natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finding that the male parent of a child born through surrogacy would be treated in exactly the same manner, the Advocate General dismisses the argument based on sex discrimination.
Nakon što je utvrdio da bi se s muškim roditeljem djeteta rođenog putem zamjenskog majčinstva postupalo na potpuno isti način, nezavisni odvjetnik odbacio je argument koji se zasniva na diskriminaciji na temelju spola.
While the Advocate General states that the situation of a woman such as Ms Z could be compared to that of an adoptive mother, he emphasises that the Member States have not yet passed legislation harmonising the right to paid leave of absence for adoptive parents.
Iako nezavisni odvjetnik navodi da bi se situacija žene , poput one u kojoj se našla gđa Z., mogla usporediti sa situacijom posvojiteljice, on naglašava da države članice još nisu usvojile zakonodavstvo kojim bi se uskladilo pravo na plaćeni dopust za roditelje posvojitelje.
Accordingly, where national law foresees the possibility of paid adoption leave, the national court ought to assess whether the application of differing rules to adoptive parents and to parents who have had a child through a surrogacy arrangement constitutes prohibited discrimination contrary to that national law.
S tim u skladu, ako je nacionalnim propisom predviđena mogućnost plaćenog posvojiteljskog dopusta, nacionalni sud treba procijeniti predstavlja li primjena različitih pravila na roditelje posvojitelje i roditelje koji su dijete dobili na temelju dogovora o zamjenskom majčinstvu zabranjenu diskriminaciju protivnu tom nacionalnom pravu.
As regards the second ground of discrimination brought forward , Advocate General Wahl concludes that Ms Z also has not been subject to discrimination on grounds of disability under EU law.
Što se tiče drugog razloga diskriminacije koji je istaknut, nezavisni odvjetnik Wahl zaključuje da gđa Z. nije bila izložena ni diskriminaciji na temelju invaliditeta prema pravu EU.
According to the Advocate General, the provisions prohibiting discrimination based on disability in the context of employment and occupation 3 are limited in scope and seek to ensure full and effective participation in professional life by all.
Prema nezavisnom odvjetniku, odredbe kojima se zabranjuje diskriminacija na temelju invaliditeta u kontekstu zapošljavanja i obavljanja zanimanja 3 imaju ograničeno područje primjene i njima se nastoji osigurati puno i djelotvorno sudjelovanje svih u poslovnom životu.
Seeing as her inability to carry a pregnancy to term did not prevent Ms Z from such participation, the EU legislation in question could not apply.
Budući da nesposobnost iznošenja trudnoće gđu Z. nije spriječila u takvom sudjelovanju, EU zakonodavstvo o kojem je riječ nije bilo moguće primijeniti.
NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice.
NAPOMENA: Sud nije vezan za prijedlog odluke nezavisnog odvjetnika.
Judgment will be given at a later date.
Presuda će se objaviti naknadno.
Prohibited discrimination on grounds of sex is governed by 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 (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p.
Zabrana diskriminacije na temelju spola uređena je 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 (preinaka) (SL L 204, str.
23).
246.).
The EU has passed specific legislation in this field, notably, Council Directive of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p.
EU je donjela posebno zakonodavstvo u ovom području, a posebice Direktivu Vijeća 2000/78/EEZ od 27. studenoga 2000. o uspostavi općeg okvira za jednako postupanje pri zapošljavanju i obavljanju zanimanja (SL 2000 L 303, str.
16).
69.).
Judgment in Case C‑509/11
Presuda u predmetu C-509/11
ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG
ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG
Rail p assengers are entitled to a partial refund of the price of their train ticket in the event of significant delay, even where that delay is attributable to force majeure
Putnici imaju pravo na djelomični povrat novca za cijenu željezničke karte u slučaju značajnog kašnjenja, čak i ako je kašnjenje uzrokovano višom silom
Carriers cannot rely on rules of international law which exempt them in cases of force majeure from paying compensation for loss suffered as a result of delay to avoid their obligation to refund
Prijevoznik se ne može pozvati na međunarodno pravo, koje ga u slučaju više sile oslobađa odgovornosti za naknadu štete koju je uzrokovalo kašnjenje, kako bi izbjegao obvezu povrata novca
The regulation on rail passengers’ rights and obligations 1 provides that the liability of railway undertakings in the case of delay is governed by the Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail 2 , subject to the applicable provisions of the regulation.
Uredba o pravima i obvezama putnika u željezničkom prometu 1 predviđa da je odgovornost željezničkih prijevoznika u slučaju kašnjenja uređena Jedinstvenim pravilima Ugovora o međunarodnom željezničkom prijevozu putnika i prtljage 2 , osim kada postoje odredbe Uredbe primjenjive na slučaj.
In accordance with the Uniform Rules, which are part of international law and are reproduced in the annex to the regulation, the railway carrier is liable to the passenger for the loss or damage resulting from the fact that, by reason of the late running of a train, his journey cannot be continued or continuation of the journey could not reasonably be required the same day.
Sukladno navedenim Jedinstvenim pravilima, koja potječu iz međunarodnog prava i navedena su u prilogu Uredbe, željeznički prijevoznik odgovoran je putniku za gubitak ili štetu koja je rezultat činjenice da se zbog kašnjenja njegovo putovanje ne može nastaviti istog dana ili se nastavak tog putovanja ne može razložno tražiti istog dana.
However, the carrier is exempt from liability where the delay is attributable to force majeure, namely, inter alia, circumstances not connected with the operation of the railway which the carrier could not avoid.
Međutim, odgovornost prijevoznika je isključena kad se kašnjenje pripisuje slučaju više sile, tj. okolnostima koje nisu povezane s prometovanjem željeznice koje prijevoznik nije mogao izbjeći .
The regulation provides that a passenger facing a delay of an hour or more may request a partial reimbursement of the price paid for the ticket from the railway undertaking.
Uredba međutim predviđa da putnik koji naiđe na kašnjenje od jednog sata ili više može od željezničkog društva tražiti djelomični povrat novca za cijenu karte.
The amount of that compensation is at least 25% of that price in the event of a delay of between 60 and 119 minutes and 50% in the event of a delay of 120 minutes or more.
Ta naknada iznosi najmanje 25 % cijene karte za kašnjenja od 60 do 119 minuta i 50 % cijene karte za kašnjenja od 120 minuta ili više.
The regulation provides for no exception to that right to compensation where the delay is attributable to force majeure.
Uredba ne predviđa nikakvu iznimku od prava na povrat novca kad je kašnjenje uzrokovano višom silom.
Against that background , the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court, Austria) has asked the Court of Justice whether a railway undertaking may be discharged from its obligation to pay compensation where the delay is attributable to force majeure.
U tom je kontekstu Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Upravni sud, Austrija) upitao Sud može li željeznički prijevoznik biti oslobođen obveze naknade cijene karte kad je kašnjenje uzrokovano višom silom.
In its judgment today, the Court finds, first, that the regulation itself does not exempt railway undertakings from the obligation to pay compensation where the delay is attributable to force majeure.
U današnjoj je presudi Sud prije svega utvrdio da sama Uredba ne oslobađa željezničke prijevoznike obveze naknade cijene karte kad se kašnjenje pripisuje višoj sili.
The Court then notes that the Uniform Rules , which exempt the carrier from its obligation to pay compensation in cases of force majeure, relate only to the right of passengers to receive compensation for damage or loss resulting from the delay or cancellation of a train.
Sud potom ističe da se Jedinstvena pravila, koja oslobađaju prijevoznika od obveze naknade gubitka ili štete u slučaju više sile, odnose samo na pravo putnika na naknadu štete nastale uslijed kašnjenja ili otkazivanja vlaka.
On the other hand, the compensation provided for by the regulation , calculated on the basis of the ticket price, has a very different purpose, which is to compensate the passenger for the consideration provided for a service which was not supplied in accordance with the transport contract.
Suprotno tome, naknada koju predviđa Uredba , a koja se računa na temelju cijene prijevozne karte, ima sasvim drukčiju svrhu, a to je nadoknaditi cijenu koju je putnik platio za uslugu koja mu nije bila pružena sukladno ugovoru o prijevozu .
It is also a fixed-rate standard form financial compensation, unlike that provided for under the system of liability established by the Uniform Rules, which requires an individual assessment of the damage suffered.
Nadalje, riječ je o obliku novčane naknade koja je unaprijed utvrđena i standardizirana, za razliku od sustava odgovornosti predviđenog Jedinstvenim pravilima koji podrazumijeva individualnu procjenu pretrpljenog gubitka ili štete.
Moreover, as those two liability systems are quite different, in addition to receiving fixed rate compensation, passengers may also bring a claim for compensation under the Uniform Rules.
Osim toga, budući da se ova dva sustava odgovornosti u potpunosti razlikuju, putnici mogu, osim tražiti unaprijed utvrđenu naknadu, pokrenuti i postupak za odštetu na temelju Jedinstvenih pravila.
In those circumstances, the Court finds that the carrier’s grounds of exemption from liability under the Uniform Rules are not applicable in the context of the liability system established by the regulation.
U ovim uvjetima, Sud zaključuje da razlozi isključenja odgovornosti prijevoznika iz Jedinstvenih pravila nisu primjenjivi u okviru sustava naknade ustanovljenog Uredbom.
In that regard, the Court notes that the regulation’s travaux préparatoires unequivocally indicate that the EU legislature intended to extend the obligation to pay compensation to those cases in which carriers are exempt from their liability to pay compensation under the Uniform Rules.
U tom pogledu, Sud naglašava da dokumenti za pripremu Uredbe bez sumnje otkrivaju da je zakonodavac Unije htio proširiti obvezu naknade na slučajeve u kojima su prijevoznici oslobođeni odgovornosti odštete na temelju Jedinstvenih pravila.
The Court also rejects the argument that the rules relating to force majeure set out in the provisions on the rights of passengers travelling by other modes of transport, such as by plane, boat, bus and coach, are applicable by analogy.
Sud tako đer odbacuje mogućnost analogne primjene pravila o višoj sili iz odredaba o pravima putnika koji koriste druga prijevozna sredstva, poput zrakoplova, brodova, putničkih i običnih autobusa.
Since the different modes of transport are not interchangeable as regards the conditions of their use, the situation of undertakings operating in different transport sectors is not comparable.
Budući da različiti načini prijevoza glede uvjeta korištenja nisu međusobno zamjenjivi, položaj prijevoznika u različitim prijevoznim sektorima nije usporediv.
In those circumstances, the Court finds that a railway undertaking may not include in its general terms and conditions of carriage a clause under which it is exempt from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of a delay where the delay is attributable to force majeure.
U tim je okolnostima Sud odgovorio da željeznički prijevoznik ne može u svoje opće uvjete prijevoza uključiti klauzulu kojom isključuje svoju odgovornost za naknadu cijene karte uslijed kašnjenja, kad se kašnjenje pripisuje slučaju više sile.
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.
NA POMENA: Prethodno pitanje omogućuje sudovima država članica da se, u okviru sporova u kojima odlučuju, obrate Sudu u vezi s tumačenjem prava Unije ili valjanosti akta Unije.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
Sud ne rješava nacionalni spor.
Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from " Europe by Satellite " (+32) 2 2964106
Fotografije s objave presude nalaze se na „Europe by Satellite“ (+32) 2 2964106
14).
143.).
Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail, which is part of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999.
Jedinstvena pravila Ugovora o međunarodnom željezničkom prijevozu putnika i prtljage Konvencije o međunarodnom željezničkom prijevozu od 9. svibnja 1980., kako je izmijenjena Protokolom iz Vilniusa od 3. lipnja 1999.
Luxembourg, 3 October 2013
U Luxembourgu, 3. listopada 2013.
Judgment in Case C‑59/12
Presuda u predmetu C-59/12
BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts / Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
The prohibition of unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices is also applicable to health insurance funds which are part of the statutory system
Zabrana nepoštene poslovne prakse prema potrošačima primjenjuje se i na fondove javnog zdravstvenog osiguranja
Neither their task of public interest nor their public law status are sufficient reason for them not to be covered by that prohibition
Obavljanje djelatnosti od općeg interesa i javnopravni status nisu opravdanje za izbjegavanje ove zabrane
Despite its public status and its task of public interest, such a body must be considered a ‘trader’ within the meaning of the directive, to which the prohibition on unfair commercial practices applies.
Unatoč tome što ima javni karakter i što obavlja djelatnost od općeg interesa, takvo tijelo treba se smatrati „poslovnim subjektom“ u smislu Direktive, pa se i na njega primjenjuje zabrana nepoštene poslovne prakse.
Indeed, the directive does not expressly exclude such bodies from its scope.
Naime, Direktiva izrijekom ne izuzima takva tijela iz svog područja primjene.
In addition, the directive’s aim of achieving a high level of consumer protection against unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, and in particular from misleading advertising, requires that protection to be ensured independently of the public or private status of the body at issue or of its specific task.
Štoviše, cilj Direktive da osigura visok stupanj zaštite potrošača od nepoštene poslovne prakse i osobito od zavaravajućeg oglašavanja zahtijeva da se zaštita jamči neovisno o javnom ili privatnom karakteru određenog tijela i o specifičnoj djelatnosti koju obavlja.
In the present case, the Court is answering a question from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) which is called upon to settle a dispute between the Wettbewerbszentrale, a German association for the prevention of unfair competition, and BKK, a health insurance fund established as a public law body which is part of the German statutory system.
Sud je u konkretnom slučaju odgovorio na pitanje koje mu je postavio Bundesgerichtshof (Savezni vrhovni sud, Njemačka) koji treba razriješiti spor između Wettbewerbszentrale, njemačke udruge za borbu protiv nepoštene konkurencije, i BKK-a, njemačkog fonda javnog zdravstvenog osiguranja koji je ustanovljen kao javnopravno tijelo.
22).
101.). (1)
See, inter alia, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 September 2013 in Case C‑435/11 CHS Tour Services ; see also Press Release No 113/13 .
Među ostalim, vidjeti presudu Suda od 19. rujna 2013., CHS Tour Services /Team4 Travel GmbH , C-435/11 ; kao i CP n° 113/13 .
Luxembourg, 17 October 2013
Luxembourg, 17. listopada 2013.
Judgment in Case C‑101/12
Presuda u predmetu C-101/12
Herbert Schaible v Land Baden-Württemberg
Herbert Schaible protiv Land Baden-Württemberg
The obligation of individual electronic identification for sheep and goats is valid
Obveza pojedinačnog označ ivanja ovaca i koza je valjana
By adopting that measure intended to improve prevention of epizootic diseases, the legislature did not infringe the freedom of animal keepers to conduct a business or the principle of equal treatment
Donoseći tu mjeru kako bi uspješnije spriječio epizootske bolesti, zakonodavac nije povrijedio ni slobodu poduzetništva uzgajivača životinja ni načelo jednakog postupanja
Up until the major outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 , keepers of sheep and goats only had to mark their animals with an eartag or a tattoo that made it possible to determine the holding from which they came.
Do izbijanja snažne epidemije bolesti slinavke i šapa u 2001. uzgajivači ovaca i koza imali su obvezu označiti svoje životinje samo ušnom markicom ili tetovažom kojima se omogućavalo njihovo povezivanje s pripadajućim gospodarstvom.
Furthermore, those animal keepers had to keep a register indicating the total number of sheep and goats present each year 1 .
Nadalje, ti su uzgajivači morali voditi registar u kojemu se navodio ukupan broj ovaca i koza na gospodarstvu svake godine.
During that epizootic disease outbreak, it was necessary to systematically slaughter millions of animals because sheep were unidentified and could not be traced, only to then discover that many of them were not infected.
1 Međutim, za vrijeme navedene epidemije bilo je potrebno, zbog neoznačenih koza i nedostatka sljedivosti, sustavno zaklati više milijuna životinja, da bi se nakon toga otkrilo da velik broj tih životinja uopće nije bio zaražen.
Moreover, it was necessary to impose various restrictions within the EU and a worldwide ban on all exports of livestock, meat and animal products from the United Kingdom.
K tome, trebalo je uvesti razna ograničenja unutar Europske unije i globalnu zabranu svih vrsta izvoza stoke, mesa i životinjskih proizvoda iz Ujedinjene Kraljevine.
In the interest of improving the prevention of such epidemics and improving the functioning of the trade in sheep and goats between Member States, the EU legislature introduced a new system 2 under which each animal must be identified individually by two means of identification, namely by a traditional eartag and by an electronic device.
Kako bi uspješnije spriječio takve epidemije i omogućio bolje funkcioniranje trgovine ovaca i koza između država članica, zakonodavac Unije uspostavio je novi sustav 2 u skladu s kojim se svaka životinja mora pojedinačno označiti pomoću dvaju sredstava za označivanje, tj. tradicionalnom ušnom markicom i elektronskim uređajem.
The latter may take the form of an electronic eartag, a ruminal bolus, an electronic transponder or an electronic mark on the pastern.
Potonji se može javiti u obliku elektronske ušne markice, bolusa za preživače, elektronskog transpondera ili elektronskog znaka na gležnju.
The identity of each animal must be recorded in a holding register.
Oznaka svake pojedine životinje mora se registrirati u registru gospodarstva.
Moreover, when animals leave the holding, their movements are to be recorded in a document accompanying those animals.
Nadalje, ako životinje odlaze s gospodarstva, njihovo kretanje mora se registrirati u dokumentu koji ih prati.
In addition, each Member State is obliged to set up a central register or computer database recording all holdings located on its territory and, at regular intervals, to take an inventory of the animals kept on those holdings.
Osim toga, svaka država članica ima dužnost uspostaviti središnji registar ili računalnu bazu podataka u kojima su registrirana sva gospodarstva koja se nalaze na njenom području i, u redovitim vremenskim razmacima, sastavljati popis životinja koje se nalaze na tim gospodarstvima.
Mr Schaible, a keeper of sheep with 450 ewes, brought an action before the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court, Germany) seeking a declaration that he is not obliged to individually identify his animals or to individually identify them electronically, nor to keep a holding register.
H erbert Schaible, njemački uzgajivač koji ima 450 ovaca, podnio je tužbu Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Upravni sud u Stuttgartu, Njemačka), zahtijevajući da taj sud utvrdi da on ne podliježe ni obvezama pojedinačnog označivanja svojih životinja i njihovog pojedinačnog elektronskog označivanja niti obvezi vođenja registra gospodarstva.
It is against that background that the Administrative Court requested the Court of Justice to verify whether those obligations are valid or whether they infringe the freedom to conduct a business and the principle of equal treatment.
Upravni sud je u tim okolnostima zatražio od Suda da ispita jesu li te obveze valjane ili predstavljaju povredu slobode poduzetništva i načela jednakog postupanja.
By today’s judgment, the Court finds that the obligations of keepers of sheep and goats to identify their animals individually and electronically and to keep an up-to-date holding register does not infringe the freedom to conduct a business or the principle of equal treatment.
Današnjom presudom Sud je utvrdio da obveze uzgajivača ovaca i koza da pojedinačno i elektronski označe svoje životinje kao i da vode ažuran registar gospodarstva ne predstavljaju povredu kako slobode poduzetništva tako ni načela jednakog postupanja.
Although those obligations may limit the exercise of the freedom to conduct a business , they are, however, legitimate objectives in the public interest, namely health protection, the control of epizootic diseases, the welfare of animals and the completion of the internal market for those animals.
Iako takve obveze mogu dovesti do ograničenja prava poduzetništva , one su ipak opravdane legitimnim ciljevima općeg interesa, tj. zaštitom zdravlja, dobrobiti životinja, borbom protiv epizootskih bolesti kao i ostvarivanjem unutarnjeg tržišta tih životinja.
In that they facilitate the traceability of each animal and thereby enable the competent authorities, in the event of an epizootic disease outbreak, to take the necessary measures to prevent the spread of contagious disease among sheep and goats , those obligations are appropriate and necessary to achieve those objectives.
Naime, budući da olakšavaju sljedivost svake životinje i time omogućavaju nadležnim tijelima da u slučaju epizootske bolesti poduzmu sve mjere koje su potrebne radi izbjegavanja širenja zaraznih bolesti među ovcama i kozama, te obveze su prikladne i nužne za postizanje spomenutih ciljeva.
Moreover, those obligations are not disproportionate.
Osim toga, te obveze nisu nerazmjerne.