natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
42 It should be added that, as the referring court points out, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings affects young employees unequally, in that it affects young people who enter active life early after little or no vocational training, but not those who start work later after a long period of training.
42 Valja dodati da se nacionalni propis u glavnom postupku odnosi, kako navodi sud koji je uputio zahtjev, nejednako prema mladim zaposlenicima, na način da pogađa mlade koji rano ulaze u aktivan život, bez imalo ili vrlo malo strukovnog obrazovanja, a ne one koji započinju raditi kasnije nakon duljeg obrazovanja.
43 It follows from all the above considerations that the answer to Question 1 is that European Union law, more particularly the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that periods of employment completed by an employee before reaching the age of 25 are not taken into account in calculating the notice period for dismissal.
43 Iz svih ovih razmatranja proizlazi da na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da pravo Unije, a naročito načelo zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi kako je konkretno određeno Direktivom 2000/78, valja tumačiti tako da mu je protivan nacionalni propis, poput onog u predmetu u glavnom postupku, koji predviđa da se razdoblja zaposlenja ostvarena prije nego što je radnik navršio 25 godina starosti ne uzimaju u obzir prilikom izračuna otkaznog roka kod otkaza.
44 By its second question, the referring court asks whether, where it is hearing proceedings between individuals, in order to disapply a national provision which it considers to be contrary to European Union law, it must first, to ensure protection of the legitimate expectations of persons subject to the law, make a reference to the Court under Article 267 TFEU, so that the Court can confirm that the legislation is incompatible with European Union law.
44 Svojim drugim pitanjem, sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita treba li, kada odlučuje u sporu između pojedinaca, s ciljem izuzimanja od primjene nacionalnog propisa za koji smatra da je protivan pravu Unije, prvo, kako bi se osigurala zaštita opravdanih očekivanja strana u sporu, uputiti zahtjev Sudu na temelju članka 267. UFEU-a, tako da Sud može potvrditi neusklađenost tog propisa s pravom Unije.
45 As regards, first, the role of the national court when called on to give judgment in proceedings between individuals in which it is apparent that the national legislation at issue is contrary to European Union law, the Court has held that it is for the national courts to provide the legal protection which individuals derive from the rules of European Union law and to ensure that those rules are fully effective (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-8835, paragraph 111, and Case C-268/06 Impact [2008] ECR I-2483, paragraph 42).
45 Prvo, u pogledu uloge nacionalnog suda kada odlučuje u sporu između pojedinaca gdje je očito da je predmetni nacionalni propis protivan pravu Unije, Sud smatra da nacionalni sudovi trebaju osigurati pravnu zaštitu koja za pojedince proizlazi iz odredaba prava Unije i zajamčiti njihov potpuni učinak (vidjeti, u tom smislu, presudu od 5. listopada 2004., Pfeiffer i dr., C - 397/01 do C - 403/01, Zb., str. I - 8835., t. 111., kao i od 15. travnja 2008., Impact, C - 268/06, Zb., str. I - 2483., t. 42.).
46 In this respect, where proceedings between individuals are concerned, the Court has consistently held that a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be relied on as such against an individual (see, inter alia, Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 48; Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] ECR I-3325, paragraph 20; and Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 108).
46 S tim u vezi, kada se radi o sporu između pojedinaca, Sud je dosljedno smatrao da direktiva ne može stvarati obveze za pojedinca te se stoga protiv njega nije moguće pozivati na direktivu kao takvu (vidjeti, osobito, presudu od 26. veljače 1986., Marshall, 152/84, Zb., str. 723., t. 48.; od 14. srpnja 1994., Faccini Dori, C - 91/92, Zb., str. I - 3325., t. 20., kao i ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 108.).
47 However, the Member States' obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisaged by that directive and their duty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation are binding on all the authorities of the Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts (see, inter alia, to that effect, Case 14/83 von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 26; Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8; Faccini Dori, paragraph 26; Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie [1997] ECR I-7411, paragraph 40; Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 110; and Joined Cases C-378/07 to C-380/07 Angelidaki and Others [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 106).
47 Međutim, obveza država članica, koja proizlazi iz direktive, da ostvari rezultat predviđen tom direktivom i da poduzme sve opće ili pojedinačne mjere potrebne kako bi se osiguralo ispunjavanje te obveze, odnosi se na sva tijela država članica uključujući i na sudove u okviru njihovih nadležnosti (vidjeti, osobito, u tom smislu, presudu od 10. travnja 1984., von Colson i Kamann, 14/83, Zb., str. 1891., t. 26.; od 13. Studenoga 1990., Marleasing, C - 106/89, Zb., str. I - 4135., t. 8.; ranije navedenu presudu Faccini Dori, t. 26.; od 18. prosinca 1997., Inter - Environnement Wallonie, C - 129/96, Zb., str. I - 7411., t. 40.; ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 110., kao i od 23. travnja 2009., Angelidaki i dr., C - 378/07 do C - 380/07, još neobjavljeno u Zb., t. 106.).
48 It follows that, in applying national law, the national court called on to interpret it is required to do so, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in question, in order to achieve the result pursued by the directive and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU (see, to that effect, von Colson and Kamann, paragraph 26; Marleasing, paragraph 8; Faccini Dori, paragraph 26; and Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 113).
48 Iz toga proizlazi da nacionalni sud, koji prilikom primjene nacionalnog prava mora tumačiti to pravo, ima obvezu svoje tumačenje u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri uskladiti s tekstom i svrhom te direktive kako bi ostvario njome propisani rezultat i na taj način poštovao obvezu iz trećeg stavka članka 288. UFEU - a (vidjeti, u tom smislu, ranije navedene presude von Colson i Kamann, t. 26.; Marleasing, t. 8.; Faccini Dori, t. 26., kao i Pfeiffer i dr., t. 113.).
The requirement for national law to be interpreted in conformity with European Union law is inherent in the system of the Treaty, since it permits the national court, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness of European Union law when it determines the dispute before it (see, to that effect, Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 114).
Zahtjev usklađenog tumačenja nacionalnog prava svojstven je sustavu Ugovora, jer omogućava nacionalnom sudu da u okviru svojih nadležnosti osigura punu učinkovitost prava Unije kada odlučuje u sporovima pred njim (vidjeti, u tom smislu, ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 114.).
49 According to the national court, however, because of its clarity and precision, the second sentence of Paragraph 622(2) of the BGB is not open to an interpretation in conformity with Directive 2000/78.
49 Međutim, prema mišljenju suda koji je uputio zahtjev, zbog njegove jasnoće i preciznosti, članak 622. stavak 2. drugi podstavak BGB - a nije moguće tumačiti u skladu s Direktivom 2000/78.
50 It must be recalled here that, as stated in paragraph 20 above, Directive 2000/78 merely gives expression to, but does not lay down, the principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation, and that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age is a general principle of European Union law in that it constitutes a specific application of the general principle of equal treatment (see, to that effect, Mangold, paragraphs 74 to 76).
50 S tim u vezi valja podsjetiti, s jedne strane, kako je navedeno u točki 20. ove presude, da Direktiva 2000/78 samo konkretizira ali ne utvrđuje načelo jednakog postupanja pri zapošljavanju i obavljanju zanimanja i, s druge strane, da je načelo zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi opće načelo prava Unije s obzirom da predstavlja posebnu primjenu općeg načela jednakog postupanja (vidjeti, u tom smislu, ranije navedenu presudu Mangold, t. 74. do 76.).
51 In those circumstances, it for the national court, hearing a dispute involving the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression in Directive 2000/78, to provide, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the legal protection which individuals derive from European Union law and to ensure the full effectiveness of that law, disapplying if need be any provision of national legislation contrary to that principle (see, to that effect, Mangold, paragraph 77).
51 U tim okolnostima nacionalni sud, koji odlučuje u sporu u vezi s načelom zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi, kako je konkretno određeno Direktivom 2000/78, treba u okviru svojih nadležnosti osigurati pravnu zaštitu koja za pojedince proizlazi iz prava Unije i zajamčiti potpuni učinak tog prava, izuzimajući od primjene prema potrebi sve odredbe nacionalnog propisa protivne tom načelu (vidjeti, u tom smislu, ranije navedenu presudu Mangold, t. 77.).
52 As regards, second, the obligation of the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of European Union law before it can disapply a national provision which it considers to be contrary to that law, it is apparent from the order for reference that this aspect of the question has been raised because, under national law, the referring court cannot decline to apply a national provision in force unless that provision has first been declared unconstitutional by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court).
52 Drugo, u pogledu obveze nacionalnog suda koji odlučuje u sporu između pojedinaca da uputi zahtjev Sudu za prethodnu odluku o tumačenju prava Unije prije nego izuzme od primjene nacionalnu odredbu koju smatra protivnom tom pravu, iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku očito je da je taj aspekt pitanja postavljen zato što na temelju nacionalnog prava sud koji je uputio zahtjev ne može izuzeti od primjene važeću odredbu nacionalnog zakonodavstva, osim ako tu odredbu Bundesverfassungsgericht (Savezni ustavni sud) prethodno ne proglasi neustavnom.
53 The need to ensure the full effectiveness of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78, means that the national court, faced with a national provision falling within the scope of European Union law which it considers to be incompatible with that principle, and which cannot be interpreted in conformity with that principle, must decline to apply that provision, without being either compelled to make or prevented from making a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling before doing so.
53 S tim u vezi valja istaknuti da potreba osiguranja potpune učinkovitosti načela zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi, kako je konkretno određeno Direktivom 2000/78, znači da nacionalni sud, kada je suočen s nacionalnom odredbom koja ulazi u područje primjene prava Unije, za koju smatra da nije u skladu s navedenim načelom i čije tumačenje u skladu s tim načelom nije moguće, mora izuzeti od primjene takvu odredbu a da nije prisiljen ili spriječen uputiti zahtjev Sudu za prethodnu odluku prije nego što to učini.
54 The possibility thus given to the national court by the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU of asking the Court for a preliminary ruling before disapplying the national provision that is contrary to European Union law cannot, however, be transformed into an obligation because national law does not allow that court to disapply a provision it considers to be contrary to the constitution unless the provision has first been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.
54 Tako se mogućnost dodijeljena nacionalnom sudu člankom 267. drugim stavkom UFEU-a da uputi Sudu zahtjev za prethodnu odluku prije izuzimanja od primjene nacionalne odredbe protivne pravu Unije ne može, međutim, pretvoriti u obavezu zato što nacionalno pravo ne dopušta tom sudu neprimjenu nacionalne odredbe koju smatra suprotnom ustavu, osim ako je Ustavni sud prethodno proglasio takvu odredbu neustavnom.
By reason of the principle of the primacy of European Union law, which extends also to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, contrary national legislation which falls within the scope of European Union law must be disapplied (see, to that effect, Mangold, paragraph 77).
Na temelju načela prvenstva prava Unije, koje obuhvaća također načelo zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi, nacionalni propis koji ulazi u područje primjene prava Unije te je protivan tom pravu ne smije se primjenjivati (vidjeti, u tom smislu, ranije navedenu presudu Mangold, t. 77.).
55 It follows that the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, is not obliged but is entitled to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression by Directive 2000/78, before disapplying a provision of national law which it considers to be contrary to that principle.
55 Iz ovih razmatranja proizlazi da nacionalni sud, koji odlučuje u sporu između pojedinaca, nema obavezu, nego mogućnost uputiti Sudu zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o tumačenju načela zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi, kako je konkretno određeno Direktivom 2000/78, prije izuzimanja od primjene odredbe nacionalnog propisa koju smatra protivnom tom načelu.
The optional nature of such a reference is not affected by the conditions of national law under which a court may disapply a national provision which it considers to be contrary to the constitution.
Fakultativni karakter takvog zahtjeva ne ovisi o uvjetima nacionalnog prava na temelju kojih nacionalni sud može izuzeti od primjene nacionalnu odredbu koju smatra protivnom ustavu.
56 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 2 is that it is for the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78, is complied with, disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national legislation, independently of whether it makes use of its entitlement, in the cases referred to in the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to ask the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that principle.
56 S obzirom na prethodno navedeno, na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da nacionalni sud, koji odlučuje u sporu između pojedinaca, treba osigurati poštovanje načela zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi, kako je konkretno određeno Direktivom 2000/78, izuzimajući od primjene prema potrebi sve odredbe nacionalnog propisa protivne tom načelu, neovisno o iskorištavanju mogućnosti kojom raspolaže, u slučajevima predviđenim člankom 267. drugim stavkom UFEU-a, da uputi Sudu zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o tumačenju toga načela.
1. European Union law, more particularly the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that periods of employment completed by an employee before reaching the age of 25 are not taken into account in calculating the notice period for dismissal.
1. Pravo Unije, a posebno načelo zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi, kako je konkretno određeno Direktivom Vijeća 2000/78 od 27. studenoga 2000. o uspostavi općeg okvira za jednako postupanje pri zapošljavanju i obavljanju zanimanja, treba tumačiti tako da mu je protivan nacionalni propis, poput onog u predmetu u glavnom postupku, koji predviđa da se razdoblja zaposlenja ostvarena prije nego što je radnik navršio 25 godina starosti ne uzimaju u obzir prilikom izračuna otkaznog roka kod otkaza.
2. It is for the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78, is complied with, disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national legislation, independently of whether it makes use of its entitlement, in the cases referred to in the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that principle.
2. Nacionalni sud, koji odlučuje u sporu između pojedinaca, treba osigurati poštovanje načela zabrane diskriminacije na temelju dobi, kako je konkretno određeno Direktivom 2000/78, izuzimajući od primjene prema potrebi sve protivne odredbe nacionalnog prava, neovisno o iskorištavanju mogućnosti kojom raspolaže, u slučajevima predviđenim člankom 267. stavkom 2. UFEU-a, da uputi Sudu zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o tumačenju toga načela.
(Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2005/36/EC - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - Proximity - Provision of medicinal products to the public - Operating licence - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Establishment of limits based on population density - Minimum distance between pharmacies - Candidates who have pursued professional activities on part of the national territory - Priority - Discrimination)
„Članak 49. UFEU-a - Direktiva 2005/36/EZ - Sloboda poslovnog nastana - Javno zdravlje - Ljekarne - Blizina - Opskrba stanovništva lijekovima - Dozvola za rad - Teritorijalna raspodjela ljekarni - Utvrđivanje ograničenja na temelju gustoće naseljenosti - Minimalna udaljenost između ljekarni - Kandidati koji obavljaju profesionalnu djelatnost na dijelu državnog područja - Prioritet - Diskriminacija"
REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain), made by decisions of 26 October and 22 October 2007, received at the Court on 24 December and 27 December 2007, in the proceedings
povodom zahtjevâ za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UFEU-a, koje je uputio Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Visoki sud Asturije, Španjolska), odlukama od 26. listopada i 22. listopada 2007., koje je Sud zaprimio 24. prosinca 2007., u postupku
José Manuel Blanco Pérez,
José Manuel Blanco Pérez,
María del Pilar Chao Gómez
María del Pilar Chao Gómez
v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios (C-570/07),
protiv Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios (C-570/07),
Principado de Asturias (C-571/07),
Principado de Asturias (C-571/07),
intervening parties:
uz sudjelovanje:
Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles (C-570/07),
Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles (C-570/07),
Plataforma para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias (C-570/07),
Plataforma para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias (C-570/07),
Celso Fernández Gómez (C-571/07),
Celso Fernández Gómez (C-571/07),
Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España,
Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España,
Plataforma para la Defensa del Modelo Mediterráneo de Farmacias,
Plataforma para la Defensa del Modelo Mediterráneo de Farmacias,
Muy Ilustre Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia,
Muy Ilustre Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia,
Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)
Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED),
composed of V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts and E. Levits, Presidents of Chambers, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), U. Lõhmus, A. Ó Caoimh and L. Bay Larsen, Judges,
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, K. Lenaerts i E. Levits, predsjednici vijeća, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský (izvjestitelj), U. Lõhmus, A. Ó Caoimh i L. Bay Larsen, suci,
Mr Blanco Pérez, Ms Chao Gómez and the Plataforma para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias, by D. Cueva Díaz, abogado,
za J. M. Blanca Péreza, M. Chao Gómez i Plataformu para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias, D. Cueva Díaz, abogado,
the Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios and the Principado de Asturias, by R. Paredes Ojanguren, abogado,
za Consejeríju de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios i Principado de Asturias, R. Paredes Ojanguren, abogado,
the Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles, by R. Ariño Sánchez, abogado,
za Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles, R. Ariño Sánchez, abogado,
the Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España, by A. García Castillo, C. Ruixo Claramunt, M. Troncoso Ferrer and I. Igartua Arregui, abogados,
za Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España, A. García Castillo, C. Ruixo Claramunt, M. Troncoso Ferrer i I. Igartua Arregui, abogados,
the Plataforma para la Defensa del Modelo Mediterráneo de Farmacias and the Muy Ilustre Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia, by E. Navarro Varona and E. García Aguado, abogados,
za Plataformu para la Defensa del Modelo Mediterráneo de Farmacias i Muy Ilustre Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia, E. Navarro Varona i E. GarcíaAguado, abogados,
the Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED), by J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster, abogado,
za Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED), J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster, abogado,
the Spanish Government, by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent,
za španjolsku vladu, J. M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, u svojstvu agenta,
the Belgian Government, by L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agent,
za belgijsku vladu, L. Van den Broeck, u svojstvu agenta,
the Greek Government, by K. Georgiadis, S. Alexandridou and V. Karra, acting as Agents,
za grčku vladu, K. Georgiadis, S. Alexandridou i V. Karra, u svojstvu agenata,
the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato,
za talijansku vladu, G. Palmieri, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato,
the Portuguese Government, by L. Inez Fernandes and A.P. Antunes, acting as Agents,
za portugalsku vladu, L. Inez Fernandes i A. P. Antunes, u svojstvu agenata,
the Slovak Government, by J. Čorba, acting as Agent,
za slovačku vladu, J. Čorba, u svojstvu agenta,
the European Commission, by E. Traversa, R. Vidal Puig and G. Luengo, acting as Agents,
za Europsku komisiju, E. Traversa, R. Vidal Puig i G. Luengo, u svojstvu agenata,
1 These references for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU.
1 Zahtjevi za prethodnu odluku odnose se na tumačenje članka 49. UFEU-a.
2 The references were submitted in the course of proceedings brought by Mr Blanco Pérez and Ms Chao Gómez against, on the one hand, the Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios (Ministry of Health and Public Health Services) (C-570/07) and, on the other, the Principado de Asturias (C-571/07), concerning a call for applications in connection with the issue of licences to open new pharmacies in the Autonomous Community of Asturias.
2 Zahtjevi su upućeni u okviru sporova između J. M. Blanco Pérez i M. P. Chao Gómez protiv, s jedne strane, Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios (državno tijelo nadležno za zdravstvo i javnozdravstvene usluge) (C-570/07) i, s druge strane, Principado de Asturias (C-571/07), a koji se odnose na poziv za podnošenje zahtjeva u vezi s izdavanjem dozvola za otvaranje novih ljekarni u autonomnoj zajednici Asturiji.