natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
43 In particular, the Court has already held that the freedom to provide services, as one of the fundamental principles of the Treaty, may be restricted only by rules justified by overriding requirements relating to the public interest and applicable to all persons and businesses operating in the territory of the State where the service is provided, in so far as that interest is not safeguarded by the rules to which the provider of such a service is subject in the Member State where he is established (see, Arblade and Others, paragraph 34, and Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98 Finalarteand Others [2001] ECR I-7831, paragraph 31).
43 Sud je već presudio da se slobodno pružanje usluga kao temeljno načelo Ugovora može ograničiti samo pravilima opravdanim važnim razlozima u općem interesu i koja se primjenjuju na sve osobe i poduzeća koji obavljaju djelatnost na području države članice domaćina, u mjeri u kojoj taj interes nije zaštićen pravilima kojima je pružatelj usluga podvrgnut u državi članici u kojoj ima poslovni nastan (vidjeti presudu Arblade i dr., prethodno navedenu, t. 34. i od 25. listopada 2001., Finalarte i dr., C‑49/98, C‑50/98, C‑52/98 do C‑54/98 i C‑68/98 do C‑71/98, Zb., str. I‑7831., t 31.)
44 That being the case as regards the protection of workers guaranteed by Directive 91/533 and relied on by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, it must be held that the requirement laid down in point 1 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 does not comply with the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71, in so far as it is not applied in compliance with the Treaty.
44 Budući da je to bio slučaj sa zaštitom radnika zajamčenom Direktivom 91/533, na koju se poziva Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, valja utvrditi da zahtjev iz članka 1. stavka 1. točke 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. nije u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 10. prvom alinejom Direktive 96/71, u mjeri u kojoj se ne nameće u skladu s Ugovorom.
The requirement relating to the automatic adjustment of rates of remuneration to the cost of living provided for in Article 1(1)(2) of the Law of 20 December 2002
Odredba o automatskoj prilagodbi plaća kretanju životnih troškova iz članka 1. stavka 1. točke 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
45 It is clear from the Commission's application that the latter does not challenge the fact that minimum wages are indexed to the cost of living, a requirement which, as the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg points out, is unquestionably covered by point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, but the fact that that indexation concerns all wages, including those which do not fall within the minimum wage category.
45 Iz tužbe koju je uložila Komisija proizlazi da ona ne osporava činjenicu da su minimalne plaće usklađene sa životnim troškovima, jer je ta odredba nepobitno obuhvaćena člankom 3. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. točkom (c) Direktive 96/71, kako je napomenulo Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, već okolnost da se to usklađivanje odnosi na sve plaće, uključujući one koje nisu u kategoriji minimalnih plaća.
46 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg submits, however, that point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71 authorises the host Member State by implication to impose its system for determining all wages on undertakings which post workers to its territory.
46 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ipak tvrdi da ta odredba Direktive 96/71 implicitno omogućava državi članici domaćinu da nametne svoj sustav utvrđivanja svih plaća za poduzeća koja upućuju radnike na njihovo državno područje.
47 In that connection, it must be pointed out that the Community legislature intended, by means of point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, to limit the possibility of the Member States intervening as regards pay to matters relating to minimum rates of pay.
47 S tim u vezi valja naglasiti da je zakonodavac Zajednice člankom 3. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. točkom (c) Direktive 96/71 htio ograničiti mogućnost državama članicama da u području plaća interveniraju u minimalne plaće.
It follows that the requirement in the Law of 20 December 2002 concerning the automatic adjustment of rates of pay other than the minimum wage to the cost of living does not fall within the matters referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71.
Iz toga proizlazi da se odredba Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. o automatskom usklađivanju plaća koje nisu minimalne s kretanjem životnih troškova ne odnosi na pitanja iz članka 3. stavka 1. prvog podstavka Direktive 96/71.
48 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg submits, however, that point 2 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is aimed at ensuring good labour relations in Luxembourg and that, on that basis, it constitutes a public policy imperative within the meaning of the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71, by protecting workers from the effects of inflation.
48 Međutim, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg tvrdi da članak 1. stavak 1. točka 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. ima za cilj jamčiti socijalni mir u Luksemburgu i da stoga predstavlja neophodan zahtjev javnog poretka u smislu članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71, jer štiti radnike od učinaka inflacije.
49 In that connection, it must be recalled that that provision of Directive 96/71 gives the host Member State an opportunity to apply to undertakings posting workers to its territory terms and conditions of employment on matters other than those referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, provided that they are public policy provisions.
49 S tim u vezi valja podsjetiti da ta odredba Direktive 96/71 otvara mogućnost državi članici domaćinu da poduzećima koja upućuju radnike na njezino područje nametne uvjete rada i zaposlenja za pitanja koja nisu predviđena člankom 3. stavkom 1. prvim podstavkom Direktive 96/71, pod uvjetom da se radi o odredbama javnog poretka.
That proviso in the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71 constitutes an exception to the system put in place by that directive and a derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services on which the directive is based and must be interpreted strictly.
Zato to pridržavanje javnog poretka iz članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71 predstavlja iznimku od sustava uspostavljenog tom direktivom kao i odstupanje od temeljnog načela slobodnog pružanja usluga na kojem se ta direktiva temelji i treba ga tumačiti usko.
50 Thus the Court has already had occasion to observe that, while the Member States are still, in principle, free to determine the requirements of public policy in the light of their national needs, the notion of public policy in the Community context, particularly when it is cited as justification for a derogation from the fundamental principle of the freedom to provide services, must be interpreted strictly, so that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the European Community institutions (see, to that effect, Case C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609, paragraph 30).
50 Tako je Sud već imao priliku pojasniti da, dok države članice u načelu u skladu s njihovim nacionalnim potrebama imaju slobodu utvrditi zahtjeve javnog poretka, dok u kontekstu Zajednice i osobito kao opravdanje za odstupanje od temeljnog načela slobodnog pružanja usluga taj pojam treba shvatiti strogo, tako da njegov doseg ne može jednostrano utvrditi svaka država članica bez nadzora institucija Europske zajednice (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 14. listopada 2004., Omega, C-36/02, Zb., str. I-9609., t. 30.).
It follows that public policy may be relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society (see Case C-54/99 Église de scientologie [2000] ECR I-1335, paragraph 17).
Iz toga proizlazi da se na javni poredak moguće pozivati samo u slučaju stvarne i dovoljno ozbiljne opasnosti koja utječe na temeljni interes društva (vidjeti presudu od 14. ožujka 2000., Eglise de scientologie, C-54/99, Zb., str. I-1335., t. 17.).
51 It has to be remembered that the reasons which may be invoked by a Member State in order to justify a derogation from the principle of freedom to provide services must be accompanied by appropriate evidence or by an analysis of the expediency and proportionality of the restrictive measure adopted by that State, and precise evidence enabling its arguments to be substantiated (see, to that effect, Case C-254/05 Commission v Belgium [2007] ECR I-4269, paragraph 36, and the case-law cited).
51 Važno je podsjetiti na to da razloge na koje se država članica može pozvati kako bi opravdala odstupanje od načela slobodnog pružanja usluga treba popratiti analizom svrsishodnosti i proporcionalnosti mjere ograničavanja koju donosi ta država te s detaljnim elementima koji omogućavaju podupiranje njezinih argumenata (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 7. lipnja 2007., Komisija/Belgija, C-254/05, Zb., str. I-4269., t. 36. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
52 Therefore, in order to enable the Court to determine whether the measures at issue are necessary and proportionate to the objective of safeguarding public policy, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg should have submitted evidence to establish whether and to what extent the application to workers posted to Luxembourg of the rule concerning automatic adjustment of rates of pay to the cost of living is capable of contributing to the achievement of that objective.
52 Kako bi omogućilo Sudu da ocijeni jesu li sporne mjere potrebne i proporcionalne cilju očuvanja javnog poretka, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg bi stoga moralo podnijeti elemente na temelju kojih bi se moglo utvrditi može li i u kojoj mjeri primjena pravila o automatskom usklađivanju plaća s kretanjem životnih troškova na radnike upućene u Luksemburg doprinijeti ostvarenju ovog cilja.
53 However, in this case the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg merely cited in a general manner the objectives of protecting the purchasing power of workers and good labour relations, without adducing any evidence to enable the necessity for and proportionality of the measures adopted to be evaluated.
53 U ovom predmetu valja utvrditi da se Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ograničilo na opće pozivanje na ciljeve zaštite kupovne moći radnika i socijalni mir, bez predočavanja ikakvih elemenata koji bi omogućili procjenu jesu li usvojene mjere neophodne i proporcionalne.
54 Accordingly, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not shown to the required legal standard that point 2 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 falls under public policy provisions within the meaning of the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71.
54 Slijedom toga, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg po pravnim standardima nije dovoljno dokazalo da je članak 1. stavak 1. točka 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. odredba javnog poretka u smislu članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71.
55 Therefore, that Member State cannot rely on the public policy exception referred to in the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71 in order to apply to undertakings posting staff on its territory the requirement relating to the automatic adjustment of wages other than minimum wages to reflect changes in the cost of living.
55 Stoga se država članica ne može pozivati na iznimku od javnog poretka iz članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71 kako bi poduzećima koje upućuju radnike na njezino državno područje nametnula odredbu u vezi s automatskom prilagodbom plaća koje nisu minimalne kretanju životnih troškova.
The requirement relating to the rules on part-time and fixed-term work laid down in point 8 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002
Odredba o radu na nepuno radno vrijeme i radu na određeno vrijeme predviđena u članku 1. stavku 1. točki 8. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
56 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg submits that such a provision seeks to ensure the protection of workers by guaranteeing the principle of equal treatment and pay as between full and part-time workers, laid down in Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) and Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
56 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg tvrdi da je cilj te odredbe osigurati zaštitu radnika uz jamčenje načela jednakog postupanja i plaća radnika s punim radnim vremenom i onih s nepunim radnim vremenom, kako je utvrđeno Direktivom Vijeća 97/81/EZ od 15. prosinca 1997. o okvirnom sporazumu o radu s nepunim radnim vremenom koji su sklopili UNICE, CEEP i ETUC (SL L 14, str. 9.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 5., svezak 3., str. 131.) i Direktivom Vijeća 19/99/EZ od 28. lipnja 1999. o Okvirnom sporazumu o radu na određeno vrijeme koji su sklopili ETUC, UNICE i CEEP (SL L 175, str. 43.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku: poglavlje 5., svezak 4., str. 228.).
57 The requirement referred to above concerns a matter which is not mentioned in the list in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71.
57 Valja naglasiti da se gornja odredba odnosi na pitanje koje se na nalazi na popisu iz članka 3. stavka 1. prvog podstavka Direktive 96/71.
58 It is not disputed that the obligations arising from point 8 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002, having regard to the accompanying constraints, are likely to hinder the exercise of freedom to provide services by undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg.
58 Nije sporno da obveze uvedene člankom 1. stavkom 1. točkom 8. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002., s obzirom na ograničenja koja ih prate, mogu spriječiti poduzeća koja žele uputiti radnike u Luksemburg pri izvršavanju njihove slobode pružanja usluga.
59 In that connection it is clear that, pursuant to Articles 2(1) of Directives 97/81 and 1999/70, the Member States were to implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with those directives.
59 S tim u vezi valja utvrditi da, na temelju članka 2. stavka 1. direktiva 97/81 i 1999/70, države članice trebaju donijeti zakone i druge propise potrebne za usklađivanje s tim direktivama.
60 Therefore, as compliance with the requirement laid down by the contested national provision is monitored in the Member State in which the undertaking wishing to post workers to Luxembourg is established, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg cannot rely on the public policy exception in the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71 in order to justify the national measure in question, for the same reasons as were set out in paragraphs 41 to 43 of this judgment.
60 Stoga budući da je poštovanje zahtjeva iz sporne nacionalne odredbe predmet nadzora u državi članici u kojoj poduzeće koje želi uputiti radnike u Luksemburg ima poslovni nastan, zbog istih razloga kao što su oni navedeni u točkama 41. do 43. ove presude, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ne može se pozivati na iznimku od javnog poretka iz članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71 kako bi opravdalo spornu nacionalnu odredbu.
61 It follows that point 8 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 does not comply with the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71.
61 Iz toga proizlazi da članak 1. stavak 1. točka 8. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. nije u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 10. prvom alinejom Direktive 96/71.
The requirement relating to imperative provisions of national law in respect of collective agreements in point 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002
Obvezujuće odredbe nacionalnog prava u pogledu kolektivnih ugovora o radu iz članka 1. stavka 1. točke 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
62 The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71 defines the instruments by which the terms and conditions of employment of the host Member State are laid down covering the matters referred to in points (a) to (g) thereof and which are guaranteed to posted workers.
62 Članak 3. stavak 1. prvi podstavak Direktive 96/71 definira instrumente kojima su uvjeti rada i zaposlenja države članice domaćina utvrđeni u pogledu pitanja iz tog podstavka od (a) do (g) i koji se jamče upućenim radnicima.
The second indent of that provision refers in particular to collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable.
Druga alineja ove odredbe odnosi se posebno na kolektivne ugovore proglašene univerzalno primjenjivima.
63 Likewise, Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 states that measures resulting, in particular, from collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable concerning the matters referred to in points 1 to 14 thereof constitute mandatory provisions falling under national public policy.
63 U skladu s ovom odredbom članak 1. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. navodi da su prisilni propisi u području nacionalnog javnog poretka odredbe koje među ostalim proizlaze iz kolektivnih ugovora proglašenih univerzalno primjenjivim, koji se odnose na pitanja iz točaka 1. do 14.
Point 11 mentions provisions concerning collective agreements.
U točki 11. tog Zakona spomenute su odredbe o kolektivnim ugovorima o radu.
64 Such a provision cannot, however, constitute a public policy exception within the meaning of the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71.
64 Takva odredba međutim ne može biti iznimka od javnog poretka u smislu članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71.
65 First, there is no reason why provisions concerning collective agreements, namely provisions which encompass their drawing up and implementation, should per se and without more fall under the definition of public policy.
65 Prvo, ničime nije opravdano što odredbe koje se odnose na kolektivne ugovore o radu, naime na one koje obuhvaćaju njihovu izradu i provedbu, mogu per se i bez daljnjeg pojašnjenja biti obuhvaćene pojmom javnog poretka.
66 Second, such a finding must be made as regards the actual provisions of such collective agreements themselves, which in their entirety and for the simple reason that they derive from that type of measure, cannot fall under that definition either.
66 Drugo, isto vrijedi i za same odredbe tih kolektivnih ugovora koje, u svojoj cijelosti i jednostavno zato što proizlaze iz te vrste akata, također ne mogu biti obuhvaćene tim pojmom.
67 Third, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg cannot argue that point 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 ultimately reflects the discretion granted to Member States under the second indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71.
67 Treće, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ne može podupirati tvrdnju da je u članku 1. stavku 1. točki 11.
Article 3(10) relates exclusively to the terms and conditions of employment laid down in collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable.
Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. in fine konkretizirano ovlaštenje koje je državama članicama dodijeljeno na temelju članka 3. stavka 10. druge alineje Direktive 96/71. Ta se odredba odnosi isključivo na uvjete rada i zaposlenja utvrđene kolektivnim ugovorima proglašenima univerzalno primjenjivima.
That is not the case with respect to point 11 of Article 1(1) which expressly refers, in contrast with the introduction to of Article 1, to mere collective labour agreements.
To nije slučaj s navedenim člankom 1. stavkom 1. točkom 11. koji se, suprotno uvodnoj rečenici tog istog članka 1., izričito odnosi na obične kolektivne ugovore o radu.
68 Accordingly, point 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is not in compliance with the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71.
68 Stoga članak 1. stavak 1. točka 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. nije u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 10. prvom alinejom Direktive 96/71.
69 Consequently, it follows from the foregoing that the Commission's first complaint is well founded.
69 Iz navedenoga stoga slijedi da je prvi prigovor Komisije utemeljen.
The second complaint: incomplete transposition of Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71 relating to compliance with maximum work periods and minimum rest periods
Drugi prigovor nepotpunog prenošenja članka 3. stavka 1. točke (a) Direktive 96/71 o poštovanju maksimalnog radnog vremena i minimalnog vremena odmora
70 By its second complaint, the Commission criticises the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for incomplete transposition of point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71 relating to compliance with maximum work periods and minimum rest periods.
70 Svojim drugim prigovorom Komisija prigovara Velikom Vojvodstvu Luksemburg nepotpuno prenošenje članka 3. stavka 1. podstavka 1. točke (a) Direktive 96/71 o poštovanju maksimalnog radnog vremena i minimalnog vremena odmora.
71 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has acknowledged that this complaint is well founded and has stated that it has adopted Article 4 of the Law of 19 May 2006 amending the Law of 20 December 2002 (Mémorial A 2006, p. 1806) in order to bring its national legislation into line with the relevant Community provisions.
71 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg priznalo je da je taj prigovor utemeljen i navelo je da je članak 4. Zakona od 19. svibnja 2006. o izmjeni Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. (Mémorial A 2006., str. 1806.) donijelo radi usklađivanja nacionalnog zakonodavstva s relevantnim odredbama Zajednice.
72 It must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C-168/03 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8227, paragraph 24; Case C-433/03 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I-6985, paragraph 32; and Case C-354/06 Commission v Luxembourg [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 7).
72 Valja podsjetiti da prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda postojanje povrede obveze treba ocjenjivati prema stanju u državi članici koje je postojalo do proteka roka određenog u obrazloženom mišljenju pa stoga promjene koje su naknadno nastupile Sud ne može uzeti u obzir (vidjeti osobito presude od 14. rujna 2004., Komisija /Španjolska, C-168/03, Zb., str. I-8227, t. 24.; od 14. srpnja 2005., Komisija/Njemačka, C-433/03, Zb., str. I-6985, t. 32.; i od 27. rujna 2007., Komisija/Luksemburg, C-354/06, t. 7.).
73 In this case it is not disputed that when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not adopted the measures necessary to ensure that point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) had been fully transposed in its national law.
73 U ovom slučaju nije sporno da Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg do isteka roka utvrđenog u obrazloženom mišljenju nije donijelo mjere potrebne za potpuno prenošenje članka 3. stavka 1. prvog podstavka točke (a) Direktive 96/71 u svoj nacionalni pravni poredak.
74 Therefore, the Commission's second complaint is well founded.
74 Stoga je drugi prigovor Komisije utemeljen.
The third complaint: infringement of Article 49 EC on account of the lack of clarity of the monitoring arrangements laid down in Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002
Treći prigovor kršenja članka 49. UEZ-a zbog nejasnih postupaka nadzora iz članka 7. stavka 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
75 By its third complaint, the Commission claims that, on account of its lack of clarity, Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is likely to give rise to legal uncertainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg.
75 Komisija u svojem trećem prigovoru tvrdi da članak 7. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. zbog nejasnoće može dovesti do pravne nesigurnosti za poduzeća koja žele uputiti radnike u Luksemburg.