natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Furthermore, Article 28 of that law provides that failure to comply with that obligation may give rise to criminal proceedings against the undertaking concerned.
Osim toga, članak 28. navedenog zakona predviđa da nepoštovanje ove obveze može dovesti do kaznenog progona dotičnog poduzeća.
80 Having regard to those factors, it must be acknowledged that the prior notification procedure to be followed by an undertaking wishing to post workers to Luxembourg territory is not without ambiguities.
80 S obzirom na te elemente valja naglasiti da je postupak prethodne prijave koji treba pratiti poduzeće koje želi uputiti radnike na luksemburško područje dvosmislen.
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.
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.
On the one hand, the extent of the rights and obligations of those undertakings is not clearly apparent from that provision.
S druge strane, iz te odredbe jasno ne proizlazi doseg prava i obveza tih poduzeća.
On the other hand, undertakings which have failed to comply with the obligations laid down in that provision incur not inconsiderable penalties.
S druge strane, poduzeća koja nisu ispunila obveze predviđene navedenom odredbom očekuju nezanemarive sankcije. 82 Budući da članak 7. stavak 1.
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.
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.
The fourth complaint: infringement of Article 49 EC by reason of the requirement that the undertakings designate an ad hoc agent residing in Luxembourg to retain the documents necessary for monitoring by the competent national authorities
Četvrti prigovor kršenja članka 49. UEZ-a zbog obveze dotičnih poduzeća da imenuju ad hoc zastupnika koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu radi pohrane dokumenata potrebnih za nadzor koji provode nadležna nacionalna tijela
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.
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.
The system of cooperation and exchange of information provided for in Article 4 of Directive 96/71 makes such an obligation superfluous.
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.
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.
Next, it contends that the contested national provision does not require any specific legal form with respect to the role of agent.
Zatim pojašnjava da, što se tiče funkcije zastupnika, sporna nacionalna odredba ne zahtijeva nikakav poseban pravni oblik.
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.
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.
85 It is not disputed that the obligation provided for in Article 8 of the Law of 20 December 2002 involves an additional administrative and financial burden for undertakings established in another Member State, so that the latter are not on an equal footing, from the point of view of competition, with employers established in the host Member State and they may be dissuaded from providing services in the latter Member State.
85 Nije sporno da obveza iz članka 8. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. uključuje dodatne upravne i financijske troškove za poduzeća s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici, tako da one nisu ravnopravne što se tiče tržišnog natjecanja s poslodavcima s poslovnim nastanom u državi članici domaćinu i da ih može odvratiti od pružanja usluga u toj državi članici.
86 First, the contested provision requires that the agent with whom the documents are lodged reside in Luxembourg.
86 Sporna odredba s jedne strane nalaže da zastupnik kod kojeg su položeni zahtijevani dokumenti ima boravište u Luksemburgu.
87 Second, that provision lays down an obligation to retain the documents relating inter alia to the information referred to in Article 7 of the Law of 20 December 2002, without, however, defining the period over which those documents must be retained or specifying whether that obligation concerns only the period after the service is provided or whether it also concerns a period prior to its commencement.
87 S druge strane, navedena odredba utvrđuje obvezu čuvanja dokumenata, među ostalim, o navodima iz članka 7. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002., ali ne utvrđuje razdoblje tijekom kojeg dokumente treba čuvati niti precizira odnosi li se ta obveza samo na razdoblje nakon pružanja usluge ili i na razdoblje prije početka pružanja usluge.
88 In order to justify such a restriction on freedom to provide services, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg cites the need to ensure effective monitoring by the Labour and Mines Inspectorate of compliance with employment legislation.
88 Kako bi opravdalo takvo ograničenje slobodnog pružanja usluga, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg navodi da je potrebno osigurati da nadzor poštovanja radnog zakonodavstva koje provodi tijelo Inspection du travail et des mines bude učinkovit.
89 In that connection, the Court has held that the effective protection of workers may require that certain documents are kept at the place where the service is provided, or at least in an accessible and clearly identified place in the territory of the host Member State, so that they are available to the authorities of that State responsible for carrying out checks (see, to that effect, Arblade and Others, paragraph 61).
89 U tom pogledu Sud je presudio da učinkovita zaštita radnika može zahtijevati da se određeni dokumenti drže na raspolaganju na mjestu pružanja usluge ili barem na dostupnom i jasno označenom mjestu na području države članice domaćina za tijela te države zadužena za provedbu nadzora (vidjeti u tom smislu navedenu presudu Arblade i dr., t. 61.).
90 However, the Court added, in paragraph 76 of Arblade and Others, that where there is an obligation to keep available and retain certain documents at the address of a natural person residing in the host Member State who holds them as the agent or representative of the employer by whom he has been designated, even after the employer has ceased to employ workers in that State, it is not sufficient, for the purposes of justifying such a restriction on the freedom to provide services, that the presence of such documents within the territory of the host Member State may make it generally easier for the authorities of that State to perform their supervisory task.
90 Sud je međutim u točki 76. gore navedene presude Arblade i dr. dodao, da u pogledu obveze držanja na raspolaganju i čuvanja određenih dokumenata u mjestu boravka fizičke osobe koja ima boravište u državi članici domaćinu i koja ih čuva kao zastupnik ili predstavnik poslodavca koji ga je imenovao, čak i nakon što je poslodavac prestao zapošljavati radnike u toj državi, za opravdanje takvog ograničenja slobodnog pružanja usluga nije dovoljno da prisutnost tih dokumenata na području države članice domaćina tijelima te države provođenje zadaće nadzora olakšava općenito.
It must also be shown that those authorities cannot carry out their supervisory task effectively unless the undertaking has, in that Member State, an agent or representative designated to retain the documents in question.
Potrebno je i da ta tijela ne budu ni u stanju učinkovito provoditi svoju zadaću nadzora ako to poduzeće u toj državi članici nema zastupnika ili predstavnika koji čuva navedene dokumente.
In that connection, the Court has held that a requirement that a natural person domiciled in the territory of a host Member State should retain documents cannot be justified (see, Arblade and Others, paragraph 77).
S tim u vezi Sud je presudio da obveza čuvanja dokumenata kod fizičke osobe koja ima domicil na području države članice domaćina ne može biti opravdana (vidjeti navedenu presudu Arblade i dr., t. 77.).
91 In this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does not submit any specific evidence in support of the argument that only the retention of the documents concerned by an agent residing in Luxembourg enables the authorities to carry out the checks for which they are responsible.
91 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg u ovom slučaju nije podnijelo nijedan konkretan element u potporu argumentu da samo to što dotične dokumente čuva zastupnik koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu omogućuje navedenim tijelima provedbu nadzora za koji su odgovorni.
In any event, a worker present in the place where the services were provided could be designated to ensure that documents necessary for monitoring purposes were made available to the competent national authorities, which would be a measure less restrictive of freedom to provide services and just as effective as the contested obligation.
U svakom slučaju, imenovanje radnika prisutnog na mjestu pružanja usluga kako bi se nacionalnim tijelima stavili na raspolaganje dokumenti potrebni za nadzor predstavlja mjeru koja bi manje ograničavala slobodu pružanja usluga a bila bi jednako učinkovita kao i osporavana obveza.
92 For the rest, the Court noted, in paragraph 79 of Arblade and Others, that the organised system for cooperation and exchanges of information between Member States provided for in Article 4 of Directive 96/71 renders superfluous the retention of the documents in the host Member State after the employer has ceased to employ workers there.
92 Osim toga valja podsjetiti da je Sud u točki 79. prethodno navedene presude Arblade i dr. naglasio da je zbog organiziranog sustava suradnje ili razmjene informacija među državama članicama iz članka 4. Direktive 96/71 čuvanje tih dokumenata u državi članici domaćinu nakon što je poslodavac prestao sa zapošljavanjem radnika u toj državi suvišno.
93 Consequently, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg cannot require undertakings which post workers to do what is necessary to retain such documents on Luxembourg territory when the provision of services comes to an end.
93 Slijedom toga Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ne bi moglo od poduzeća koja upućuju radnike zahtijevati da se za čuvanje navedenih podataka na području Luksemburga pobrinu na početku pružanja usluga.
94 Nor can such documents be required to be retained by an agent residing in Luxembourg in so far as, since the undertaking concerned is physically present on Luxembourg territory when the services are provided, the documents in question may be held by a posted worker.
94 Stoga se ne bi moglo zahtijevati ni da te iste dokumente čuva zastupnik koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu budući da je dotično poduzeće fizički prisutno na području Luksemburga tijekom pružanja usluga pa dotične dokumente može čuvati upućeni radnik.
95 Lastly, it must be pointed out that, although Article 8(2) of the Law of 20 December 2002 does not expressly provide that documents necessary for monitoring purposes must be retained in Luxembourg before the commencement of work, that provision states that the identity of the agent must be communicated to the competent authorities prior to the employment activities envisaged at the latest.
95 Konačno valja naglasiti da iako članak 8. stavak 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. ne predviđa izričito obvezu čuvanja dokumenata potrebnih za nadzor u Luksemburgu prije početka obavljanja rada, ta odredba jasno određuje da identitet zastupnika treba javiti nadležnim tijelima najkasnije prije početka obavljanja predviđenog nesamostalnog rada.
Therefore, the interpretation put forward by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, according to which the documents do not have to be available until the date on which the work commences, has no basis in the provision in question.
Stoga tumačenje koje zastupa Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, prema kojem ti dokumenti trebaju biti dostupni na dan početka rada nema temelja u osporavanoj odredbi.
In any event, such an obligation to retain such documents prior to the commencement of work would constitute an obstacle to freedom to provide services which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg would have to justify by arguments other than mere doubts as to the effectiveness of the organised system of cooperation or exchanges of information between the Member States provided for in Article 4 of Directive 96/71.
U svakom slučaju, takva obveza čuvanja navedenih dokumenata prije početka obavljanja rada predstavlja ograničenje slobode pružanja usluga koju Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg treba opravdati drugim argumentima, a ne jednostavnim sumnjama o učinkovitosti organiziranog sustava suradnje ili razmjene informacija među državama članicama iz članka 4. Direktive 96/71.
96 It is clear from the foregoing that, since Article 8 of the Law of 20 December 2002 is incompatible with Article 49 EC, the action must be upheld in its entirety.
96 Iz navedenoga proizlazi da budući da članak 8. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. nije u skladu s člankom 49. UEZ-a, cijelu tužbu valja prihvatiti.
97 Accordingly, it must be held that:
97 Stoga valja utvrditi da:
by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 to be mandatory provisions falling under national public policy;
proglašenjem odredaba članka 1. točaka 1., 2., 8. i 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. prisilnim odredbama nacionalnog javnog poretka;
by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71;
nepotpunim prenošenjem članka 3. stavka 1. točke (a) Direktive 96/71;
by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law of 20 December 2002, conditions relating to access to the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes by the competent national authorities with insufficient clarity to ensure legal certainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg; and
navođenjem, u članku 7. stavku 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002., uvjeta u pogledu pristupa nadležnih nacionalnih tijela podacima neophodnim za nadzor koje nije dovoljno jasno da poduzećima koja žele uputiti svoje radnike u Luksemburg osigura pravnu sigurnost, i
by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for monitoring purposes be retained in Luxembourg by an ad hoc agent resident there,
propisujući, u članku 8. tog Zakona, čuvanje dokumenata potrebnih za nadzor u Luksemburgu pri ad hoc zastupniku koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC.
Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg nije ispunilo obveze iz članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive 96/71 u vezi sa stavkom 10. tog članka te članaka 49. i 50. UEZ-a.
Costs
Troškovi 98
98 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked that for in the successful party's pleadings.
U skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 2. Poslovnika, na zahtjev protivne stranke, svakoj stranci koja izgubi spor nalaže se snošenje troškova.
Since the Commission has asked that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg be ordered to pay the costs and the latter has been unsuccessful, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg must be ordered to pay the costs.
Budući da je Komisija postavila zahtjev da se Velikom Vojvodstvu Luksemburg naloži snošenje troškova i da ono nije uspjelo u postupku, Velikom Vojvodstvu Luksemburg nalaže se snošenje troškova.
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby:
Slijedom navedenog, Sud (prvo vijeće) proglašava i presuđuje:
1. Declares that,
1 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg,:
by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 transposing Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and the monitoring of the implementation of labour law to be mandatory provisions falling under national public policy;
proglašenjem odredaba članka 1. stavka 1. točaka 1., 2., 8. i 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. o prijenosu Direktive 96/71/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. prosinca 1996. o upućivanju radnika u okviru pružanja usluga i uređenju nadzora primjene radnog prava prisilnim odredbama nacionalnog javnog poretka;
by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services;
nepotpunim prenošenjem odredaba članka 3. stavka 1. podstavka 1. točke (a) Direktive 96/71/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. prosinca 1996. o upućivanju radnika u okviru pružanja usluga;
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC.
nije ispunilo obveze iz članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive 96/71 u vezi sa stavkom 10. tog članka te članaka 49. i 50. UEZ-a.
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
2. Velikom Vojvodstvu Luksemburg nalaže se snošenje troškova.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
PRESUDA SUDA (četvrto vijeće)