natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
90 The Parliament considers that it cannot be argued that the proposal submitted by the Commission and the High Representative was merely the continuation of the proposal submitted by the Commission acting alone on 22 April 2009. Furthermore, the way in which the proposal was submitted was not in conformity with the role or the responsibilities of the High Representative, as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is inconceivable that a joint proposal as required under Article 215(2) TFEU could be replaced by a mere endorsement by the High Representative of a pre-existing Commission proposal, adopted by that institution before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Furthermore, the High Representative, as the person responsible for the CFSP, is required to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the joint proposal submitted.
90 Parlament smatra da se ne može tvrditi da je prijedlog koji su podnijeli Komisija i Visoka predstavnica bio tek nastavak prijedloga koji je Komisija podnijela samostalno 22. travnja 2009. Osim toga, način na koji je prijedlog podnesen nije bio u skladu s ulogom ili odgovornostima Visoke predstavnice kako su predviđeni Lisabonskim ugovorom. Nezamislivo je da zajednički prijedlog u skladu s člankom 215. stavkom 2. UFEU-a može biti zamijenjen tako da Visoka predstavnica jednostavno odobri već postojeći prijedlog Komisije koji je ta institucija donijela prije stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora. Osim toga, Visoka predstavnica kao osoba odgovorna za ZVSP dužna je osigurati odgovarajuće obrazloženje za podneseni zajednički prijedlog.
91 The Council submits that when the term of office of the Commission, appointed in November 2004, expired on 31 October 2009, the Commission remained in office pending the appointment of a new Commission, in order to ensure the necessary continuity in the institution’s work, as indicated in recital 1 in the preamble to Decision 2010/80/EU of the European Council of 9 February 2010 appointing the European Commission (OJ 2010 L 38, p. 7). The Parliament continued, during the interim period from 1 November 2009 to 10 February 2010, to deal with the Commission as if the latter remained legitimately in existence.
91 Vijeće tvrdi da je, kada je mandat Komisije koja je stupila na dužnost u studenome 2004. istekao 31. listopada 2009., Komisija nastavila obavljati dužnosti do imenovanja nove Komisije kako bi se osigurao potreban kontinuitet rada institucije, kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 1. Odluke 2010/80/EU Europskog vijeća od 9. veljače 2010. o imenovanju Europske komisije (SL L 38, str. 7.) [neslužbeni prijevod]. Parlament je nastavio, za trajanja prijelaznoga razdoblja od 1. studenoga 2009. do 10. veljače 2010., poslovati s Komisijom kao da Komisija i dalje legitimno postoji.
92 The Council stresses that the contested regulation was adopted on the basis of the proposal for a regulation of 22 April 2009 endorsed by the High Representative on 14 December 2009. That proposal remained valid after the expiry of the Commission’s term of office on 31 October 2009. The only effect of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon was to alter the procedure governing the adoption of the contested regulation.
92 Vijeće naglašava da je pobijana uredba donesena na temelju prijedloga uredbe od 22. travnja 2009. koji je Visoka predstavnica odobrila 14. prosinca 2009. Taj je prijedlog nastavio vrijediti i nakon isteka mandata Komisije 31. listopada 2009. Jedini učinak stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora bio je promjena postupka kojim je uređeno donošenje pobijane uredbe.
93 The Council observes that, on 2 December 2009, the Commission presented to the Parliament and the Council a communication on the consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures, including an indicative list of the pending proposals it had presented before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and indicating, for each of the proposals, the consequences of the entry into force of that treaty. The proposal presented by the Commission to the Council on 22 April 2009 was mentioned in that list, together with an indication that its legal basis was to change from the former Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC to Article 215 TFEU.
93 Vijeće podsjeća da je 2. prosinca 2009. Komisija predstavila Parlamentu i Vijeću komunikaciju [COM(2009) 665 final] o posljedicama stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora na međuinstitucionalne postupke donošenja odluka u tijeku, što uključuje indikativni popis tekućih prijedloga koje je podnijela prije stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora te navela, za svaki od tih prijedloga, posljedice stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora. Prijedlog koji je Komisija predstavila Vijeću 22. travnja 2009. spomenut je u tom popisu, zajedno s napomenom da će se njegova pravna osnova promijeniti s bivših članaka 60. UEZ-a, 301. UEZ-a i 308. UEZ-a na članak 215. UFEU-a.
94 Even if it were to be conceded that the situation in which the Commission found itself is analogous to that provided for in the sixth paragraph of Article 246 TFEU on the voluntary resignation of all the Members of the Commission, the case-law of the Union judicature does not, in the Council’s view, support the conclusion that the Commission stepped outside the sphere of current business. In paragraph 96 of its judgment in Joined Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission [2003] ECR II-435, the General Court held that a decision on State aid adopted by the Commission after its members had collectively resigned did not constitute a new political initiative which thus exceeded the powers of a Commission that was restricted to dealing with current business. If that was the conclusion in respect of a new decision adopted by the Commission during the period in question, the same conclusion must a fortiori apply in circumstances in which a pre-existing proposal remained pending. In addition, the question arises whether the limitation to dealing with current business laid down in the second paragraph of Article 201 EC was applicable, given that the Parliament had not adopted a motion of censure on the Commission’s administration.
94 Čak i kad bi bilo prihvaćeno da je situacija u kojoj se Komisija našla analogna situaciji predviđenoj u šestom stavku članka 246. UFEU-a o dobrovoljnoj ostavci svih članova Komisije, prema mišljenju Vijeća sudska praksa Unije ne ide u prilog zaključku da je Komisija napustila područje tekućih poslova. U točki 96. presude Suda od 6. ožujka 2003., Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale i Land Nordrhein-Westfalen/Komisija (T-228/99 i T-233/99, Zb., str. II-435.), Opći je sud presudio da odluka o državnoj potpori koju je donijela Komisija nakon što su njezini članovi dali kolektivnu ostavku ne predstavlja novu političku inicijativu koja bi premašila ovlasti Komisije koje su bile ograničene na obavljanje tekućih poslova. Ako je to zaključak u odnosu na novu odluku koju je Komisija donijela tijekom odnosnog razdoblja, isti zaključak mora se a fortiori primijeniti u okolnostima u kojima je postojeći prijedlog još uvijek otvoren. Isto tako postavlja se pitanje je li ograničenje na obavljanje samo tekućih poslova iz drugog stavka članka 201. UEZ-a bilo primjenjivo s obzirom da Parlament nije donio odluku o izglasavanju nepovjerenja Komisiji.
95 According to the Council, the joint proposal of the High Representative and the Commission was duly submitted. On 14 December 2009, the High Representative endorsed the Commission’s proposal of 22 April 2009. It was neither necessary nor possible for her to present a separate statement of reasons. Nor was it possible for her to make unilateral additions to the statement of reasons set out in the preamble to the proposal.
95 Prema mišljenju Vijeća, zajednički prijedlog Visoke predstavnice i Komisije uredno je podnesen. Visoka predstavnica podržala je 14. prosinca 2009. prijedlog Komisije od 22. travnja 2009. Nije bilo ni potrebno ni moguće da ona predstavi zasebno obrazloženje. Ona također nije mogla jednostrano dopuniti obrazloženja iz preambule prijedloga.
– No decision under the CFSP
– Nepostojanje odluke u okviru ZVSP-a
96 According to the Parliament, the contested regulation does not contain any reference to a decision adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the EU Treaty, even though Article 215 TFEU provides for it. The preamble to that regulation refers to Common Position 2002/402, but the latter does not constitute a decision within the meaning of that provision. A common position adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon cannot be treated in the same way as such a decision.
96 Parlament je mišljenja da se pobijana uredba ne poziva na odluku koja je donesena u skladu s poglavljem 2. glave V. Ugovora o EU-u, iako je to predviđeno člankom 215. UFEU-a. U svojoj preambuli uredba se poziva na Zajedničko stajalište 2002/402, ali ono nije odluka u smislu te odredbe. Zajedničko stajalište koje je doneseno prije stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora ne može se izjednačiti s takvom odlukom.
97 According to the Parliament, the Council’s arguments that the legal effects of that common position should be maintained, in accordance with the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the FEU, EU and EAEC Treaties and with what that institution calls the ‘principle of continuity of acts’, are irrelevant. There is nothing in that protocol, nor is there any principle of European Union law, to the effect that a common position may take the place of a decision adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the EU Treaty. The Council also disregards the fact that such a decision is itself amenable to judicial review by a party having the requisite legal standing and that the Court could even prohibit the Council from adopting measures under Article 215 TFEU.
97 Parlament je mišljenja da su argumenti Vijeća da treba zadržati pravne učinke tog zajedničkog stajališta u skladu s Protokolom (br. 36) o privremenim odredbama, koji se nalazi u prilogu Ugovoru o FEU-u, EU-u i EZAE-u, te u skladu s onim što ta institucija naziva „načelom kontinuiteta akata“, irelevantni. Ne postoji ništa u tom protokolu te ne postoji načelo prava Unije prema kojem zajedničko stajalište može zamijeniti odluku donesenu u skladu s poglavljem 2. glave V. Ugovora o EU-u. Vijeće također zanemaruje činjenicu da takva odluka sama po sebi podliježe sudskom nadzoru od strane osobe na odgovarajućem pravnom položaju te da bi Sud čak mogao zabraniti Vijeću donošenje mjera na temelju članka 215. UFEU-a.
98 The Council contends that Regulation No 881/2002, preceded by the adoption of Common Position 2002/402, defines the specific provisions and procedures necessary to give effect to the freezing of funds. Even though it was decided to amend that regulation in response to Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, by adding to it provisions on procedural safeguards, it was not necessary to amend Common Position 2002/402 or to adopt a new decision under the CFSP to that effect. When a measure under the CFSP requiring the adoption of restrictive measures already exists, that measure not having been repealed, annulled or amended, it cannot be required that a new decision under the CFSP should be adopted under Chapter 2 of Title V of the EU Treaty. Such an approach would be contrary to the principle of continuity of acts laid down in Article 9 of the Protocol (No 36).
98 Vijeće ističe da se Uredbom br. 881/2002, koja je prethodila donošenju Zajedničkog stajališta 2002/402, definiraju posebne odredbe i postupci potrebni za realizaciju zamrzavanja sredstava. Iako je odluka o izmjeni te uredbe donesena nakon gore navedene presude Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija na način da joj se dodaju odredbe o postupovnim jamstvima, nije bilo potrebno izmijeniti Zajedničko stajalište 2002/402 niti donijeti novu odluku u okviru ZVSP-a u tom smislu. Kada u okviru ZVSP-a već postoji mjera koja predviđa donošenje mjera ograničavanja, a dotični akt nije stavljen izvan snage, poništen ni izmijenjen, nije moguće zatražiti donošenje nove odluke u okviru ZVSP-a na temelju poglavlja 2. glave V. Ugovora o EU-u. Takav pristup suprotan je načelu kontinuiteta akata iz članka 9. Protokola (br. 36).
100 With regard, in the first place, to the lack of a proposal compatible with the Treaties, it is true that the Commission’s term of office ended on 31 October 2009 and that the Commission remained in office until 10 February 2010, pending the completion of the process of appointing the new Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. The contested regulation was adopted between those two dates, namely, on 22 December 2009.
100 Kao prvo, s obzirom na nepostojanje prijedloga koji bi bio u skladu s Ugovorima, točno je da je mandat Komisije završio 31. listopada 2009. i da je Komisija nastavila izvršavati svoje dužnosti do 10. veljače 2010., dovršetka postupka imenovanja nove Komisije, u skladu s odredbama Lisabonskog ugovora. Pobijana uredba donesena je između ta dva datuma odnosno 22. prosinca 2009.
101 Nevertheless, even if, after the Commission’s term of office expired on 31 October 2009, that body’s powers were limited to dealing with current business, the institution could undertake the formal amendment of its proposal for a regulation of 22 April 2009 in respect of its legal basis.
101 Ipak, čak i da su nakon što je mandat Komisije istekao 31. listopada 2009. ovlasti tog tijela bile ograničene na izvršavanje tekućih poslova, ta je institucija mogla poduzeti formalnu izmjenu svojeg prijedloga uredbe od 22. travnja 2009. u pogledu njezine pravne osnove.
104 As regards the Parliament’s argument that a joint proposal by the High Representative and the Commission was necessary, it is to be found that on 14 December 2009 the High Representative officially endorsed the proposal for a regulation of 22 April 2009.
104 U odnosu na argument Parlamenta da je bio potreban zajednički prijedlog Visoke predstavnice i Komisije, valja utvrditi da je 14. prosinca 2009. Visoka predstavnica službeno podržala prijedlog uredbe od 22. travnja 2009.
105 Article 215 TFEU requires no more than a joint proposal of the Commission and the High Representative, and does not make it necessary for the High Representative to present a separate statement of reasons or to supplement that in the Commission’s proposal.
105 Člankom 215. UFEU-a predviđen je samo zajednički prijedlog Komisije i Visokog predstavnika te se njime ne uvjetuje da Visoki predstavnik podnese zasebno obrazloženje ili dopunu prijedloga Komisije.
113 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Council has applied for costs and the Parliament has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. Pursuant to the first subparagraph of that article, the interveners in these proceedings are to bear their own costs.
113 Sukladno članku 69. stavku 2. Poslovnika, stranka koja ne uspije u postupku dužna je, na zahtjev protivne stranke, snositi troškove. Budući da je Vijeće podnijelo zahtjev da se Parlamentu naloži snošenje troškova i da on nije uspio u svojem tužbenom zahtjevu, treba mu se naložiti snošenje troškova. Na temelju prvog podstavka odnosnog članka, intervenijenti u ovom postupku snose vlastite troškove.
"2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;"
"2. Europskom parlamentu nalaže se snošenje troškova;"
24 January 2012 *(1)
24. siječnja 2012. *
(Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Precondition for entitlement imposed by national rules — Absence of the worker — Length of the leave entitlement based on the nature of the absence — National rules incompatible with Directive 2003/88 — Role of the national court)
„Socijalna politika — Direktiva 2003/88/EZ — Članak 7. — Pravo na plaćeni godišnji odmor — Uvjet za ostvarivanje prava koji je utvrđen nacionalnim propisom — Izostanak radnika — Duljina prava na odmor na temelju prirode izostanka — Nacionalni propis suprotan Direktivi 2003/88 — Uloga nacionalnog suda”
In Case C-282/10,
U predmetu C-282/10,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 17 May 2011,
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 17. svibnja 2011.,
– Ms Dominguez, by H. Masse-Dessen and V. Lokiec, avocats,
– za M. Dominguez, H. Masse-Dessen i V. Lokiec, avocats,
– the Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, by D. Célice, avocat,
– za Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, D. Célice, avocat,
– the French Government, by G. de Bergues, A. Czubinski and N. Rouam, acting as Agents,
– za francusku vladu, G. de Bergues, A. Czubinski i N. Rouam, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Danish Government, by S. Juul Jørgensen, acting as Agent,
– za dansku vladu, S. Juul Jørgensen, u svojstvu agenta,
– the European Commission, by M. van Beek and M. Van Hoof, acting as Agents,
– za Europsku komisiju, M. van Beek i M. Van Hoof, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 September 2011,
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisne odvjetnice na raspravi održanoj 8. rujna 2011.,
2 The reference has been made in the proceedings between Ms Dominguez and her employer, the Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique (‘the CICOA’), concerning Ms Dominguez’s claim for entitlement to paid annual leave not taken in respect of the period between November 2005 and January 2007 due to absence from work granted after an accident and, in the alternative, for compensation.
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između M. Dominguez i njezinog poslodavca, Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique (u daljnjem tekstu: CICOA), u vezi sa zahtjevom M. Dominguez za pravo na plaćeni godišnji odmor koji nije iskorišten u razdoblju između studenoga 2005. i siječnja 2007. zbog izostanka s posla odobrenog nakon nesreće i, podredno, za isplatu naknade.
3 Article 1 of Directive 2003/88 provides:
3 Članak 1. Direktive 2003/88 predviđa:
‘Purpose and scope
„Svrha i opseg
(a) minimum periods of … annual leave …
(a) najkraća razdoblja [...] godišnjeg odmora [...]
‘Annual leave
„Godišnji odmor
2. The minimum period of paid annual leave may not be replaced by an allowance in lieu, except where the employment relationship is terminated.’
2. Najkraći plaćeni godišnji odmor ne može se zamijeniti novčanom naknadom, osim u slučaju prestanka radnog odnosa.”
5 Article 15 of that directive provides:
5 Članak 15. te direktive predviđa:
‘More favourable provisions
„Povoljniji propisi
This Directive shall not affect Member States’ right to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of workers or to facilitate or permit the application of collective agreements or agreements concluded between the two sides of industry which are more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of workers.’
Ova Direktiva ne dovodi u pitanje pravo država članica da primjenjuju ili donose zakone i druge propise povoljnije za zaštitu sigurnosti i zdravlja radnika odnosno da olakšavaju ili dopuštaju primjenu kolektivnih ugovora ili sporazuma između socijalnih partnera povoljnijih za zaštitu sigurnosti i zdravlja radnika.”
6 Article 17 of Directive 2003/88 provides that Member States may derogate from certain provisions of that directive. No derogation is allowed with regard to Article 7 of the directive.
6 Članak 17. Direktive 2003/88 predviđa da države članice mogu odstupati od određenih odredaba ove Direktive. Nikakvo odstupanje nije dopušteno u vezi s člankom 7. te Direktive.
‘A worker who, during the reference year, has been employed by the same employer for a period equivalent to a minimum of one month of actual work shall be entitled to leave, the length of which shall be calculated on the basis of two and a half working days for each month worked, provided the total period of leave that may be requested does not exceed thirty working days.’
„Radnik koji je tijekom referentne godine bio zaposlen kod istog poslodavca u trajanju koje je jednako najkraćem razdoblju od mjesec dana stvarnog rada ima pravo na odmor čije se trajanje izračunava na temelju dva i pol radna dana za svaki mjesec proveden na radu, pod uvjetom da ukupno trajanje odmora koji se može zatražiti ne prelazi trideset radnih dana.”
‘Periods equivalent to four weeks or twenty-four days of work shall be treated as equivalent to one month of actual work for the purpose of calculating the length of leave. Periods of paid leave, compensatory leave …, periods of maternity leave …, leave acquired by reason of reduced working time and periods of an uninterrupted duration not exceeding one year during which performance of the contract of employment is suspended owing to a work-related accident or occupational disease, shall be treated as periods of actual work ...’
„Razdoblja istovjetna trajanju od četiri tjedna ili dvadeset i četiri radna dana izjednačavaju se s razdobljem od jednog mjeseca stvarnog rada u svrhu izračunavanja duljine odmora. Razdoblja plaćenog odmora, zamjenskog odmora [...], razdoblja rodiljnog dopusta [...], dopusta stečenog radi smanjenog radnog vremena i razdoblja u neprekidnom trajanju od najviše godine dana tijekom kojeg je izvršenje ugovora o radu obustavljeno zbog nesreće na radu ili profesionalne bolesti, smatraju se razdobljima stvarnog rada [...]”
‘No annual leave entitlement is given in a particular year in respect of absences as a result of the following: illness or prolonged illness that has resulted in a break in work of twelve consecutive months or more, ... leave entitlement begins again on the date on which work is resumed, the length of leave being calculated in proportion to the time of actual work that has not yet given rise to the allocation of annual leave.’
„Pravo na godišnji odmor ne ostvaruje se u određenoj godini u kojoj je došlo do izostanaka zbog bolesti ili dugotrajne bolesti koja je dovela do prekida rada od dvanaest uzastopnih mjeseci ili više, [...] stjecanje prava na odmor započinje ponovno s datumom povratka na posao, pri čemu se trajanje odmora izračunava razmjerno vremenu stvarnog rada koje još nije rezultiralo dodjelom godišnjeg odmora.”
10 Ms Dominguez, who has been employed by the CICOA since 1987, is covered by the collective labour agreement for staff of social security bodies. Following an accident on the journey between her home and her place of work she was absent from work from 3 November 2005 until 7 January 2007.
10 Za M. Dominguez, koja je zaposlena u CICOA od 1987., vrijedi kolektivni ugovor za osoblje zaposleno u tijelima socijalne sigurnosti. Nakon nesreće na putu od svojeg doma do radnog mjesta izostala je s posla u razdoblju od 3. studenoga 2005. do 7. siječnja 2007.
11 Ms Dominguez brought a claim before the industrial relations court (juridiction prud’homale) and also the Cour d’appel, Limoges for 22.5 days’ paid leave in respect of that period and, in the alternative, a payment in lieu of leave.
11 M. Dominguez podnijela je tužbu radnom sudu („juridiction prud’homale”) i potom na Cour d’appel de Limoges (prizivni sud u Limogesu) tražeći da joj se priznaju 22,5 dana plaćenog odmora za to razdoblje i, podredno, da joj se isplati naknada umjesto odmora.