natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
65 By part (b) of its fourth question, the referring court asks essentially whether Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of the employer’s failure to take the appropriate measures in accordance with the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation laid down in Article 5 of that directive.
65 Četvrtim pitanjem točkom (b) sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li Direktivu 2000/78 tumačiti tako da joj je protivna nacionalna odredba prema kojoj poslodavac može prekinuti ugovor o radu uz kraći otkazni rok ako je dotična osoba s invaliditetom bila odsutna zbog bolesti 120 dana tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci i primala plaću, ako je ta odsutnost posljedica toga što poslodavac nije poduzeo prikladne mjere u skladu s obvezom razumne prilagodbe predviđenoj u članku 5. te direktive.
66 The circumstance that an employer has failed to take those measures may have the consequence, having regard to the obligation under Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, that the absences of a worker with a disability are attributable to the employer’s failure to act, not to the worker’s disability.
66 Valja napomenuti da okolnost u kojoj poslodavac nije poduzeo te mjere može imati za posljedicu, uzimajući u obzir obvezu iz članka 5. Direktive 2000/78, da se odsutnost radnika s invaliditetom može pripisati neispunjavanju obveze poslodavca, a ne invaliditetu radnika.
67 Should the national court find that the absences of the workers are attributable, in the present cases, to the employer’s failure to adopt appropriate accommodation measures, Directive 2000/78 would preclude the application of a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
67 Ako nacionalni sud utvrdi da se odsutnost radnika u ovim slučajevima može pripisati neispunjavanju obveze poslodavca da provede odgovarajuće mjere prilagodbe, primjena odredbe nacionalnog prava kao što je ona o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku protivna je Direktivi 2000/78.
68 Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to Question 4(b) is that Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of the employer’s failure to take the appropriate measures in accordance with the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation laid down in Article 5 of that directive.
68 Uzimajući u obzir gore navedeno, na četvrto pitanje točku (b) valja odgovoriti da Direktivu 2000/78 treba tumačiti tako da joj je protivna nacionalna odredba prema kojoj poslodavac može prekinuti ugovor o radu uz kraći otkazni rok ako je dotična osoba s invaliditetom bila odsutna zbog bolesti 120 dana tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci i primala plaću, ako je ta odsutnost posljedica toga što poslodavac nije poduzeo prikladne mjere u skladu s obvezom razumne prilagodbe predviđenoj u članku 5. te direktive.
Question 4(a)
Četvrto pitanje točka (a)
69 By part (a) of its fourth question, the referring court asks essentially whether Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of his disability.
69 Četvrtim pitanjem točkom (a) sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li Direktivu 2000/78 tumačiti tako da joj je protivna nacionalna odredba prema kojoj poslodavac može prekinuti ugovor o radu uz kraći otkazni rok ako je dotična osoba s invaliditetom bila odsutna zbog bolesti 120 dana tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci i primala plaću, ako je ta odsutnost posljedica njezina invaliditeta.
70 By this question the referring court is raising the case of Paragraph 5(2) of the FL being applied to a disabled person following absence on grounds of illness attributable wholly or partly to his disability, not to the employer’s failure to take the appropriate measures in accordance with the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation laid down in Article 5 of Directive 2000/78.
70 Valja smatrati da se ovim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev odnosi na slučaj iz točke 5. stavka 2. FL-a koji se primjenjuje na osobu s invaliditetom uslijed odsutnosti zbog bolesti koja se u cijelosti ili djelomično može pripisati njezinom invaliditetu, a ne neispunjavanju obveze od strane poslodavca da provede odgovarajuće mjere u skladu s obvezom razumne prilagodbe predviđenoj u članku 5. Direktive 2000/78.
71 As the Court held in paragraph 48 of Chacón Navas, unfavourable treatment on grounds of disability undermines the protection provided for by Directive 2000/78 only in so far as it constitutes discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive. A disabled worker covered by that directive must be protected against all discrimination in comparison to a worker not so covered. The question thus arises whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is liable to produce discrimination against persons with disabilities.
71 Kako je Sud potvrdio u točki 48. gore navedene presude Chacón Navas , manje povoljno postupanje na temelju invaliditeta u suprotnosti je sa zaštitom predviđenom Direktivom 2000/78 u mjeri u kojoj predstavlja diskriminaciju u smislu članka 2. stavka 1. te direktive. Radnik s invaliditetom na kojeg se odnosi ta direktiva mora biti zaštićen protiv svih vrsta diskriminacije u odnosu na radnika na kojeg se direktiva ne odnosi. Stoga se postavlja pitanje može li nacionalna odredba o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku uzrokovati diskriminaciju osoba s invaliditetom.
72 On the question whether the provision at issue in the main proceedings contains a difference of treatment on grounds of disability, it must be noted that Paragraph 5(2) of the FL, which relates to absences on grounds of illness, applies in the same way to disabled and non-disabled persons who have been absent for more than 120 days on those grounds. In those circumstances, that provision cannot be regarded as establishing a difference of treatment based directly on disability, within the meaning of Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78.
72 U pogledu pitanja predviđa li odredba o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku različito postupanje na temelju invaliditeta, valja primijetiti da se članak 5. stavak 2. FL-a u vezi s odsutnosti zbog bolesti na jednak način primjenjuje na osobe s invaliditetom kao i na osobe bez invaliditeta koje su bile odsutne više od 120 dana iz tog razloga. U tim se okolnostima ne može smatrati da se tom odredbom uspostavlja različito postupanje koje se temelji izravno na invaliditetu, u smislu članka 1. u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (a) Direktive 2000/78.
73 It should be observed that a person whose employer terminates his employment contract with a shortened notice period solely on grounds of illness does not fall within the general framework laid down for combating discrimination on grounds of disability by Directive 2000/78 (see, by analogy, Chacón Navas, paragraph 47).
73 S tim u vezi valja primijetiti da osoba s kojom poslodavac prekine ugovor o radu sa skraćenim otkaznim rokom isključivo zbog bolesti ne potpada pod opći okvir koji je utvrđen Direktivom 2000/78 za borbu protiv diskriminacije na temelju invaliditeta (vidjeti po analogiji Chacón Navas, gore navedena, t. 47.).
74 It must therefore be concluded that Paragraph 5(2) of the FL does not contain direct discrimination on grounds of disability, in so far as it uses a criterion that is not inseparably linked to disability.
74 Valja utvrditi da članak 5. stavak 2. FL-a ne sadržava izravnu diskriminaciju na temelju invaliditeta, u mjeri u kojoj se temelji na kriteriju koji nije neodvojivo povezan s invaliditetom.
75 On the question whether that provision is liable to produce a difference of treatment indirectly based on disability, it must be observed that taking account of days of absence on grounds of illness linked to disability in the calculation of days of absence on grounds of illness amounts to assimilating illness linked with disability to the general concept of illness. However, as the Court said in paragraph 44 of Chacón Navas, the concepts of ‘disability’ and ‘sickness’ cannot simply be treated as being the same.
75 U pogledu pitanja može li ta odredba uzrokovati različito postupanje koje se neizravno temelji na invaliditetu, valja primijetiti da uzimajući u obzir dane odsustva zbog bolesti na temelju invaliditeta kod izračuna dana odsustva zbog bolesti dovodi do izjednačivanja bolesti zbog invaliditeta s općim pojmom bolesti. Međutim, kako je Sud to potvrdio u točki 44. presude Chacón Navas, jednostavno izjednačavanje pojmova „invaliditet” i „bolest” je isključeno.
76 A worker with a disability is more exposed to the risk of application of the shortened notice period laid down in Paragraph 5(2) of the FL than a worker without a disability. As the Advocate General observes in point 67 of her Opinion, compared with such a worker, a worker with a disability has the additional risk of an illness connected with his disability. He thus runs a greater risk of accumulating days of absence on grounds of illness, and consequently of reaching the 120-day limit provided for in Paragraph 5(2) of the FL. It is thus apparent that the 120-day rule in that provision is liable to place disabled workers at a disadvantage and so to bring about a difference of treatment indirectly based on disability within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78.
76 U tom pogledu valja utvrditi da je radnik s invaliditetom izloženiji riziku da se na njega primjeni skraćeni otkazni rok predviđen u članku 5. stavku 2. FL-a u odnosu na radnika bez invaliditeta. Kao što je nezavisna odvjetnica primijetila u točki 67. svojeg mišljenja, u odnosu na takvog radnika radnik s invaliditetom izložen je dodatnom riziku od bolesti povezane s invaliditetom. On je stoga izložen većem riziku od gomilanja dana odsutnosti zbog bolesti i dostizanju ograničenja od 120 dana koje je predviđeno u članku 5. stavku 2. FL-a. Iz toga proizlazi da bi pravilo o 120 dana iz spomenute odredbe moglo dovesti u nepovoljniji položaj radnike s invaliditetom te time prouzročiti različito postupanje koje se neizravno temelji na invaliditetu u smislu članka 2. stavka 2. točke (b) Direktive 2000/78.
77 In accordance with point (i) of that provision, it must be examined whether that difference of treatment is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and whether the means used to achieve that aim are appropriate and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the aim pursued by the Danish legislature.
77 U skladu s točkom (i) te odredbe, valja ispitati može li se takvo različito postupanje objektivno opravdati legitimnim ciljem i jesu li sredstva za postizanje tog cilja prikladna i ne prelaze ono što je nužno za postizanje cilja koji je zadao danski zakonodavac.
78 As regards the aim of Paragraph 5(2) of the FL, the Danish Government states that this is to encourage employers to recruit and maintain in their employment workers who are particularly likely to have repeated absences because of illness, by allowing them subsequently to dismiss them with a shortened period of notice, if the absences tend to be for very long periods. As a counterpart, those workers can retain their employment during the period of illness.
78 U pogledu cilja iz članka 5. stavka 2. FL-a danska vlada navodi da se time potiče poslodavce da zapošljavaju i zadržavaju radnike za koje je vjerojatno da će biti opetovano odsutni zbog bolesti, tako što im se dopušta da ih naknadno otpuste uz kraći otkazni rok ako bi se takva odsustva mogla odužiti na vrlo duga razdoblja. S druge strane, ti radnici mogu zadržati radno mjesto tijekom razdoblja bolesti.
79 The Danish Government observes that the provision thus has regard to the interests both of employers and employees and is in line with the general regulation of the Danish labour market, which is based on a combination of flexibility and freedom of contract, on the one hand, and the protection of workers, on the other.
79 Danska vlada primjećuje da ta odredba štiti interese poslodavaca i zaposlenika te da je usklađena s općim uređenjem danskog tržišta rada, koje se temelji na kombinaciji fleksibilnosti i slobode ugovora, s jedne strane, i zaštite radnika, s druge strane.
80 DAB and Pro Display state that the 120-day rule laid down in Paragraph 5(2) of the FL is regarded as protection for workers who are ill, since an employer who has agreed to apply it will generally be inclined to wait longer before dismissing such a worker.
80 DAB i Pro Display navode da se pravilo o 120 dana predviđeno u članku 5. stavku 2. FL-a smatra zaštitom za bolesne radnike, budući da je poslodavac koji je pristao na njegovu primjenu obično skloniji duže pričekati prije otkazivanja radnika.
81 It should be recalled that the Member States have a broad discretion not only in choosing to pursue a particular aim in the field of social and employment policy but also in defining measures to implement it (see, to that effect, Case C-141/11 Hörnfeldt [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 32, and Case C-152/11 Odar [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 47).
81 Valja podsjetiti da države članice imaju široku marginu procjene, ne samo u izboru cilja u području socijalne politike i zapošljavanja, već također u definiranju mjera kojima se taj cilj može ostvariti (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 5. srpnja 2012., Hörnfeldt, C-141/11, t. 32, i od 6. prosinca 2012., Odar, C-152/11, t. 47.).
82 The Court has previously held that encouragement of recruitment undoubtedly constitutes a legitimate aim of the social or employment policy of the Member States and that that assessment must evidently apply to instruments of national employment policy designed to improve opportunities for entering the labour market for certain categories of workers (see Case C-411/05 Palacios de la Villa [2007] ECR I-8531, paragraph 65). Similarly, a measure taken to promote the flexibility of the labour market may be regarded as a measure of employment policy.
82 Sud je već presudio da poticanje zapošljavanja nedvojbeno jest legitimni cilj socijalne politike ili politike zapošljavanja država članica i da se ta ocjena mora očito primijeniti na instrumente nacionalne politike zapošljavanja koji su namijenjeni povećanju mogućnosti uključivanja na tržište rada za određene kategorije radnika (vidjeti presudu od 16. listopada 2007., Palacios de la Villa, C-411/05, Zb., str. I-8531., t. 65.). Slično tomu, mjere kojima se želi promicati fleksibilnost tržišta rada mogu se smatrati mjerama politike zapošljavanja.
83 Consequently, aims such as those referred to by the Danish Government may in principle be regarded as objectively justifying, in national law, as provided for by Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/78, a difference of treatment based on disability such as that deriving from Paragraph 5(2) of the FL.
83 Stoga se za ciljeve kao što su oni koje je navela danska vlada može u načelu smatrati da u okviru nacionalnog prava, kako je predviđeno člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (b) alinejom i. Direktive 2000/78, objektivno opravdavaju različito postupanje na temelju invaliditeta, kako proizlazi iz članka 5. stavka 2. FL-a.
84 It remains to ascertain whether the means used to achieve those aims are appropriate and necessary and do not go beyond what is needed to achieve them.
84 Valja još utvrditi jesu li sredstva koja se koriste za postizanje tih ciljeva primjerena i nužna i ne prelaze li ono što je potrebno da se ti ciljevi ostvare.
85 The Danish Government argues that Paragraph 5(2) of the FL enables, first, the objective of enabling the recruitment and maintenance in employment of persons who have, at least potentially, a reduced work capacity and, secondly, the superior objective of a flexible, contractual and secure labour market to be achieved most appropriately.
85 Danska vlada smatra da se člankom 5. stavkom 2. omogućava da se na najprimjereniji način, s jedne strane, postigne cilj kojim se omogućava zapošljavanje i zadržavanje na radu osoba koje imaju, barem potencijalno, smanjene radne sposobnosti i, s druge strane, viši cilj fleksibilnog i sigurnog tržišta rada koje se temelji na ugovorima.
86 DAB and Pro Display submit that, under the Danish legislation on sickness benefits, an employer who pays wages to a worker on sick leave is entitled to have the sickness benefits reimbursed by the local authorities of the worker’s place of residence. However, the entitlement to those benefits is limited to 52 weeks, and their amount is lower than the pay actually paid. In those circumstances, the provisions of Paragraph 5(2) of the FL ensure a reasonable balance between the opposing interests of the employee and the employer with respect to absences on grounds of illness.
86 DAB i Pro Display navode da prema danskom propisu o naknadama za bolovanje poslodavac koji isplaćuje plaću radniku koji je na bolovanju ima pravo na povrat naknade za bolovanje od strane lokalnih vlasti u mjestu boravišta radnika. Međutim, pravo na tu naknadu ograničeno je na 52 tjedna i iznos je niži nego stvarna plaća. U tim se okolnostima odredbama iz članka 5. stavka 2. FL-a osigurava razumna ravnoteža između suprotstavljenih interesa zaposlenika i poslodavca u pogledu odsutnosti zbog bolesti.
87 Having regard to the broad discretion enjoyed by the Member States not only in choosing to pursue a particular aim in the field of social and employment policy but also in defining measures to implement it, it does not appear unreasonable for them to consider that a measure such as the 120-day rule laid down in Paragraph 5(2) of the FL might be appropriate for achieving the aims mentioned above.
87 S obzirom da države članice imaju široku marginu procjene ne samo kod odabira legitimnog cilja u području socijalne politike i politike zapošljavanja, nego i kod definiranja mjera za njegovo provođenje, ne čini se nerazumnim da države članice smatraju da mjera kao što je pravilo o 120 dana, predviđeno u članku 5. stavku 2. FL-a, može biti primjerena za postizanje gore navedenih ciljeva.
88 It may be accepted that, by providing for the right to make use of a shortened period of notice for the dismissal of workers who have been absent because of illness for over 120 days, that rule has the effect, for employers, of encouraging recruitment and maintenance in employment.
88 Može se prihvatiti da se pravilom kojim se osigurava pravo korištenja kraćeg otkaznog roka u slučaju otkaza radnika koji je odsutan zbog bolesti više od 120 dana potiče poslodavce da zapošljavaju i zadržavaju na radu.
89 In order to examine whether the 120-day rule laid down in Paragraph 5(2) of the FL goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the aims pursued, that provision must be placed in its context and the adverse effects it is liable to cause for the persons concerned must be considered (see, to that effect, Odar, paragraph 65).
89 Kako bi se ispitalo prelazi li pravilo o 120 dana, predviđeno u članku 5. stavku 2. FL-a, ono što je potrebno za postizanje predviđenih ciljeva, tu odredba valja staviti u kontekst u kojem se javlja i uzeti u obzir nepovoljne učinke koje bi mogla imati za dotične osobe (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Odar, t. 65.).
90 In this respect, it is for the referring court to examine whether the Danish legislature, in pursuing the legitimate aims of, first, promoting the recruitment of persons with illnesses and, secondly, striking a reasonable balance between the opposing interests of employees and employers with respect to absences because of illness, omitted to take account of relevant factors relating in particular to workers with disabilities.
90 U tom je smislu u nadležnosti suda koji je uputio zahtjev da ispita je li danski zakonodavac u nastojanjima da ostvari legitimne ciljeve, s jedne strane, promicanja zapošljavanja bolesnih osoba i, s druge strane, razumne ravnoteže između suprotstavljenih interesa zaposlenika i poslodavaca u pogledu odsutnosti zbog bolesti, uzeo u obzir relevantne čimbenike koji se odnose posebno na radnike s invaliditetom.
91 In this respect, the risks run by disabled persons, who generally face greater difficulties than non-disabled persons in re-entering the labour market, and have specific needs in connection with the protection their condition requires, should not be overlooked (see, to that effect, Odar, paragraphs 68 and 69).
91 U tom se smislu ne smiju previdjeti rizici kojima su izložene osobe s invaliditetom, koje se općenito suočavaju s većim poteškoćama, u odnosu na osobe bez invaliditeta, kod ponovnog uključivanja na tržište rada i imaju posebne potrebe u vezi sa zaštitom koju njihovo stanje zahtijeva (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Odar, t. 68. i 69.).
92 In the light of the above considerations, the answer to Question 4(a) is that Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of his disability, unless that legislation, as well as pursuing a legitimate aim, does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that aim, that being for the referring court to assess.
92 Uzimajući u obzir gore navedeno, na četvrto pitanje točku (a) valja odgovoriti da Direktivu 2000/78 treba tumačiti tako da joj je protivna nacionalna odredba prema kojoj poslodavac može prekinuti ugovor o radu uz kraći otkazni rok ako je dotična osoba s invaliditetom bila odsutna zbog bolesti 120 dana tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci i primala plaću, ako je ta odsutnost posljedica njezinog invaliditeta, osim ako se tom odredbom želi ostvariti legitimni cilj i ona ne prelazi ono što je potrebno da se taj cilj ostvari, što treba ocijeniti sud koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku.
1. The concept of ‘disability’ in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as including a condition caused by an illness medically diagnosed as curable or incurable where that illness entails a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers, and the limitation is a long-term one. The nature of the measures to be taken by the employer is not decisive for considering that a person’s state of health is covered by that concept.
1. Pojam „invaliditeta” iz Direktive Vijeća 2000/78/EZ od 27. studenog 2000. o uspostavi općeg okvira za jednako postupanje pri zapošljavanju i obavljanju zanimanja treba tumačiti tako da uključuje stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao izlječiva ili neizlječiva, ako ta bolest uzrokuje ograničenje koje je prije svega posljedica tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja koje u međudjelovanju s različitim preprekama može sprječavati puno i učinkovito sudjelovanje dotične osobe u profesionalnoj karijeri na ravnopravnoj osnovi s drugim radnicima i ako je to ograničenje dugotrajno. Sama priroda mjera koje treba poduzeti poslodavac nije presudna kod odluke da se zdravstveno stanje osobe obuhvati tim pojmom.