information relating to exclusivity, contained in Team4 Travel’s brochures, was objectively incorrect.
Vrhovni sud utvrdio je da je informacija o ekskluzivnosti koju sadrži brošura Team4 Travela objektivno netočna.
Since it satisfied all of the criteria expressly laid down in that regard by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 1 , that information constituted, from the viewpoint of the average consumer, a misleading commercial practice.
Ova bi informacija, s obzirom na to da u ovom pogledu ispunjava sve kriterije koji su izrijekom predviđeni Direktivom o nepoštenoj poslovnoj praksi 1 , u očima prosječnog potrošača predstavljala zavaravajuću poslovnu praksu.
The Oberster Gerichtshof therefore asked the Court of Justice to interpret that directive.
Stoga se Oberster Gerichtshof obratio Sudu s namjerom da dobije njegovo tumačenje navedene Direktive.
Thus, the constituent features of a misleading commercial practice are in essence expressed with reference to the consumer as the person to whom unfair commercial practices are applied.
Također, konstitutivni se elementi zavaravajuće poslovne prakse promatraju zapravo iz perspektive potrošača kao adresata nepoštene poslovne prakse.
Thus, the directive ensures, in cases of misleading commercial practices, a high level of consumer protection.
Direktiva u slučaju zavaravajuć e poslovne prakse također jamči visok stupanj zaštite potrošača.
Those practices, together with aggressive commercial practices, constitute by far the most common unfair commercial practices.
Ovakva praksa zajedno s agresivnim oblicima poslovne prakse predstavlja daleko najčešću vrstu nepoštene poslovne prakse.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
NAPOMENA : Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku omogućuje sudovima država članica da, u okviru postupka koji se pred njima vodi, upute zahtjev Sudu o tumačenju prava Unije ili o valjanosti akta Unije.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
Neslužbeni dokument za medije koji ne obvezuje Sud.
The full text of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Cjelovit tekst presude objavljuje se na stranici CURIA na dan objave.
22). (1)
101.) (1)
Article 6(1) of the abovementioned directive.
Članak 6. stavak 1. navedene Direktive.
Article 5(2)(a) of the abovementioned directive.
Članak 5. stavak 2. točka (a) navedene Direktive.
Luxembourg, 24 September 2013
U Luxembourgu, 24. rujna 2013.
Judgment in Case C‑221/11
Presuda u predmetu C-221/11
Leyla Ecem Demirkan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Leyla Ecem Demirkan / Savezna Republika Njemačka
Turkish nationals do not have the right to enter the territory of an EU Member State without a visa in order to obtain services
Turski državljani nemaju pravo ulaska bez vize na državno područje države članice EU -a da bi se ondje koristili pružanim uslugama
The Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Higher Administrative Court, Berlin-Brandenburg) , before which the case was brought on appeal, asks the Court of Justice to clarify the scope of the ‘standstill’ clause.
Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (viši upravni sud Berlin-Brandenburg, Njemačka), koji u tom sporu vodi postupak u drugom stupnju, zahtijeva od Suda da razjasni doseg „standstill“ klauzule.
The Court points out that the freedom to provide services conferred by the EU Trea ties on Member State nationals, and thus on EU citizens, encompasses not only active freedom to provide services but also – as the Court accepted in its judgment in Luisi and Carbone in 1984 5 – as the necessary corollary, passive freedom of provision of services.
Sud podsjeća na to da slobodno pružanje usluga koje Osnivački ugovori jamče državljanima država članica – dakle građanima Unije – obuhvaća ne samo aktivnu slobodu pružanja usluga, nego i, kako je utvrdio u svojoj presudi Luisi i Carbone iz 1984.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
NAPOMENA: Prethodno pitanje omogućuje sudovima država članica da, u okviru postupka koji se pred njima vodi, upute pitanje Sudu o tumačenju prava Unije ili o valjanosti akta Unije.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
Sud ne odlučuje o nacionalnom sporu.
Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from " Europe by Satellite " (+32) 2 2964106
Snimke svečane sjednice nalaze se na „ Europe by Satellite “ (+32) 2 2964106
Signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1973 C 113, p.
Potpisan 12. rujna 1963. u Ankari i sklopljen, odobren i potvrđen u ime Zajednice Odlukom Vijeća 64/732/EEZ od 23. prosinca 1963. (SL 217, 1964., str.
1).
3685.).
1).
3.). (15,16)
Joined Cases C-286/82 and C-26/83 .
Presuda Suda od 31. siječnja 1984., Luisi i Carbone ( 286/82 i 26/83 ).
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C‑167/12
Prijedlog odluke nezavisne odvjetnice u predmetu C-167/12
CD v ST
CD/ST
Advocate General Kokott considers that both mothers have the right to receive maternity leave in the case of legal surrogacy
Nezavisna odvjetnica Kokot t smatra da u slučaju zakonitog zamjenskog majčinstva obje majke imaju pravo na rodiljni dopust
Maternity leave of at least 14 weeks is not doubled but is to be divided between both mothers; the maternity leave must amount to at least two weeks for each of them
Rodiljni d opust od najmanje 14 tjedana ne udvostručuje se nego se mora podijeliti na obje majke, pri čemu dopust za svaku od njih mora iznositi najmanje dva tjedna
There are no uniform rules on the matter of surrogacy 1 in the EU.
Zamjensko majčinstvo 1 nije jedinstveno uređeno u Europskoj uniji.
Whilst it is prohibited in many Member States, it is permitted in the United Kingdom under certain conditions.
Dok je u mnogim državama članicama zabranjeno, u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini dopušteno je pod određenim uvjetima.
However, in the UK there are no specific rules on maternity leave for the woman who assumes responsibility for the child’s care after it is born (intended mother).
U Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini međutim nema posebnog pravila o rodiljnom dopustu za ženu koja nakon rođenja preuzima roditeljsku skrb za dijete (majka skrbnica).
With the assistance of a surrogate mother, C.D. and her partner, who live in the UK, fulfilled their wish to have a child.
Izvjesna C. D. i njezin izvanbračni partner, koji žive u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini, ostvarili su uz pomoć zamjenske majke svoju želju za djetetom.
Since her public employer was of the view that she was not entitled to paid maternity or adoption leave as she did not give birth to or adopt a child, C.D. brought legal proceedings before a British court.
Budući da je poslodavac C. D. iz javnog sektora smatrao da ona nema pravo na plaćeni rodiljni ili posvojiteljski dopust jer dijete nije ni rodila ni posvojila, C. D. je podnijela tužbu pred britanskim sudom.
That court would like to know from the Court of Justice whether in accordance with EU law 2 a woman has the right to receive paid maternity leave where it is not she herself but a surrogate mother who has given birth to a child.
Taj bi sud od Suda želio saznati ima li prema pravu Unije 2 žena pravo na plaćeni rodiljni dopust u slučaju kada dijete nije rodila ona sama nego zamjenska majka.
Advocate General Juliane Kokott considers that an intended mother who has a baby through a surrogacy arrangement has the right to receive maternity leave provided for under EU law after the birth of the child in any event where she takes the child into her care following birth, surrogacy is permitted in the Member State concerned, and its national requirements are satisfied.
Nezavi sna odvjetnica Juliane Kokott smatra da majka skrbnica koja je dijete dobila na temelju dogovora o zamjenskom majčinstvu svakako ima pravo na rodiljni dopust propisan pravom EU ako je nakon rođenja djeteta preuzela o njemu skrb, ako je u državi članici o kojoj je riječ zamjensko majčinstvo dopušteno i ako su ispunjeni u toj državi propisani uvjeti.
This also applies where the intended mother does not breastfeed the child following birth.
Navedeno vrijedi i u slučaju kada majka skrbnica nakon poroda ne doji dijete .
Maternity leave which the surrogate mother has taken must be deducted; the maternity leave of the intended mother must however amount to at least two weeks.
Rodiljni dopust koji je iskoristila zamjenska majka mora se doduše odbiti, ali rodiljni dopust majke skrbnice mora iznositi najmanje dva tjedna.
On laying down the rules on maternity leave in 1992 the EU legislature only took biological motherhood as the norm and obviously did not consider the practice of surrogacy which was then not very widespread.
Zakonodavac Unije se p ri donošenju pravila o rodiljnom dopustu 1992. usredotočio na biološko majčinstvo kao uobičajeni slučaj i nije uzeo u obzir fenomen zamjenskog majčinstva, koji tada još nije bio posebno raširen.
The objective of protection of maternity leave , which is enshrined as a fundamental right, also however demands the protection of the intended mother, irrespective of whether or not she breastfeeds the child 3 .
Međutim, zaštitna svrha rodiljnog dopusta koja je zajamčena kao temeljno pravo nalaže zaštitu i majke skrbnice i to neovisno o tome doji li ona dijete ili ne.
This paid leave not only serves to protect the worker during pregnancy, in confinement, or during the lactation period, but should also ensure the unhindered development of the mother-child relationship .
3 Taj plaćeni dopust ne služi naime samo zaštiti radnice tijekom trudnoće, postporođajnog razdoblja ili dojenja nego treba osigurati i nesmetan razvoj odnosa između majke i djeteta .
In any event, if the Member State recognises the legal relationship of the intended mother to the child in the specific case, EU law on maternity leave must be applied to intended mothers who take the place of the surrogate mother immediately after the birth.
Na majke skrbnice koje nakon rođenja preuzmu ulogu zamjenske majke svakako se moraju primijeniti propisi Unije o rodiljnom dopustu ako država članica u konkretnom slučaju priznaje pravni odnos između majke skrbnice i djeteta.
With regards to the length of maternity leave, Advocate General Kokott is of the view that the concept of surrogacy cannot result in a doubling of the minimum leave entitlement of 14 weeks.
U pogledu duljine rodiljnog dopusta, nezavisna odvjetnica Kokott smatra da ideja zamjenskog majčinstva ne može dovesti do udvostručavanja prava na najkraći dopust od 14 tjedana.
Rather, the division of roles chosen by the women concerned must be reflected in the maternity leave.
Rodiljni dopust mora štoviše odražavati onakvu podjelu uloga kakvu su žene kojih se to tiče odabrale.
Consequently, the leave already taken by the surrogate mother must be deducted from that of the intended mother, and vice versa.
Dopust koji je zamjenska majka već koristila mora se stoga uračunati u dopust majke skrbnice i obrnuto.
However the compulsory maternity leave of at least two weeks must be granted to both women in full.
Obje žene međutim moraju imati pravo na obvezan rodiljni dopust u trajanju od najmanje puna dva tjedna.
With regards to these two weeks the EU rules in the form of a directive are so precise that they are directly effective in Member States.
Pravilo Unije u obliku direktive je u pogledu ta dva tjedna toliko precizno da ono ima izravan učinak u državama članicama.
T he division of the remaining ten weeks must duly take account of the protection of the pregnant woman and the woman who has recently given birth and the child’s best interests.
Pri raspodjeli preostalih 10 tjedana mora se na odgovarajući način voditi računa o zaštiti trudnice odnosno žene koja je nedavno rodila i o dobrobiti djeteta.
If the women cannot agree, it is reasonable to follow the approach of the national law.
Ako se žene ne mogu dogovoriti, potrebno je primijeniti rješenja nacionalnog prava.
In the case of an agreement the right to the remaining leave can also be determined with sufficient precision with the result that it must be concluded that the EU rules are directly effective.
U slučaju postizanja dogovora moguće je dovoljno jasno odrediti pravo na preostali dopust tako da se i u tom pogledu mora izvesti zaključak o izravnom učinku pravila EU.
In other respects Advocate General Kokott is of the view that the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation 4 is not relevant in the present case and is therefore not applicable.
U preostalom dijelu , nezavisna odvjetnica Kokott smatra da načelo jednakih mogućnosti i jednakog postupanja prema muškarcima i ženama u pitanjima zapošljavanja i rada 4 nije mjerodavno u predmetnom slučaju i stoga nije primjenjivo.
NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice.
NAPOMENA : Sud nije vezan za prijedlog odluke nezavisnog odvjetnika.
It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible.
Zadaća nezavisnih odvjetnika je predložiti Sudu, u punoj neovisnosti, pravno rješenje u predmetu za koji su zaduženi.
The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case.
Suci Suda sada počinju vijećati u ovom predmetu.
Judgment will be given at a later date.
Presuda će se donijeti naknadno.
The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Cjelovit tekst prijedloga odluke objavljuje se na stranici CURIA na dan objave.
In reproductive medicine surrogacy begins with the artificial fertilisation of the surrogate mother or the placing in her of an embryo.
U smislu reproduktivne medicine zamjensko majčinstvo počinje umjetnom oplodnjom zamjenske majke ili implantacijom zametka u zamjensku majku.
The surrogate mother then carries and delivers the child.
Zamjenska majka potom iznosi trudnoću i rađa dijete.
The child can be genetically related either to the ‘intended parents’, who assume responsibility for the child’s care after it is born, or to the father and the surrogate mother, or to him and a third woman.
Kada je riječ o genima, dijete može potjecati ili od takozvanih roditelja skrbnika koji nakon rođenja preuzimaju roditeljsku skrb za dijete ili od oca i zamjenske majke, odnosno od njega i treće žene.
In particular in accordance with Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, OJ 1992 L 348, p.
Posebice prema Direktivi Vijeća 92/85/EEZ od 19. listopada 1992. o uvođenju mjera za poticanje poboljšanja sigurnosti i zdravlja na radu trudnih radnica te radnica koje su nedavno rodile ili doje (SL L 348, str.
A breastfeeding mother is in a situation equivalent to that of a breastfeeding biological mother and as a ‘breastfeeding worker’ within the meaning of the directive must therefore enjoy its protection.
Majka skrbnica koja doji nalazi se u situaciji koja je jednaka situaciji biološke majke djeteta koja doji i već bi zbog toga kao „radnica koja doji“ u smislu Direktive morala uživati zaštitu tog propisa.
Confirmed in Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, OJ 2006 L 204, p.
Konkretizirano Direktivom 2006/54/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 5. srpnja 2006. o provedbi načela jednakih mogućnosti i jednakog postupanja prema muškarcima i ženama u pitanjima zapošljavanja i rada (SL L 204, str.
23.
246.).
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-3 63/12
Prijedlog odluke nezavisnog odvjetnika u predmetu C-363/12
Z v A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School
Z . protiv Državni ured i Upravni odbor općinske škole
According to Advocate General Wahl, a right to paid leave of absence from employment to parents of a child born through a surrogacy arrangement cannot be inferred from EU law
Nezavisni odvjetnik Wahl s matra da se pravo na plaćeni dopust za roditelje djeteta rođenog na temelju dogovora o zamjenskom majčinstvu ne može izvesti iz prava EU
As EU law stands at present, their situation falls outside its scope
Njihova situacija izlazi izvan područja primjene prava EU koje je trenutno na snazi
The case before the referring court concerns Ms Z, who is a teacher in Ireland.
U s lučaju pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev riječ je o izvjesnoj gđi Z., koja je učiteljica u Irskoj.
She suffers from a rare condition which has the effect that, although she has healthy ovaries and is otherwise fertile, she has no uterus and cannot support a pregnancy.
Ona boluje od rijetke bolesti zbog koje nema maternicu i ne može iznijeti trudnoću premda ima zdrave jajnike i inače može zanijeti.
In order to have a child, Ms Z and her husband arranged for a surrogate mother to give birth to a child in California.
Kako bi mogli imati dijete, gđa Z. i njezin suprug sporazumjeli su se sa zamjenskom majkom da im u Kaliforniji rodi dijete.
The child born under the surrogacy arrangement is the genetic child of the couple and no mention of the surrogate mother is made on the child’s American birth certificate.
Dijete koje je rođeno na temelju dogovora o zamjenskom majčinstvu biološko je dijete navedenog para i na njegov američki rodni list nije upisana zamjenska majka.
While paid maternity leave and adoption leave are regulated under Irish law, there is no express provision in Irish legislation (or in Ms Z’s contract of employment) for leave arising from the birth of a child through a surrogacy arrangement.
P laćeni rodiljni i posvojiteljski dopust uređeni su irskim pravom, ali u irskom zakonodavstvu (ili ugovoru o radu gđe Z.) nema izričite odredbe o dopustu zbog rođenja djeteta rođenog na temelju dogovora o zamjenskom majčinstvu.
After her request for paid leave of absence had been refused, Ms Z brought a complaint before the Equality Tribunal.
Nakon što je njezin zahtjev za plaćeni dopust odbijen, gđa Z. je podnijela tužbu Equality Tribunalu.
She argued that she had been subject to discrimination on grounds of sex, family status and disability.
Tvrdila je da je bila izložena diskriminaciji na temelju spola, obiteljskog stanja i invaliditeta.
In those circumstances, t he Equality Tribunal asked the Court of Justice whether the fact that a woman whose genetic child has been born through a surrogacy arrangement is refused paid leave of absence from employment constitutes a breach of EU law.
Pod tim okolnostima, Equality Tribunal postavio je Sudu pitanje o tome predstavlja li uskraćivanje plaćenog dopusta biološkoj majci djeteta koje je rođeno na temelju dogovora o zamjenskom majčinstvu povredu prava EU.
In his Opinion today, Advocate General Nils Wahl distinguishes the case at hand from the situation of a pregnant worker falling under the scope of the Pregnant Workers Directive 1 , which provides for maternity leave of at least 14 weeks.
U svom današnjem prijedlogu odluke nezavisni odvjet nik Wahl razlikuje slučaj o kojem je riječ od situacije trudne radnice koja ulazi u područje primjene Direktive o trudnim radnicama 1 , kojom je predviđen rodiljni dopust od najmanje 14 tjedana.
In that regard, he emphasises that the protection afforded by the Directive applies to women who have given birth to a child and that it aims at protecting those workers in their fragile physical state.
S tim u svezi, on ističe da se zaštita koju Direktiva pruža primjenjuje na žene koje su rodile dijete i da je njezin cilj zaštititi te radnice čije je fizičko stanje osjetljivo.
Concerning the question at hand, the Advocate General considers, first, that Ms Z has not been subject to any prohibited discrimination on grounds of sex 2 .
Š to se tiče pitanja o kojem je u ovom slučaju riječ, nezavisni odvjetnik, kao prvo, smatra da gđa Z. nije bila izložena nikakvoj zabranjenoj diskriminaciji na temelju spola 2 .
According to the Advocate General, the differential treatment of which Ms Z complains was not based on sex, but on the refusal of national authorities to equate her situation with that of either a woman who has given birth, or an adoptive mother.
Različito postupanje, na koje se žali gđa Z., nije se, prema nezavisnom odvjetniku, temeljilo na spolu nego na odbijanju nacionalnih vlasti da njezinu situaciju izjednače ili sa situacijom žene koja je rodila ili situacijom posvojiteljice.
However, the special protection in terms of discrimination based on sex afforded to pregnant women cannot apply in this case and therefore a comparator of the opposite sex is necessary.
Međutim, posebna zaštita od diskriminacije na temelju spola koja se pruža trudnicama ne može se primijeniti u ovom slučaju pa je stoga potrebna usporedba s drugim spolom.