natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges,
u sastavu C. W. A. Timmermans, predsjednik vijeća, C. Gulmann (izvjestitelj) i R. Schintgen, suci,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 17 June 2004,
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 17. lipnja 2004.,
– the North Western Health Board, by A. Collins, SC, and A. Kerr, BL,
– za North Western Health Board, A. Collins, SC, i A. Kerr, BL
– Ms McKenna, by D. Connolly, SC, and M. Bolger, BL,
– za M. McKenna, D. Connolly, SC, i M. Bolger, BL,
– Ireland, by E. Regan and S. Belshaw, BL,
– za Irsku, E. Regan i S. Belshaw, BL,
– the Italian Government, by I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato,
– za talijansku vladu, I. M. Braguglia, u svojstvu agenta, i A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato,
– the Austrian Government, by E. Riedl, acting as Agent,
– za austrijsku vladu, E. Riedl, u svojstvu agenta,
– the United Kingdom Government, by R. Caudwell, acting as Agent, and K. Smith, Barrister,
– za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, R. Caudwell, u svojstvu agenta, i K. Smith, barrister,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by M.-J. Jonczy and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents,
– za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, M.-J. Jonczy i N. Yerrell, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 December 2004,
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 2. prosinca 2004.,
1 The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 141 EC, of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19), and of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje članka 141. UEZ-a, Direktive Vijeća 75/117/EEZ od 10. veljače 1975. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o primjeni načela jednakih plaća za muškarce i žene (SL L 45, str. 19.) i Direktive Vijeća 76/207/EEZ od 9. veljače 1976. o provedbi načela jednakog postupanja prema muškarcima i ženama s u pogledu pristupa zapošljavanju, strukovnom osposobljavanju i napredovanju te uvjetima rada (SL L 39, str. 40.).
2 This reference has been submitted in the course of a dispute between the North Western Health Board (‘the Board’) and Ms McKenna, its employee, concerning the amount of pay which she received during an absence on grounds of a pregnancy-related illness and the offsetting of that absence against the maximum total number of days of paid sick leave to which a worker is entitled over a specified period.
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između North Western Health Board (u daljnjem tekstu: Odbor) i M. McKenna, njegove zaposlenice, zbog iznosa plaće koju je primila tijekom odsutnosti zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom i uključivanje odsutnosti u maksimalni ukupni broj dana plaćenog bolovanja na koje radnik ima pravo tijekom određenog razdoblja.
3 Article 141(1) and (2) EC provides:
3 U članku 141. stavcima 1. i 2. UEZ-a propisuje se:
‘1. Each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.
„1. Svaka država članica osigurava primjenu načela o jednakim plaćama muškaraca i žena za jednak rad ili za rad jednake vrijednosti.
2. For the purposes of this Article, “pay” means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer.
2. Za potrebe ovog članka pojam „plaća“ znači redovitu osnovnu ili minimalnu nadnicu ili plaću te sva druga primanja u gotovini ili u naravi koja radnik prima neposredno ili posredno od svojeg poslodavca u vezi sa zaposlenjem.
4 The first paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 75/117 provides:
4 Članak 1. stavak 1. Direktive 75/117 predviđa:
‘The principle of equal pay for men and women outlined in Article [141] of the Treaty … means, for the same work or for work to which equal value is attributed, the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of sex with regard to all aspects and conditions of remuneration.’
„Načelo jednakih plaća za muškarce i žene, utvrđeno u članku [141.] Ugovora [...] znači da se za isti rad ili rad kojemu se pripisuje ista vrijednost ukida svaka diskriminacija na temelju spola u pogledu svih vidova i uvjeta plaćanja.” [neslužbeni prijevod].
5 Article 3 of Directive 75/117 provides:
5 Članak 3. Direktive 75/117 predviđa:
‘Member States shall abolish all discrimination between men and women arising from laws, regulations or administrative provisions which is contrary to the principle of equal pay.’
„Države članice ukidaju diskriminaciju između muškaraca i žena koja proizlazi iz zakona i drugih propisa, a protivna je načelu jednakih plaća.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
6 Article 4 of Directive 75/117 is worded as follows:
6 Članak 4. navodi:
‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that provisions appearing in collective agreements, wage scales, wage agreements or individual contracts of employment which are contrary to the principle of equal pay shall be, or may be declared, null and void or may be amended.’
„Države članice poduzimaju potrebne mjere kako bi osigurale da se odredbe u kolektivnim ugovorima, platnim ljestvicama, sporazumima o plaćama ili pojedinačnim ugovorima o radu, koje su protivne načelu jednakih plaća, proglase ništavnima, odnosno da se omogući njihovo proglašenje ništavnima ili njihova izmjena […]” [neslužbeni prijevod]
7 Article 1(1) of Directive 76/207 states that the purpose of that directive is ‘to put into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, including promotion, and to vocational training and as regards working conditions and, on the conditions referred to in paragraph 2, social security. …’
7 Članak 1. stavak 1. Direktive 76/207 predviđa da je svrha direktive „primjena načela jednakog postupanja prema muškarcima i ženama u državama članicama, s obzirom na mogućnost zapošljavanja, uključujući profesionalno napredovanje i stručno osposobljavanje te s obzirom na radne uvjete i, u skladu sa stavkom 2., socijalnu sigurnost. […]“ [neslužbeni prijevod].
8 Article 2 of Directive 76/207 provides:
8 Članak 2. te direktive predviđa:
‘1. For the purposes of the following provisions, the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status.
„1. U smislu odredaba koje slijede, načelo jednakog postupanja znači nepostojanje izravne ili neizravne diskriminacije na temelju spola, a osobito s obzirom na bračno stanje ili obiteljsku situaciju.
3. This Directive shall be without prejudice to provisions concerning the protection of women, particularly as regards pregnancy and maternity.
3. Ova Direktiva ne dovodi u pitanje propise koji se odnose na zaštitu žena, osobito s obzirom na trudnoću i materinstvo.
9 Article 5 of Directive 76/207 sets out in the following terms the rules governing equal treatment in regard to working conditions:
9 Člankom 5. te direktive utvrđuju se sljedeće definicije za pravila kojima se uređuje jednako postupanje s obzirom na uvjete rada:
‘1. Application of the principle of equal treatment with regard to working conditions, including the conditions governing dismissal, means that men and women shall be guaranteed the same conditions without discrimination on grounds of sex.
„1. Primjena načela jednakog postupanja s obzirom na uvjete rada, uključujući i uvjete za otkaz, znači da muškarcima i ženama moraju biti zajamčeni isti uvjeti bez diskriminacije na temelju spola.
2. To this end, Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that:
2. U tu svrhu države članice poduzimaju sve nužne mjere kako bi osigurale da:
"(a) any laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment shall be abolished;"
"(a) svi zakoni i drugi propisi suprotni načelu jednakog postupanja budu stavljeni izvan snage;"
"(b) any provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment which are included in collective agreements, individual contracts of employment, internal rules of undertakings or in rules governing the independent occupations and professions shall be, or may be declared, null and void or may be amended;"
"(b) sve odredbe kolektivnih ugovora ili pojedinačnih ugovora o radu, pravilnika o radu i statuta samostalnih djelatnosti koje su suprotne načelu jednakog postupanja bile bez učinka ili kako bi ih se moglo utvrditi ništetnim ili ih izmijeniti;"
10 Directives 75/117 and 76/207 were transposed into Irish law by the Employment Equality Act 1998.
10 Direktive 75/117 i 76/207 prenesene su u irsko pravo Zakonom o jednakosti pri zapošljavanju (Employment Equality Act) iz 1998.
11 Ms McKenna is employed by the Board within the public sector in Ireland. In January 2000 she discovered that she was pregnant. For almost the entire duration of her pregnancy she was on sick leave pursuant to medical advice by reason of a pathological condition linked to her pregnancy.
11 M. McKenna, koja je zaposlena u Boardu u okviru javnog sektora u Irskoj, u siječnju 2000. otkrila je da je trudna. Gotovo cijelo vrijeme trajanja trudnoće bila je na bolovanju prema savjetu liječnika zbog patološkog stanja povezanog s njezinom trudnoćom.
12 Under the Board’s sick-leave scheme, its staff members are entitled to 365 days of paid sick leave over any period of four years. Full pay is received for a maximum of 183 days’ incapacity over any period of 12 months, with any additional days of sick leave taken within the same 12-month period attracting half pay only, up to a maximum total of 365 days’ paid sick leave within that four-year period.
12 Sukladno sustavu bolovanja Boarda, njegovi članovi osoblja imaju pravo na 365 dana plaćenog bolovanja tijekom razdoblja od četiri godine. Puna se plaća prima za maksimalno 183 dana nesposobnosti tijekom razdoblja od 12 mjeseci. Za dodatno bolovanje korišteno unutar istog dvanaestomjesečnog razdoblja isplaćuje se samo pola plaće, do maksimalno 365 dana plaćenog bolovanja u četverogodišnjem razdoblju.
13 The scheme in question does not distinguish between pregnancy-related illnesses and other forms of illness. It treats absence from work on the ground of pregnancy-related illnesses in the same way as sick leave granted by reason of such other forms of illness. The general conditions of the scheme provide that ‘sickness as a result of a maternity-related illness prior to the granting of 14 weeks’ maternity leave falls to be considered under the Board’s sick-leave policy’.
13 Ovaj sustav ne razlikuje bolesti povezane s trudnoćom od ostalih vrsta bolesti. Njime se nesposobnost za rad zbog bolesti povezanih s trudnoćom izjednačuje s bolovanjem odobrenim zbog drugih vrsta bolesti, jer opći uvjeti sustava predviđaju da se „na nesposobnost koja je posljedica patološkog stanja povezanog s trudnoćom koje nastupi prije14-tjednog rodiljnog dopusta primjenjuje sustav bolovanja Boarda”.
14 Pursuant to those provisions, Ms McKenna was treated as having exhausted her entitlement to full pay on 6 July 2000. She accordingly received half pay from that date until 3 September 2000, the date on which she commenced her maternity leave, which lasted until 11 December 2000.
14 Sukladno tim odredbama, smatralo se da je M. McKenna iskoristila svoje pravo na punu plaću 6. srpnja 2000. Njezina plaća je od toga datuma do 3. rujna 2000., kada je započeo njezin rodiljni dopust koji je trajao do 11. prosinca 2000., smanjena za polovicu.
15 During her maternity leave, Ms McKenna received her full pay in accordance with the regulations applied to the Health Boards by the Department of Health and Children.
15 Tijekom rodiljnog dopusta M. McKenna je primala punu plaću u skladu s propisima koje Ministarstvo za zdravlje i djecu primjenjuje na Health Boards.
16 On the expiry of her maternity leave, Ms McKenna was still unfit for work on medical grounds. Her salary was once again reduced to half pay under the terms of the sick-leave scheme.
16 Po isteku njezinog rodiljnog dopusta, M. McKenna je i dalje bila privremeno nesposobna za rad iz zdravstvenih razloga. Njezina je plaća još jednom smanjena za polovicu na temelju sustava bolovanja.
17 Ms McKenna challenged before the Equality Officer the application of the sick-leave scheme to her situation.
17 M. McKenna je Equality Officerom osporila primjenu sustava bolovanja na svoju situaciju.
18 She contended that she had been the victim of discrimination contrary to Directive 76/207 inasmuch as her pregnancy-related illness had been treated in the same way as a ‘normal’ illness and her period of absence offset against her overall sick-leave entitlement.
18 Ona je tvrdila da je bila žrtva diskriminacije suprotno Direktivi 76/207, budući da se njezino patološko stanje povezano s trudnoćom smatralo običnom bolešću te je razdoblje njezine odsutnosti dodano ukupnom broju dana bolovanja na koje je imala pravo.
19 She also argued that placing her on half pay after the 183-day period during which she had been entitled to full pay constituted unfavourable treatment in respect of pay contrary to Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117.
19 Ona je također tvrdila da je isplata polovice plaće nakon razdoblja od 183 dana tijekom kojeg je imala pravo na punu plaću nepovoljno postupanje s obzirom na plaću koje je u suprotnosti s člankom 141. UEZ-a i Direktive 75/117.
20 By decision of 13 August 2001 the Equality Officer upheld Ms McKenna’s argument. She ordered that the arrears of pay in issue be paid to Ms McKenna together with compensation for the discrimination which she had suffered.
20 Odlukom od 13. kolovoza 2001. Equality Officer prihvatio je argument M. McKenna. Naložio je plaćanje navedenih dugovanja plaće M. McKenna. Također je tužiteljici dodijelio odštetu zbog diskriminacije koju je pretrpjela.
21 The Board appealed to the Labour Court against that decision.
21 Odbor je protiv te odluke uložio žalbu pred Labour Court (Radni sud).
22 The Labour Court first points out that the employer is an extension of the State, with the result that a directive may be relied upon against it.
22 Taj sud je najprije istaknuo da se poslodavac smatra produžetkom države, zbog čega direktiva može biti osnova u postupku protiv njega.
23 It then goes on to point out that the complaint before it comprises two aspects. In the first place, it is necessary to determine whether Ms McKenna was the victim of unequal treatment by reason of the fact that her absence on grounds of a pregnancy-related illness was offset against her total sick-leave entitlement, with the result that the value and duration of sickness benefit due to her over future years will have been diminished or exhausted should she fall ill again. Second, it is necessary to consider whether Ms McKenna was discriminated against in terms of pay by reason of the fact that she was placed on half pay after the first 183 days of absence.
23 Nadalje, istaknuo je da žalba koju razmatra ima dva aspekta. S jedne je strane potrebno utvrditi je li M. McKenna bila žrtva nejednakog postupanja na temelju činjenice da je za privremenu odsutnost zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom dobila naknadu sukladno pravu na ukupno bolovanje, zbog čega će iznos i trajanje naknade za bolovanje na koje ima pravo tijekom budućih godina biti smanjeni ili iskorišteni ako se ponovno razboli. S druge je strane potrebno razmotriti je li M. McKenna bila diskriminirana u pogledu plaće budući da je nakon prvih 183 dana odsutnosti primala pola plaće.
24 In those circumstances the Labour Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
24 U tim je okolnostima Labour Court odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘1. Does the operation of a sick-leave scheme which treats employees suffering from pregnancy-related illnesses and pathological illness in an identical fashion come within the scope of Directive 76/207?
„1. Je li funkcioniranje sustava bolovanja koji izjednačuje zaposlenice koje boluju od bolesti povezane s trudnoćom sa zaposlenicima koji boluju od patoloških bolesti obuhvaćen područjem primjene Direktive 76/207?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it contrary to Directive 76/207 for an employer to offset, against an employee’s total entitlement to benefit under an occupational sick-leave scheme, a period of absence from work due to incapacity caused by a pregnancy-related illness arising during pregnancy?
2. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje potvrdan, je li činjenica da poslodavac, u razdoblje odsutnosti s posla zbog nesposobnosti za rad uslijed bolesti povezane s trudnoćom koja se pojavila tijekom trudnoće, uključi ukupna prava na naknade predviđene sustavom bolovanja u okviru ugovora o radu, u suprotnosti s Direktivom 76/207?
3. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does Directive 76/207 require an employer to have in place special arrangements to cover absence from work due to incapacity caused by pregnancy-related illness arising during pregnancy?
3. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje potvrdan, zahtijeva li Direktiva 76/207 od poslodavca da primijeni posebne odredbe koje pokrivaju odsutnosti s posla zbog nesposobnosti za rad koja je posljedica bolesti povezane s trudnoćom koja se pojavila tijekom trudnoće?
4. Does the operation of a sick-leave scheme which treats employees suffering from pregnancy-related illness and pathological illness [in the same way] come within the scope of Article 141 [EC] and Directive 75/117?
4. Je li sustav bolovanja koji [jednako] tretira zaposlenice koje boluju od bolesti povezanih s trudnoćom sa zaposlenicima koji boluju od patoloških bolesti obuhvaćen područjem primjene članka 141. Direktive 76/117?
5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, is it contrary to Article 141 [EC] and Directive 75/117 for an employer to reduce a woman’s pay after she has been absent from work for a designated period where the absence is caused by incapacity due to a pregnancy-related illness arising during pregnancy in circumstances in which a non-pregnant woman or a man absent from work for the same period as a result of incapacity due to purely pathological illness would suffer the same reduction?’
5. Ako je odgovor na četvrto pitanje potvrdan, je li činjenica da poslodavac ženi smanji plaću nakon odsutnosti s posla u određenom razdoblju ako je razlog odsutnosti nesposobnost zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom koja se pojavila tijekom trudnoće, u uvjetima u kojima bi i žena koja nije trudna ili muškarac, oboje odsutni s posla u istom razdoblju zbog privremene nesposobnosti uzrokovane isključivo patološkom bolesti, pretrpjeli isto smanjenje, u suprotnosti s člankom 141. [UEZ] i Direktivom 75/117?”
The first and fourth questions
Prvo i četvrto pitanje
25 By its first and fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the national court is essentially asking whether a sick-leave scheme which treats in the same way female workers suffering from a pregnancy-related illness and other workers suffering from an illness unrelated to pregnancy comes within the scope of Directive 76/207 or within that of Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117.
25 Svojim prvim i četvrtim pitanjem, koja valja ispitati zajedno, nacionalni sud u biti pita je li sustav bolovanja koji izjednačuje radnice koje boluju od bolesti povezanih s trudnoćom s ostalim radnicima koji boluju od bolesti koje nisu povezane s trudnoćom obuhvaćen područjem primjene Direktive 76/207 ili članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive 75/117.
26 Ms McKenna and the Italian Government take the view that a scheme such as that in issue in the main proceedings is covered by Directive 76/207, inasmuch as it provides that absences resulting from a pregnancy-related illness are to be offset against sick-leave entitlement on other grounds, but that it is also covered by Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117, inasmuch as it results in a reduction in pay after 183 days of absence on grounds of a pregnancy-related illness.
26 M. McKenna i talijanska vlada smatraju da je sustav iz glavnog postupka obuhvaćen Direktivom 76/207, u mjeri u kojoj predviđa uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom u prava na bolovanje iz drugog razloga, ali i da je taj sustav također obuhvaćen člankom 141. UEZ-a i Direktivom 75/117, u mjeri u kojoj za posljedicu ima smanjenje plaće nakon 183 dana odsutnosti zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom.
27 The Board, together with Ireland and the Austrian and United Kingdom Governments, submits that such a scheme is covered only by Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117, as the element in issue in the main proceedings constitutes pay within the terms of those provisions and the reduction in income challenged by Ms McKenna follows directly and automatically from application of that scheme.
27 Board, zajedno s vladama Irske, Austrije i Ujedinjene Kraljevine, smatra da je taj sustav obuhvaćen samo člankom 141. UEZ-a i Direktivom 75/117, budući da element glavnog postupka predstavlja plaća u smislu tih odredbi te smanjenje dohotka koje osporava M. McKenna izravno i automatski proizlazi iz primjene tog sustava.
28 The Commission of the European Communities, by contrast, takes the view that working conditions are here in issue. The effects on pay are, it argues, merely incidental. Directive 76/207 alone is for that reason applicable.
28 Suprotno tomu, Komisija Europskih zajednica smatra da se ovdje radi o uvjetima rada. Ona smatra da su učinci na plaću isključivo neizravni. Zbog toga se primjenjuje samo Direktiva 76/207.
29 It must be recalled in this regard that the continued payment of wages to a worker in the event of illness falls within the concept of ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 141 EC (Case 171/88 Rinner-Kühn [1988] ECR 2743, paragraph 7), a concept which comprises any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his or her employment from his or her employer, and irrespective of whether it is received under a contract of employment, by virtue of legislative provisions or on a voluntary basis (Case C-66/96 Høj Pedersen and Others [1998] ECR I-7327, paragraph 32).
29 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da kontinuirana isplata plaće radniku u slučaju bolesti ulazi u koncept „plaće” u smislu članka 141. UEZ-a (vidjeti presudu od 13. srpnja 1989., Rinner-Kühn, 171/88, Zb., str. 2743., t. 7.), koji obuhvaća sva primanja u gotovini ili u naravi, sadašnja ili buduća, koja radnik u vezi sa zaposlenjem prima od svojeg poslodavca, makar i posredno, bez obzira isplaćuju li se na temelju ugovora o radu, zakonskih odredbi ili na dragovoljnoj osnovi (presuda od 19. studenoga 1998., Høj Pedersen i dr., C-66/96, Zb., str. I-7327., t. 32.).
30 Pay within the terms of Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 cannot also come within the scope of Directive 76/207. As is clear from the second recital in its preamble, Directive 76/207 does not apply to ‘pay’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions (see Case C-342/93 Gillespie and Others [1996] ECR I-475, paragraph 24).
30 Plaća u smislu članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive 75/117 ne može istovremeno ulaziti u područje primjene Direktive 76/207. Kao što se vidi iz njezine druge uvodne izjave, Direktiva 76/207 ne primjenjuje se na „plaću” u smislu gore navedenih odredbi (vidjeti presudu od 13. veljače 1996., Gillespie i dr., C-342/93. Zb., str. I-475., t. 24.).