natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
23 First of all, in order to address the main argument put forward by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in its defence, it must be pointed out that, according to Article 3(1)(a) thereof, Directive 2006/123 is not intended to replace Directive 96/71 and the latter prevails over the former in the event of conflict. Therefore, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg cannot base its arguments on the legislative procedure which led to the adoption of Directive 2006/123 in order to support its interpretation of a provision of Directive 96/71.
23 Kao prvo, kao odgovor na glavni argument koji je navelo Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg valja naglasiti da prema njezinom članku 3. stavku 1. točki (a), Direktiva 2006/123 nema namjenu zamijeniti Direktivu 96/71, pri čemu u slučaju sukoba potonja prevladava nad prvom. Stoga se ta država članica ne može oslanjati na zakonodavni postupak koji je doveo do donošenja Direktive 2006/123 kako bi poduprla tumačenje odredbe Direktive 96/71 koju brani.
30 Therefore, contrary to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg’s submissions, the public policy exception is a derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services which must be interpreted strictly, the scope of which cannot be determined unilaterally by the Member States (see, regarding freedom of movement for persons, Case C-503/03 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-1097, paragraph 45).
30 Stoga, suprotno onome što tvrdi Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, izuzetak od javnoga poretka predstavlja odstupanje od temeljnog načela slobodnog pružanja usluga, koje mora biti shvaćeno strogo i čiji doseg ne mogu jednostrano odrediti države članice (vidjeti u vezi sa slobodnim kretanjem osoba presudu od 31. siječnja 2006., Komisija/Španjolska, C-503/3, Zb., str. I-1097., t. 45.).
31 In the context of Directive 96/71, the first indent of Article 3(10), constitutes a derogation from the principle that the matters with respect to which the host Member State may apply its legislation to undertakings which post workers to its territory are set out in an exhaustive list in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) thereof. The first indent of Article 3(10) must therefore be interpreted strictly.
31 U kontekstu Direktive 96/71, članak 3. stavak 10. prva alineja jest odstupanje od načela prema kojem su pitanja u kojima država članica domaćin može primijeniti svoje zakonodavstvo na poduzeća koja upućuju radnike na njezino državno područje taksativno navedena u članku 3. stavku 1. podstavku 1. te direktive. Tu prvu odredbu stoga treba usko tumačiti.
32 Moreover, Declaration No 10 which, as the Advocate General rightly pointed out in point 45 of her Opinion, may be relied on in support of an interpretation of the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71, states that the expression ‘public policy provisions’ is to be construed as covering those mandatory rules from which there can be no derogation and which, by their nature and objective, meet the imperative requirements of the public interest.
32 Osim toga, u izjavi br. 10. u pogledu koje je nezavisna odvjetnica u točki 45. svojega mišljenja ispravno istaknula da bi se na nju moglo pozivati u prilog tumačenju članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71, navodi se da izraz „odredbe javnog poretka” treba smatrati takvim da obuhvaća obvezujuće odredbe od kojih nije moguće odstupati i koje u skladu s njihovom prirodom i ciljem ispunjavaju bitne zahtjeve javnog interesa.
– The requirement of a written contract or document established pursuant to Directive 91/533, as provided for in Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002
Odredba o pisanom ugovoru ili dokumentu na temelju Direktive 91/533, predviđena člankom 1. točkom 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
36 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg submits, first, that the contested requirement is simply a reminder of the condition referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 91/533 and, second, that it is a matter of public policy in so far as its objective is to protect workers.
36 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ističe da je sporna odredba s jedne strane samo podsjetnik na uvjete iz članaka 2. i 3. Direktive 91/533 i da s druge strane pripada javnom poretku jer je njezin cilj zaštita radnika.
41 Accordingly, the contested provision has the effect of making undertakings which post workers to Luxembourg subject to an obligation to which they are already subject in the Member State in which they are established. Moreover, the aim of Directive 96/71, which is to guarantee compliance with a nucleus of rules for the protection of workers, renders the existence of such an additional obligation all the more redundant since, having regard to the procedures involved, it is likely to dissuade undertakings established in another Member State from exercising their freedom to provide services.
41 Stoga osporavana odredba ima za učinak podvrgavanje poduzeća, koja upućuju radnike u Luksemburg, obvezi koju već imaju u državi članici u kojoj imaju poslovni nastan. Štoviše, cilj Direktive 96/71, kojim se jamči poštovanje minimalne jezgre pravila za zaštitu radnika, čini još nepotrebnijom takvu dodatnu obvezu koja, s obzirom na postupke koje podrazumijeva, odvraća poduzeća s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici od izvršavanja slobode pružanja usluga.
– The requirement relating to the automatic adjustment of rates of remuneration to the cost of living provided for in Article 1(1)(2) of the Law of 20 December 2002
Odredba o automatskoj prilagodbi plaća kretanju životnih troškova iz članka 1. stavka 1. točke 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
45 It is clear from the Commission’s application that the latter does not challenge the fact that minimum wages are indexed to the cost of living, a requirement which, as the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg points out, is unquestionably covered by point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, but the fact that that indexation concerns all wages, including those which do not fall within the minimum wage category.
45 Iz tužbe koju je uložila Komisija proizlazi da ona ne osporava činjenicu da su minimalne plaće usklađene sa životnim troškovima, jer je ta odredba nepobitno obuhvaćena člankom 3. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. točkom (c) Direktive 96/71, kako je napomenulo Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, već okolnost da se to usklađivanje odnosi na sve plaće, uključujući one koje nisu u kategoriji minimalnih plaća.
47 In that connection, it must be pointed out that the Community legislature intended, by means of point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, to limit the possibility of the Member States intervening as regards pay to matters relating to minimum rates of pay. It follows that the requirement in the Law of 20 December 2002 concerning the automatic adjustment of rates of pay other than the minimum wage to the cost of living does not fall within the matters referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71.
47 S tim u vezi valja naglasiti da je zakonodavac Zajednice člankom 3. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. točkom (c) Direktive 96/71 htio ograničiti mogućnost državama članicama da u području plaća interveniraju u minimalne plaće. Iz toga proizlazi da se odredba Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. o automatskom usklađivanju plaća koje nisu minimalne s kretanjem životnih troškova ne odnosi na pitanja iz članka 3. stavka 1. prvog podstavka Direktive 96/71.
49 In that connection, it must be recalled that that provision of Directive 96/71 gives the host Member State an opportunity to apply to undertakings posting workers to its territory terms and conditions of employment on matters other than those referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, provided that they are public policy provisions. That proviso in the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71 constitutes an exception to the system put in place by that directive and a derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services on which the directive is based and must be interpreted strictly.
49 S tim u vezi valja podsjetiti da ta odredba Direktive 96/71 otvara mogućnost državi članici domaćinu da poduzećima koja upućuju radnike na njezino područje nametne uvjete rada i zaposlenja za pitanja koja nisu predviđena člankom 3. stavkom 1. prvim podstavkom Direktive 96/71, pod uvjetom da se radi o odredbama javnog poretka. Zato to pridržavanje javnog poretka iz članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71 predstavlja iznimku od sustava uspostavljenog tom direktivom kao i odstupanje od temeljnog načela slobodnog pružanja usluga na kojem se ta direktiva temelji i treba ga tumačiti usko.
50 Thus the Court has already had occasion to observe that, while the Member States are still, in principle, free to determine the requirements of public policy in the light of their national needs, the notion of public policy in the Community context, particularly when it is cited as justification for a derogation from the fundamental principle of the freedom to provide services, must be interpreted strictly, so that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the European Community institutions (see, to that effect, Case C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609, paragraph 30). It follows that public policy may be relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society (see Case C-54/99 Église de scientologie [2000] ECR I-1335, paragraph 17).
50 Tako je Sud već imao priliku pojasniti da, dok države članice u načelu u skladu s njihovim nacionalnim potrebama imaju slobodu utvrditi zahtjeve javnog poretka, dok u kontekstu Zajednice i osobito kao opravdanje za odstupanje od temeljnog načela slobodnog pružanja usluga taj pojam treba shvatiti strogo, tako da njegov doseg ne može jednostrano utvrditi svaka država članica bez nadzora institucija Europske zajednice (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 14. listopada 2004., Omega, C-36/02, Zb., str. I-9609., t. 30.). Iz toga proizlazi da se na javni poredak moguće pozivati samo u slučaju stvarne i dovoljno ozbiljne opasnosti koja utječe na temeljni interes društva (vidjeti presudu od 14. ožujka 2000., Eglise de scientologie, C-54/99, Zb., str. I-1335., t. 17.).
– The requirement relating to the rules on part-time and fixed-term work laid down in point 8 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002
Odredba o radu na nepuno radno vrijeme i radu na određeno vrijeme predviđena u članku 1. stavku 1. točki 8. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
– The requirement relating to imperative provisions of national law in respect of collective agreements in point 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002
Obvezujuće odredbe nacionalnog prava u pogledu kolektivnih ugovora o radu iz članka 1. stavka 1. točke 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
62 The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71 defines the instruments by which the terms and conditions of employment of the host Member State are laid down covering the matters referred to in points (a) to (g) thereof and which are guaranteed to posted workers. The second indent of that provision refers in particular to collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable.
62 Članak 3. stavak 1. prvi podstavak Direktive 96/71 definira instrumente kojima su uvjeti rada i zaposlenja države članice domaćina utvrđeni u pogledu pitanja iz tog podstavka od (a) do (g) i koji se jamče upućenim radnicima. Druga alineja ove odredbe odnosi se posebno na kolektivne ugovore proglašene univerzalno primjenjivima.
63 Likewise, Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 states that measures resulting, in particular, from collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable concerning the matters referred to in points 1 to 14 thereof constitute mandatory provisions falling under national public policy. Point 11 mentions provisions concerning collective agreements.
63 U skladu s ovom odredbom članak 1. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. navodi da su prisilni propisi u području nacionalnog javnog poretka odredbe koje među ostalim proizlaze iz kolektivnih ugovora proglašenih univerzalno primjenjivim, koji se odnose na pitanja iz točaka 1. do 14. U točki 11. tog Zakona spomenute su odredbe o kolektivnim ugovorima o radu.
67 Third, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg cannot argue that point 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 ultimately reflects the discretion granted to Member States under the second indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71. Article 3(10) relates exclusively to the terms and conditions of employment laid down in collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable. That is not the case with respect to point 11 of Article 1(1) which expressly refers, in contrast with the introduction to of Article 1, to mere collective labour agreements.
67 Treće, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ne može podupirati tvrdnju da je u članku 1. stavku 1. točki 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. in fine konkretizirano ovlaštenje koje je državama članicama dodijeljeno na temelju članka 3. stavka 10. druge alineje Direktive 96/71. Ta se odredba odnosi isključivo na uvjete rada i zaposlenja utvrđene kolektivnim ugovorima proglašenima univerzalno primjenjivima. To nije slučaj s navedenim člankom 1. stavkom 1. točkom 11. koji se, suprotno uvodnoj rečenici tog istog članka 1., izričito odnosi na obične kolektivne ugovore o radu.
69 Consequently, it follows from the foregoing that the Commission’s first complaint is well founded.
69 Iz navedenoga stoga slijedi da je prvi prigovor Komisije utemeljen.
"72 It must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C-168/03 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8227, paragraph 24; Case C-433/03 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I-6985, paragraph 32; and Case C-354/06 Commission v Luxembourg [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 7)."
"72 Valja podsjetiti da prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda postojanje povrede obveze treba ocjenjivati prema stanju u državi članici koje je postojalo do proteka roka određenog u obrazloženom mišljenju pa stoga promjene koje su naknadno nastupile Sud ne može uzeti u obzir (vidjeti osobito presude od 14. rujna 2004., Komisija /Španjolska, C-168/03, Zb., str. I-8227, t. 24.; od 14. srpnja 2005., Komisija/Njemačka, C-433/03, Zb., str. I-6985, t. 32.; i od 27. rujna 2007., Komisija/Luksemburg, C-354/06, t. 7.)."
74 Therefore, the Commission’s second complaint is well founded.
74 Stoga je drugi prigovor Komisije utemeljen.
75 By its third complaint, the Commission claims that, on account of its lack of clarity, Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is likely to give rise to legal uncertainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg. Thus, the obligation for all undertakings to make available to the Labour and Mines Inspectorate on demand and within as short a period as possible the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes amounts, in the case of a posting, to a prior notification procedure incompatible with Article 49 EC. However, if that should not be the case, the text of the contested provision should nevertheless be amended in order to remove any legal ambiguity.
75 Komisija u svojem trećem prigovoru tvrdi da članak 7. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. zbog nejasnoće može dovesti do pravne nesigurnosti za poduzeća koja žele uputiti radnike u Luksemburg. Tako se obveza da svako poduzeće prije početka obavljanja radova dostavi tijelu Inspection du travail et des mines na zahtjev i u najkraćem roku osnovne informacije potrebne za nadzor, u slučaju upućivanja približava postupku prethodne prijave koji nije u skladu s člankom 49. UEZ-a. Međutim, ako to nije slučaj, tekst sporne odredbe ipak treba promijeniti kako bi se uklonila svaka pravna nejasnoća.
76 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg takes the view that the text of Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is sufficiently clear and that, in any event, it does not impose any prior notification requirement. In that connection, it takes the view that the need to make available the information necessary for monitoring purposes ‘prior to the commencement of the work’ means that that information may be communicated on the day on which the work commences.
76 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg smatra da je tekst članka 7. stavka 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. dovoljno jasan i da u svakom slučaju ne nameće nikakvu obvezu dostavljanja prethodne prijave. S tim u vezi smatra da stavljanje na raspolaganje informacija potrebnih za nadzor „prije početka obavljanja rada”" znači da se te informacije mogu prenijeti na dan početka obavljanja rada.
77 First it must be noted that, since the Law of 20 December 2002 does not provide for any other communication of information between an undertaking which posts workers and the Labour and Mines Inspectorate, it is difficult to understand how the latter can request information from that undertaking before the commencement of the work, in so far as it cannot be aware of the presence of that undertaking in Luxembourg unless the latter has previously announced its arrival in some way. Therefore, as the Advocate General notes in point 76 of her Opinion, the question arises as to the role accorded to an undertaking wishing to post workers, necessarily prior to any request for information from the Labour and Mines Inspectorate, and which, in any event, is not defined by the Law of 20 December 2002.
77 Prvo valja utvrditi da budući da Zakon od 20. prosinca 2002. ne predviđa nikakvo drugo priopćavanje informacija između poduzeća koje upućuje radnike i tijela Inspection du travail et des mines, teško je shvatiti kako bi spomenuto tijelo moglo zahtijevati informacije od tog poduzeća prije početka obavljanja rada ako ne bi znalo da je to poduzeće prisutno na državnom području Luksemburga osim ako ga o svojem dolasku poduzeće na bilo koji način prethodno ne obavijesti. Stoga se, kako je nezavisna odvjetnica navela u točki 76. svojega mišljenja, postavlja pitanje koju ulogu tu ima poduzeće koje želi uputiti radnike, a ta uloga, koja nužno prethodi svakom zahtjevu za informacije od strane tijela Inspection du travail et des mines, u svakom slučaju nije definirana Zakonom od 20. prosinca 2002.
78 On that basis, the interpretation of the expression ‘prior to the commencement of the work’ in Article 7(1) of that law, adopted by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, cannot be relevant. It is clear that such an expression means not only that the information must be provided on the actual day on which the work commences, but that it would also cover a somewhat longer period preceding that date.
78 U tom pogledu tumačenje izraza „prije početka obavljanja rada” iz članka 7. stavka 1. navedenog zakona, koje zastupa Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, ne može biti relevantno. Očito je da takav izraz ne znači samo da informacije treba pružiti na dan početka obavljanja rada, već da također dozvoljava i duže ili kraće razdoblje prije tog dana.
79 Second, as the Advocate General noted, in point 74 of her Opinion, it follows from the provisions of the Law of 4 April 1974 on the Reorganisation of the Labour and Mines Inspectorate (Mémorial A 1974, p. 486), to which reference is made in Article 9(2) of the Law of 20 December 2002 in respect of the definition of the monitoring powers of that authority, and, in particular from Articles 13 to 17 of the Law of 4 April 1974, that the Labour and Mines Inspectorate may order the immediate cessation of the posted worker’s activities if his employer does not comply with an order addressed to the employer to provide information. Furthermore, Article 28 of that law provides that failure to comply with that obligation may give rise to criminal proceedings against the undertaking concerned.
79 Drugo, kako je napomenula nezavisna odvjetnica u točki 74. svojega mišljenja, iz odredaba Zakona od 4. travnja 1974. o reorganizaciji tijela Inspection du travail et des mines (Mémorial A 1974., str. 486.), na koji se upućuje u članku 9. stavku 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. za utvrđivanje ovlasti nadzora tog tijela, a posebno iz članaka 13. do 17. tog Zakona od 4. travnja 1974. proizlazi da tijelo Inspection du travail et des mines može naložiti trenutačni prestanak rada upućenog radnika ako njegov poslodavac ne postupi prema nalogu za dostavu informacija koji mu je upućen. Osim toga, članak 28. navedenog zakona predviđa da nepoštovanje ove obveze može dovesti do kaznenog progona dotičnog poduzeća.
81 The ambiguities which characterise Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 are likely to dissuade undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg from exercising their freedom to provide services. On the one hand, the extent of the rights and obligations of those undertakings is not clearly apparent from that provision. On the other hand, undertakings which have failed to comply with the obligations laid down in that provision incur not inconsiderable penalties.
81 Te dvosmislenosti koje su značajne za članak 7. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. mogu odvratiti poduzeća koja žele uputiti radnike u Luksemburg od izvršavanja njihove slobode pružanja usluga. S druge strane, iz te odredbe jasno ne proizlazi doseg prava i obveza tih poduzeća. S druge strane, poduzeća koja nisu ispunila obveze predviđene navedenom odredbom očekuju nezanemarive sankcije.
82 Accordingly, since Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is incompatible with Article 49 EC on account of its lack of clarity and the ambiguities that it contains, the Commission’s third complaint is well founded.
82 Budući da članak 7. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. nije sukladan s člankom 49. UEZ-a zbog nejasnoća i dvosmislenosti koje sadržava, slijedom toga je treći prigovor Komisije utemeljen.
83 By its fourth complaint, the Commission takes the view that, by requiring undertakings whose registered office is outside Luxembourg territory and which post workers there to deposit, before the start of the posting, with an ad hoc agent residing in Luxembourg, the documents necessary for monitoring compliance with their obligations under the Law of 20 December 2002 and to leave them there for an indeterminate period after the provision of services has ceased, Article 8 of that Law constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services. The system of cooperation and exchange of information provided for in Article 4 of Directive 96/71 makes such an obligation superfluous.
83 Svojim četvrtim prigovorom Komisija smatra da, obvezujući poduzeća sa sjedištem izvan luksemburškog područja koja upućuju radnike na to područje da prije početka upućivanja kod ad hoc zastupnika koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu pohrane dokumente potrebne za nadzor njihovih obveza koje proizlaze iz primjene Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. i da ih tamo drže na neodređeno vrijeme nakon završetka pružanja usluga, članak 8. tog zakona predstavlja ograničenje slobode pružanja usluga. Zbog sustava suradnje i razmjene informacija predviđenog člankom 4. Direktive 96/71 takva je obveza suvišna.
84 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg states, first of all, that the cooperation mechanism to which the Commission refers does not enable the competent administrative authorities to carry out ordinary checks with the necessary effectiveness. Next, it contends that the contested national provision does not require any specific legal form with respect to the role of agent. Lastly, apart from the deposit of the documents necessary for monitoring with the agent for a period following the posting, the documents do not have to be lodged until the day on when the provision of services concerned begins.
84 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg tvrdi da, prije svega, mehanizam suradnje na koji se poziva Komisija ne omogućava upravnim tijelima da uobičajeni nadzor izvrše uz zahtijevanu učinkovitost. Zatim pojašnjava da, što se tiče funkcije zastupnika, sporna nacionalna odredba ne zahtijeva nikakav poseban pravni oblik. Konačno, osim polaganja dokumenata potrebnih za nadzor kod zastupnika tijekom razdoblja nakon upućivanja, traži se da dokumenti budu položeni baš na dan početka pružanja dotične usluge.