natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A fixed term shall not be permitted where there is a close connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer.
Ne dopušta se sklapanje radnog odnosa na određeno vrijeme ako postoji uska povezanost s prethodnim ugovorom o radu na neodređeno vrijeme koji je sklopljen s istim poslodavcem.
Such close connection shall be presumed to exist where the interval between two employment contracts is less than six months.
Pretpostavlja se da postoji uska povezanost ako je razdoblje između dva ugovora o radu kraće od šest mjeseci.
(4) The limitation of the term of an employment contract must be fixed in writing in order to be enforceable.'
(4) Ograničenje trajanja ugovora o radu mora se odrediti u pisanom obliku."
19 Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG has been amended by the First Law for the provision of modern services on the labour market of 23 December 2002 (BGBl. 2002 I, p. 14607, `the Law of 2002').
19 Članak 14. stavak 3. TzBfG-a izmijenjen je prvim zakonom o pružanju modernih usluga na tržištu rada od 23. prosinca 2002. (BGBl. 2002 I, str. 14607., u daljnjem tekstu: Zakon iz 2002.).
The new version of that provision, which took effect on 1 January 2003, is henceforth worded as follows:
Nova verzija te odredbe, koja je stupila na snagu 1. siječnja 2003., od tada glasi:
`A fixed-term employment contract shall not require objective justification if when starting the fixed-term employment relationship the employee has reached the age of 58.
„Sklapanje ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme ne zahtijeva objektivan razlog ako je radnik napunio 58 godina do početka radnog odnosa na određeno vrijeme.
It shall not be permissible to set a fixed term where there is a close connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer.
Ne dopušta se sklapanje radnog odnosa na određeno vrijeme ako postoji uska povezanost s prethodnim ugovorom o radu na neodređeno vrijeme koji je sklopljen s istim poslodavcem.
Until 31 December 2006 the first sentence shall be read as referring to the age of 52 instead of 58.'
Do 31. prosinca 2006., umjesto dobi od 58 godina iz prve rečenice primjenjuje se dob od 52 godine."
20 On 26 June 2003 Mr Mangold, then 56 years old, concluded with Mr Helm, who practises as a lawyer, a contract that took effect on 1 July 2003.
20 W. Mangold, tada star 56 godina, 26. lipnja 2003. sklopio je s R. Helmom, koji je odvjetnik, ugovor koji je stupio na snagu 1. srpnja 2003.
21 Article 5 of that contract provided that:
21 Članak 5. tog ugovora predviđa:
The employment relationship shall start on 1 July 2003 and last until 28 February 2004.
Radni odnos započinje 1. srpnja 2003. i traje do 28. veljače 2004.
2. The duration of the contract shall be based on the statutory provision which is intended to make it easier to conclude fixed-term contracts of employment with older workers (the provisions of the fourth sentence, in conjunction with those of the fourth sentence, of Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG ...), since the employee is more than 52 years old.
2. Trajanje ugovora temelji se na zakonskoj odredbi čiji je cilj olakšati sklapanje ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme sa starijim radnicima (zajedničke odredbe članka 14. stavka 3. četvrte i prve rečenice TzBfg-a [...]), budući da je zaposlenik stariji od 52 godine.
3. The parties have agreed that there is no reason for the fixed term of this contract other than that set out in paragraph 2 above.
3. Stranke su suglasne da je jedini razlog za sklapanje ugovora na određeno vrijeme onaj prethodno naveden u točki 2.
All other grounds for limiting the term of employment accepted in principle by the legislature are expressly excluded from this agreement.'
Svi ostali razlozi za sklapanje ugovora na određeno vrijeme koje u načelu dopušta zakonodavac i sudska praksa izričito su isključeni iz ovog sporazuma."
22 According to Mr Mangold, paragraph 5, inasmuch as it limits the term of his contract, is, although such a limitation is in keeping with Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG, incompatible with the Framework Agreement and with Directive 2000/78.
22 Prema W. Mangoldu, članak 5. koji ograničava trajanje njegovog ugovora, iako je takvo ograničenje sukladno članku 14. stavku 3. TzBfG-a, nije u skladu s Okvirnim sporazumom i Direktivom 2000/78.
23 Mr Helm argues that Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement requires the Member States to introduce measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts of employment, in particular, by requiring objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts, or by fixing the maximum total duration of such fixed-term employment relationships or contracts, or by limiting the number of renewals of such contracts or relationships.
23 R. Helm tvrdi da se člankom 5. Okvirnog sporazuma zahtijeva od država članica uvođenje mjera za sprečavanje zlouporaba, koje proizlaze iz primjene uzastopnih ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme, koje posebno zahtijevaju objektivne razloge kojima se opravdava obnavljanje tih ugovora ili određuju najdulje ukupno trajanje ugovora ili radnih odnosa na određeno vrijeme ili pak ograničavaju broja obnavljanja tih ugovora ili radnih odnosa.
24 He takes the view that even if the fourth sentence of Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG does not expressly lay down such restrictions in respect of older workers, there is in fact an objective reason, within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement, that justifies the conclusion of a fixed-term contract of employment, which is the difficulty those workers have in finding work having regard to the features of the labour market.
24 On smatra da iako članak 14. stavak 3., četvrta rečenica TzBfG-a izričito ne utvrđuje takva ograničenja koja se odnose na starije radnike, ipak u smislu članka 5. stavka 1. točke (a) Okvirnog sporazuma postoji objektivan razlog koji opravdava sklapanje ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme, a to je činjenica da ti radnici teško pronalaze zaposlenje s obzirom na obilježja tržišta rada.
25 The Arbeitsgericht München is doubtful whether the first sentence of Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG is compatible with Community law.
25 Arbeitsgericht München dvoji je li prva rečenica članka 14. stavka 3. TzBfG-a u skladu s pravom Zajednice.
26 First, that court considers that that provision is contrary to the prohibition of `regression' (reduction of protection) laid down in Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement in that, on the transposition into national law of Directive 1999/70, that provision lowered from 60 to 58 the age of persons excluded from protection against the use of fixed-term contracts of employment where that use is not justified by an objective reason and, in consequence, the general level of protection enjoyed by that class of workers.
26 Prvo, taj sud smatra da je navedena odredba protivna zabrani „reformacije" predviđene člankom 8. stavkom 3. Okvirnog sporazuma na način da se tom odredbom, prenošenjem Direktive 1999/70, smanjila sa 60 na 58 godina dob osoba kojima se ne pruža zaštita od uporabe ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme ako ta uporaba nije opravdana objektivnim razlogom, te je kao posljedica smanjena opća razina zaštite za tu grupu radnika.
Such a provision is also, in its opinion, contrary to Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement which seeks to prevent abuse of such contracts, in that it lays down no restriction on the conclusion of such contracts by many workers falling into a class categorised by age only.
Ta je odredba također protivna članku 5. Okvirnog sporazuma kojim se zahtijeva sprečavanje zlouporabe takvih ugovora, na način da ona ne predviđa ograničenja sklapanja takvih ugovora s velikim brojem radnika koji ulaze u tu kategoriju samo na temelju dobi.
27 Second, the national court is uncertain whether rules such as those contained in Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG are compatible with Article 6 of Directive 2000/78, in that the lowering, by the Law of 2002, from 58 to 52 of the age at which it is authorised to conclude fixed-term contracts, with no objective justification, does not guarantee the protection of older persons in work.
27 Drugo, nacionalni sud nije siguran jesu li pravila poput onih iz članka 14. stavka 3. TzBfG-a sukladna članku 6. Direktive 2000/78, jer Zakon iz 2002. predviđa smanjenje dobi u kojoj je dopušteno sklapati ugovore o radu na određeno vrijeme s 58 na 52 godine bez objektivnog opravdanja, koje starijim osobama ne jamči zaštitu pri zapošljavanju.
Nor is the principle of proportionality observed.
Nije poštovano nii načelo proporcionalnosti.
28 It is true that the national court finds that, on the date of the conclusion of the contract, namely, 26 June 2003, the period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2000/78 into national law had not yet expired.
28 Točno je da je nacionalni sud utvrdio da na datum sklapanja ugovora o radu, tj. 26. lipnja 2003., još nije isteklo propisano razdoblje za prenošenje Direktive 2000/78 u nacionalno pravo.
None the less, it notes that, in accordance with paragraph 45 of the judgment in Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie [1997] ECR I-7411, a Member State to which a directive is addressed may not, during the period prescribed for transposition, adopt measures that may seriously compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by the directive.
Unatoč tome, sud navodi da u skladu s točkom 45. presude od 18. prosinca 1997., Inter-Environnement Wallonie (C-129/96 Zb., str. I-7411.), država članica kojoj je direktiva upućena ne smije tijekom razdoblja propisanog za njezino prenošenje donijeti mjere koje bi mogle ozbiljno ugroziti postizanje rezultata propisanog tom direktivom.
29 Now, in the case in the main proceedings, the Law of 2002's amendment of Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG came into force on 1 January 2003, that is to say, after Directive 2000/78 was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, but before the period allowed by Article 18 of that directive for its transposition had expired.
29 U predmetu u glavnom postupku izmjena članka 14. stavka 3. TzBfG-a Zakonom iz 2002. stupila je na snagu 1. siječnja 2003., što znači nakon objave Direktive 2000/78 u Službenom listu Europskih zajednica, ali prije isteka predviđenog razdoblja za prenošenje iz njezinog članka 18.
30 Third, the Arbeitsgericht München raises the question whether the national court is bound, in proceedings between individuals, to set aside rules of domestic law incompatible with Community law.
30 Treće, sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita mora li nacionalni sudac u postupku između pojedinaca zanemariti pravila nacionalnog prava koja nisu u skladu s pravom Zajednice.
In this respect it considers that the primacy of Community law must lead the court to find that Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG is inapplicable in its entirety and that, therefore, it is necessary to apply the fundamental rule laid down in Paragraph 14(1), in accordance with which there must be some objective reason for the conclusion of a fixed-term contract of employment.
U tom smislu sud smatra da zbog prvenstva prava Zajednice mora utvrditi da članak 14. stavak 3. TzBfG-a u cijelosti nije primjenjiv te je stoga potrebno primijeniti temeljno pravilo predviđeno stavkom 1. toga članka, sukladno kojem moraju postojati određeni objektivni razlozi za sklapanje ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme.
31 Those were the circumstances in which the Arbeitsgericht München decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
31 U tim je okolnostima Arbeitsgericht München odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja: „1. (a) Treba li članak 8. stavak 3.
`1(a) Is Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement ... to be interpreted, when transposed into domestic law, as prohibiting a reduction of protection following from the lowering of the age limit from 60 to 58?
Okvirnog sporazuma [...] tumačiti na način da prilikom prijenosa u nacionalno pravo zabranjuje reformaciju koja proizlazi iz smanjenja dobne granice sa 60 na 58 godina?
1(b) Is Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement ... to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which - like the provision at issue in this case - does not contain any of the three restrictions set out in paragraph 1 of that clause?
1. (b) Treba li članak 5. stavak 1. Okvirnog sporazuma [...] tumačiti na način da mu je protivna odredba nacionalnog prava, poput one u glavnom postupku, koja ne sadržava nijedno od tri ograničenja predviđena stavkom 1. toga članka?
2. Is Article 6 of ...
2. Treba li članak 6.
Directive 2000/78 ... to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which, like the provision at issue in this case, authorises the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts, without any objective reason, with workers aged 52 and over, contrary to the principle requiring justification on objective grounds?
Direktive 2000/78 [...] tumačiti na način da mu je protivna odredba nacionalnog prava, poput one u glavnom postupku, koja dopušta sklapanje ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme s radnicima u dobi od 52 godine i starijima, i to bez objektivnog razloga, suprotno načelu kojim se zahtijeva takav objektivan razlog?
3. If one of those three questions is answered in the affirmative: must the national court refuse to apply the provision of domestic law which is contrary to Community law and apply the general principle of internal law, under which fixed terms of employment are permissible only if they are justified on objective grounds?'
3. Ako je odgovor na jedno od navedenih triju pitanja potvrdan: mora li nacionalni sudac odbiti primjenu odredbe nacionalnog prava koja je suprotna pravu Zajednice i primijeniti opće načelo nacionalnog prava na temelju kojeg se dopušta sklapanje ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme samo ako je opravdano na temelju objektivnog razloga?"
Admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling
Dopuštenost zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku
32 At the hearing the admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling was challenged by the Federal Republic of Germany, on the grounds that the dispute in the main proceedings was fictitious or contrived.
32 Na raspravi je Savezna republika Njemačka izrazila sumnju u dopuštenost zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku zbog toga što je spor iz glavnog postupka fiktivan ili umjetan.
Indeed, in the past Mr Helm has publicly argued a case identical to Mr Mangold's, to the effect that Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG is unlawful.
U prošlosti je R. Helm zaista javno zastupao stajalište jednako stajalištu W. Mangolda u pogledu nezakonitosti članka 14. stavka 3.
33 It is first of all to be noted in that respect that, pursuant to Article 234 EC, where a question on the interpretation of the Treaty or of subordinate acts of the institutions of the Community is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon (see, inter alia, Case C-451/99 Cura Anlagen [2002] ECR I-3193, paragraph 22).
TzBfG-a. 33 U tom pogledu prije svega valja podsjetiti da, u skladu s člankom 234. UEZ-a, bilo koji sud države članice kojemu se postavi pitanje tumačenja Ugovora ili akata institucija Zajednice, može, ako smatra da mu je potrebna prethodna odluka kako bi mogao donijeti presudu, uputiti zahtjev za prethodnu odluku Sudu (vidjeti, inter alia, presudu od 21. ožujka 2002., Cura Anlagen, C-451/99, Zb., str. I-3193., t. 22.).
34 In the context of that procedure for making a reference, the national court, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts of the case, is in the best position to assess, with full knowledge of the matter before it, the need for a preliminary ruling to enable it to give judgment (Case C-83/91 Meilicke [1992] ECR I-4871, paragraph 23; C-146/93 McLachlan [1994] ECR I-3229, paragraph 20; Case C-412/93 Leclerc-Siplec [1995] ECR I-179, paragraph 10; and C-167/01 Inspire Art [2003] ECR I-10155, paragraph 43.
34 U okviru tog postupka upućivanja zahtjeva nacionalni je sud, koji sam ima izravna saznanja o činjenicama iz predmeta, u najboljoj poziciji da uz puno poznavanje predmeta koji rješava ocijeni potrebe upućivanja zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku kako bi mogao donijeti presudu (vidjeti presude od 16. srpnja 1992., Meilicke, C-83/91, Zb., str. I-4871., t. 23.; od 7. srpnja 1994., McLachlan, C-146/93, Zb. str. I-3229., t. 20.; od 9. veljače 1995., Leclerc-Siplec, C-412/93, Zb, str. I-179., t. 10.; i od 30. rujna 2003., Inspire Art, C-167/01, Zb., str. I-10155., t. 43.).
35 Consequently, where the question submitted by the national court concerns the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (Case C-231/89 Gmurzynska-Bscher [1990] ECR I-4003, paragraph 20; Leclerc-Siplec, paragraph 11; Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 Bordessa and Others [1995] ECR I-361, paragraph 10; and Inspire Art, paragraph 44).
35 Posljedično, s obzirom na to da se pitanja koja je postavio nacionalni sud odnose na tumačenje odredbe prava Zajednice, Sud je u načelu dužan donijeti odluku (vidjeti presudu od 8. studenoga 1990. Gmurzynska-Bscher, C-231/89, Zb. str. I-4003., t. 20.; gore navedenu presudu Leclerc-Siplec, t. 11.; presudu od 23. veljače 1995., Bordessa i dr., C-358/93, Zb. str. I-361., t. 10.; i gore navedenu presudu Inspire Art, t. 44.).
36 Nevertheless, the Court considers that it may, if need be, examine the circumstances in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction.
36 Međutim, Sud smatra da prilikom provjere svoje nadležnosti mora istražiti okolnosti u kojima mu je nacionalni sud uputio predmet.
The spirit of cooperation which must prevail in preliminary ruling proceedings requires the national court for its part to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to contribute to the administration of justice in the Member States and not to give opinions on general or hypothetical questions (Case 149/82 Robards [1983] ECR 171, paragraph 19; Meilicke, paragraph 25; and Inspire Art, paragraph 45).
Duh suradnje koji treba prevladavati u prethodnom postupku zahtijeva od nacionalnog suda da uzme u obzir zadaću povjerenu Sudu, a to je doprinos sudovanju u državama članicama, a ne davanje mišljenja o općim ili hipotetskim pitanjima (vidjeti presudu od 3. veljače 1983., Robards, C-149/82, Zb., str. 171., t. 19.; gore navedenu presudu Meilicke, t. 25.; i gore navedenu presudu Inspire Art, t. 45.).
37 It is in the light of that function that the Court has considered that it has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised before a national court where the interpretation of Community law has no connection whatever with the circumstances or purpose of the main proceedings.
37 S obzirom na tu zadaću, Sud je smatrao da nije nadležan donijeti prethodnu odluku o pitanju koje je postavljeno nacionalnom sudu ako tumačenje prava Zajednice nema nikakve veze sa stvarnim stanjem ili predmetom spora u glavnom postupku.
38 However, in the case in the main proceedings, it hardly seems arguable that the interpretation of Community law sought by the national court does actually respond to an objective need inherent in the outcome of a case pending before it.
38 Međutim, u predmetu u glavnom postupku nije sporno da tumačenje prava Zajednice koje zahtijeva nacionalni sud zapravo odgovara objektivnoj potrebi za rješavanje spora koji se pred njim vodi.
In fact, it is common ground that the contract has actually been performed and that its application raises a question of interpretation of Community law.
Zapravo je jasno da je ugovor o radu realiziran te da iz njegove primjene proizlazi pitanje o tumačenju prava Zajednice.
The fact that the parties to the dispute in the main proceedings are at one in their interpretation of Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG cannot affect the reality of that dispute.
Činjenica da su stranke spora u glavnom postupku suglasne u tumačenju članka 14. stavka 3. TzBfG-a ne utječe na činjenicu da spor postoji.
39 The order for reference must, therefore, be regarded as admissible.
39 Stoga se zahtjev za prethodnu odluku smatra dopuštenim.
Concerning the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
O prethodnim pitanjima
On Question 1(b)
Pitanje 1. (b)
40 In Question 1(b), which it is appropriate to consider first, the national court asks whether, on a proper construction of Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement, it is contrary to that provision for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings to contain none of the restrictions provided for by that clause in respect of the use of fixed-term contracts of employment.
40 Pitanjem 1. (b), koje valja prvo razmotriti, nacionalni sud pita treba li članak 5. Okvirnog sporazuma tumačiti na način da mu je protivna odredba nacionalnog prava, poput one u glavnom postupku, koja ne sadržava nijedno ograničenje predviđeno tim člankom s obzirom na uporabu ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme.
41 Here it is to be noted that Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement is supposed to `prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships'.
41 U pogledu tog pitanja treba istaknuti da članak 5. točka 1. Okvirnog sporazuma treba „spriječiti zlouporabe koje proizlaze iz uzastopnih ugovora o radu ili radnih odnosa na određeno vrijeme".
42 Now, as the parties to the main proceedings confirmed at the hearing, the contract is the one and only contract concluded between them.
42 Stranke spora u glavnom postupku potvrdile su na raspravi da je taj ugovor prvi i jedini ugovor o radu koji su one sklopile.
43 In those circumstances, interpretation of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement is obviously irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute before the national court and, accordingly, there is no need to answer Question 1(b).
43 U takvim je okolnostima jasno da tumačenje članka 5. točke 1. Okvirnog sporazuma nije relevantno za rješavanje spora pred nacionalnim sudom te stoga nije potrebno odgovoriti na pitanje 1. (b).
On Question 1(a)
Pitanje 1. (a)
44 By Question 1(a), the national court seeks to ascertain whether on a proper construction of Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement, domestic legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, on transposing Directive 1999/70, lowered from 60 to 58 the age above which fixed-term contracts of employment may be concluded without restrictions, is contrary to that provision.
44 Pitanjem 1. (a) nacionalni sud pita treba li članak 8. točku 3. Okvirnog sporazuma tumačiti na način da je nacionalni propis, poput onog u glavnom postupku kojim je prilikom prenošenja Direktive 1999/70 dob osoba iznad koje se ugovor o radu na određeno vrijeme može sklopiti bez ograničenja smanjena sa 60 na 58 godina, protivan toj odredbi.
45 As a preliminary point, it is to be noted that, in the case in the main proceedings, the contract was concluded on 26 June 2003, that is to say, when the TzBfG, as amended by the Law of 2002 which lowered the age above which it is permissible to conclude fixed-term contracts of employment from 58 to 52, was in force.
45 Najprije treba istaknuti da je u predmetu u glavnom postupku ugovor sklopljen 26. lipnja 2003., znači kada je na snazi bio TzBfG kako je izmijenjen Zakonom iz 2002., kojim je smanjena dob iznad koje je dopušteno sklapati ugovore o radu na određeno vrijeme s 58 na 52 godine.
In the instant case, it is common ground that Mr Mangold was engaged by Mr Helm at the age of 56.
U ovom je predmetu jasno da je R. Helm zaposlio W. Mangolda u dobi od 56 godina.
46 Nevertheless, the national court considers that an interpretation of Clause 8(3) would be helpful to it in assessing the validity of the lawfulness of Paragraph 14(3) of the TzBfG, in its original version, in so far as, if that latter provision should not be in keeping with Community law, the result would be that its amendment by the Law of 2002 would be invalid.
46 Međutim, nacionalni sud smatra da bi mu za donošenje odluke o zakonitosti članka 14. stavka 3. TzBfG-a, u njegovoj prvotnoj verziji, koristilo tumačenje članka 8. točke 3. jer, ako ta odredba nije u skladu s pravom Zajednice, njezine izmjene Zakonom iz 2002. ne bi bile važeće.