natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
10 Article 2 of the directive, ‘Concept of discrimination’, provides:
10 Članak 2. te direktive, naslovljen „Pojam diskriminacije”, određuje:
(i) that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, or
"i. ako su ta odredba, mjerilo ili postupanje objektivno opravdani legitimnim ciljem, a sredstva za postizanje tog cilja su primjerena i nužna; ili"
11 Article 5 of the directive, ‘Reasonable accommodation for disabled persons’, reads as follows:
11 Članak 5. iste direktive pod naslovom „Razumne prilagodbe potrebama osoba s invaliditetom”, glasi:
‘In order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.’
„Kako bi se zajamčilo poštovanje načela jednakog postupanja u pogledu osoba s invaliditetom, moraju se osigurati razumne prilagodbe njihovim posebnim potrebama. To znači da poslodavci prema potrebi u određenoj situaciji poduzimaju odgovarajuće mjere kako bi se osobi s invaliditetom omogućio pristup zapošljavanju, sudjelovanje ili napredovanje na radu ili usavršavanje, ako takve mjere za poslodavca ne predstavljaju nerazmjeran teret. Taj se teret neće smatrati nerazmjernim ako se u dovoljnoj mjeri podupre postojećim mjerama politike za zaštitu osoba s invaliditetom dotične države članice.”
Danish law
Dansko pravo
12 Paragraph 2 of the Law on the legal relationship between employers and salaried employees (Lov om retsforholdet mellem arbejdsgivere og funktionærer, ‘the FL’) provides:
12 Članak 2. Zakona o pravnim odnosima između poslodavaca i zaposlenika (Lov om retsforholdet mellem arbejdsgivere og funktionærer, dalje u tekstu: FL) određuje:
‘1. The employment contract between the employer and the employee may be terminated only after prior notice has been given in accordance with the rules stated below. This shall also apply to the termination of a fixed-term employment contract before expiry of the employment contract.
„1. Ugovor o radu između poslodavca i zaposlenika može se okončati samo nakon otkaznog roka u skladu s dolje navedenim uvjetima. To se također odnosi na prekid ugovora o radu na određeno vrijeme prije isteka ugovora o radu.
2. Termination of the employment contract on the part of the employer must take place with at least
2. Ako poslodavac prekine ugovor o radu, otkazni rok mora trajati najmanje:
(1) one month’s notice, expiring at the end of a month, during the first six months’ employment,
(1) mjesec dana, do posljednjeg dana sljedećeg mjeseca, tijekom prvih šest mjeseci zaposlenja,
(2) three months’ notice, expiring at the end of a month, after six months’ employment.
(2) tri mjeseca, do posljednjeg dana sljedećeg mjeseca, nakon šest mjeseci zaposlenja.
3. The period of notice in subparagraph 2(2) shall be increased by one month for every three years of service, subject to a maximum of six months.’
3. Otkazni rok iz stavka 2. točke 2. produljuje se za jedan mjesec svake tri godine zaposlenja, do najviše šest mjeseci.”
13 Paragraph 5 of the FL, which provides inter alia that a salaried worker is entitled to receive his salary when absent because of illness, states:
13 Članak 5. FL-a, koji između ostalog predviđa da zaposlenik ima pravo primati plaću ako je odsutan zbog bolesti, određuje:
‘1. If the salaried employee becomes unable to carry out his work because of illness, the resulting absence from work shall be regarded as lawful absence on his part unless he has contracted the disease intentionally or by gross negligence during the employment relationship or he has fraudulently failed to disclose at the time when he took on the job that he was suffering from the disease in question.
„1. Ako zaposlenik zbog bolesti više ne može obavljati svoj posao, odsutnost s radnog mjesta iz tog razloga treba smatrati opravdanom, osim ako se nakon prekida ugovora o radu razbolio namjerno ili zbog grubog nemara ili je dotičnu bolest zatajio u trenutku zaposlenja s ciljem prijevare.
2. However, it may be stipulated by written agreement in the individual employment relationship that the employee may be dismissed with one month’s notice to expire at the end of a month, if the employee has received his salary during periods of illness for a total period of 120 days during any period of 12 consecutive months. The validity of the notice shall be dependent on it being given immediately on the expiry of the 120 days of illness and while the employee is still ill, but its validity shall not be affected by the employee’s return to work after the notice of dismissal has been given.’
2. Međutim, u pisanom ugovoru o radu može se predvidjeti otkazni rok od mjesec dana po isteku sljedećeg mjeseca, ako u bilo kojem razdoblju od 12 uzastopnih mjeseci zaposlenik prima plaću tijekom bolovanja u trajanju od ukupno 120 dana. Otkaz je valjan ako se uruči odmah po isteku 120 dana bolovanja i tijekom bolovanja, a ako se zaposlenik vrati na posao nakon što primi obavijest o otkazu, to ne utječe na njegovu valjanost.”
14 Directive 2000/78 was transposed into national law by Law No 1417 amending the law on the prohibition of discrimination on the labour market (Lov nr. 1417 om ændring af lov om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på arbejdsmarkedet m.v.) of 22 December 2004 (‘the Anti-Discrimination Law’). Paragraph 2a of the Anti-Discrimination Law provides:
14 Direktiva 2000/78 prenesena je u dansko pravo Zakonom br. 1417 koji je izmijenio zakon o zabrani diskriminacije na tržištu rada ( lov nr. 1417 om andring af lov om forbud mod forskelsbehandling pa arbejdsmarkedet m.v.) od 22. prosinca 2004. (u daljnjem tekstu „Zakon o zabrani diskriminacije”). Članak 2.a Zakona o zabrani diskriminacije predviđa:
‘Employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to enable a person with a disability to undergo training. This does not however apply if such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be regarded as disproportionate if it is sufficiently remedied by public measures.’
„Poslodavci prema potrebi u određenoj situaciji poduzimaju odgovarajuće mjere kako bi se osobi s invaliditetom omogućio pristup zapošljavanju, sudjelovanje ili napredovanje na radu ili usavršavanje. To se ne primjenjuje ako takve mjere za poslodavca predstavljaju nerazmjeran teret. Taj se teret neće smatrati nerazmjernim ako se u dovoljnoj mjeri podupre javnim mjerama.”
15 From 1996 Ms Ring was employed in Lyngby (Denmark) by the housing association Boligorganisationen Samvirke, and then from 17 July 2000 by DAB, which took over Boligorganisationen Samvirke. Ms Ring was absent on several occasions from 6 June 2005 to 24 November 2005. The medical certificates stated inter alia that she was suffering from constant lumbar pain which could not be treated. No prognosis could be made as regards the prospect of returning to full-time employment.
15 J. Ring je od 1996. bila zaposlenica organizacije za neprofitno stanovanje Boligorganisationen Samvirke u Lyngbyu (Danska), a od 17. srpnja 2000. u DAB-u koji je preuzeo Boligorganisationen Samvirke. J. Ring je bila odsutna u nekoliko navrata od 6. lipnja 2005. do 24. studenoga 2005. U liječničkim potvrdama se, između ostalog, navodi da pati od stalne boli u predjelu lumbalnog dijela kralježnice, koja se ne može liječiti. Nikakve prognoze o mogućem povratku na puno radno vrijeme nisu bile moguće.
16 By letter from DAB of 24 November 2005, Ms Ring was dismissed, in accordance with Paragraph 5(2) of the FL.
16 Dopisom DAB-a od 24. studenog 2005. J. Ring je bila obaviještena o otkazu u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 2. FL-a.
17 According to the documents before the Court, the working area was altered after her dismissal. DAB submitted an estimate dated 3 September 2008, at a total cost of ‘approx. DKK 305 000 (+ a little)’, for ‘a reception desk with a number of workstations behind it’, ‘removing and replacing old carpet’ and installing ‘adjustable-height desks’.
17 Iz spisa koji je dostavljen Sudu proizlazi da je radni prostor preuređen nakon tog otkaza. DAB je dostavio predračun od 3. rujna 2008. u ukupnom iznosu od „otprilike DKK 305 000 (+ razlika)” za „recepcijski pult i nekoliko radnih postaja iza njega”, „zamjenu starih tepiha”, i postavljanje „radnih stolova podesive visine”.
18 On 1 February 2006 Ms Ring started a new job as a receptionist for ADRA Danmark, working for 20 hours a week. The parties to the main proceedings in Case C-335/11 agree that her workstation is a normal workstation which includes an adjustable-height desk.
18 1. veljače 2006. J. Ring je počela raditi kao recepcionarka za ADRA Danska uz satnicu od 20 sati tjedno. Stranke glavnog postupka u predmetu C-335/11 slažu se da je njezino mjesto rada obično i da obuhvaća, između ostalog, stol podesive visine.
19 Ms Skouboe Werge started work for Pro Display in 1998 as an office assistant/management secretary. On 19 December 2003 she was the victim of a road accident and suffered whiplash injuries. She was then on sick leave for about three weeks. She was subsequently absent because of illness for a few days only. On 4 November 2004 the director of accounts of Pro Display sent the staff an email informing them that, by agreement, Ms Skouboe Werge would be on part-time sick leave for four weeks, during which she would work for about four hours a day. Pro Display was reimbursed the part of Ms Skouboe Werge’s pay which corresponded to the daily sickness allowances.
19 L. Skouboe Werge počela je raditi za Pro Display 1998 kao poslovna tajnica uprave. 19. prosinca 2003. bila je žrtva prometne nezgode i pretrpjela je distorziju vratne kralježnice. Nakon toga bila je na bolovanju oko tri tjedna. Poslije je bila odsutna zbog bolesti samo nekoliko dana. Voditelj računovodstva Pro Displaya je 4. studenoga 2004. osoblju poslao elektroničku poruku u kojoj ih obavješćuje da je L. Skouboe Werge na sporazumnom skraćenom bolovanju četiri tjedna, tijekom kojih će raditi oko 4 sata dnevno. Društvu Pro Display izvršen je povrat plaće L. Skouboe Werge u visini naknade za bolovanje.
20 On Monday 10 January 2005 Ms Skouboe Werge went on full-time sick leave. By email of 14 January 2006 she informed Pro Display’s managing director that she was still very poorly and was to consult a specialist that day. According to a medical report of 17 January 2005, she had seen the doctor that day and had said that she had been unfit for work from 10 January 2005. The doctor considered that that unfitness for work would last for a further month. In a medical report of 23 February 2005, the same doctor said that he could not give an opinion on the duration of the unfitness for work.
20 Od ponedjeljka 10. siječnja 2005. L. Skouboe Werge bila je na punom bolovanju. Elektroničkom poštom od 14. siječnja 2005. obavijestila je izvršnog direktora Pro Display-a da se još uvijek osjeća loše i da će istoga dana posjetiti liječnika specijalista. U liječničkom nalazu od 17. siječnja 2005. potvrđuje se da je tog dana posjetila liječnika i da je proglašena nesposobnom za rad od 10. siječnja 2005. Liječnik je smatrao da će biti nesposobna za rad još mjesec dana. U liječničkom nalazu od 23. veljače 2005. isti je liječnik izjavio da ne može procijeniti trajanje nesposobnosti za posao.
21 By letter of 21 April 2005 Ms Skouboe Werge was dismissed with one month’s notice expiring on 31 May 2005.
21 Pismom od 21. travnja 2005. L. Skouboe Werge obaviještena je o otkazu s otkaznim rokom do 31. svibnja 2005.
22 Ms Skouboe Werge underwent an assessment procedure at Jobcenter Randers, which concluded that she was capable of working for about eight hours a week at a slow pace. In June 2006 she was granted early retirement on the ground of her incapacity for work. In 2007 the Arbejdsskadestyrelsen (National office for accidents at work and occupational diseases) assessed Ms Skouboe Werge’s degree of invalidity at 10% and her loss of working capacity at 50%, subsequently revised to 65%.
22 L. Skouboe Werge prošla je postupak procjene pri Zavodu za zapošljavanje u Randersu, gdje se zaključilo da je sposobna za rad otprilike osam sati tjedno u laganom ritmu. U lipnju 2006. bila je prijevremeno umirovljena na temelju nesposobnosti za rad. Arbejdsskadestyrelsen (Nacionalni ured za nezgode pri radu i profesionalne bolesti) je 2007. procijenio njezin stupanj invaliditeta na 10 % i gubitak radne sposobnosti na 50 %, koji je naknadno ponovno procijenjen na 65 %.
23 The trade union HK, acting on behalf of the two applicants in the main proceedings, brought proceedings against their employers in the Sø- og Handelsret (Maritime and Commercial Court), seeking compensation on the basis of the Anti-Discrimination Law. HK submits that both employees were suffering from a disability and that their employers were required to offer them reduced working hours, by virtue of the obligation to provide accommodation pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 2000/78. HK also argues that Paragraph 5(2) of the FL cannot apply to those two employees, because their absences because of illness were the result of their disability.
23 HK, sindikat radnika, koji zastupa dvije tužiteljice u glavnom postupku, podnio je tužbu protiv njihovih poslodavaca pred Sø-og Handelsret potražujući naknadu na temelju Zakona protiv diskriminacije. HK navodi da su obje zaposlenice osobe s invaliditetom i da su njihovi poslodavci bili dužni ponuditi im skraćenu satnicu na temelju obveze prilagodbe prema članku 5. Direktive 2000/78. HK također tvrdi da se članak 5. stavak 2. FL-a ne može primjenjivati na te dvije zaposlenice budući da je njihova odsutnost zbog bolesti posljedica njihova invaliditeta.
24 In both main proceedings the employers dispute that the applicants’ state of health is covered by the concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78, since the only incapacity that affects them is that they are not able to work full-time. They also dispute that reduced working hours are among the measures contemplated by Article 5 of that directive. They submit, finally, that, in cases of absence on grounds of illness caused by a disability, the dismissal of a worker with a disability pursuant to Paragraph 5(2) of the FL does not constitute discrimination, and is not therefore contrary to that directive.
24 U oba glavna postupka poslodavci osporavaju da je zdravstveno stanje tužiteljica obuhvaćeno pojmom „invaliditeta” u smislu Direktive 2000/78, budući da su nesposobne samo u smislu da ne mogu raditi puno radno vrijeme. Također se osporava da mjere iz članka 5. te direktive obuhvaćaju skraćeno radno vrijeme. Na kraju navode da u slučaju odsutnosti zbog bolesti uzrokovane invaliditetom, otkaz radnika s invaliditetom sukladno stavku 5. točki 2. FL-a nije diskriminacija i nije u suprotnosti s tom direktivom.
25 The referring court observes that in paragraph 45 of its judgment in Case C-13/05 Chacón Navas [2006] ECR I-6467 the Court stated that, for a limitation of the capacity to participate in professional life to fall within the concept of ‘disability’, it must be probable that it will last for a long time.
25 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev primjećuje da je u točki 45. presude od 11. srpnja 2006. u predmetu Chacón Navas (C-13/05, Zb., str. I-6467.) Sud potvrdio da, kako bi ograničenje sposobnosti sudjelovanja u profesionalnoj karijeri potpalo pod pojam „invaliditeta”, mora biti vjerojatno da će ono biti dugotrajno.
26 In those circumstances, the Sø- og Handelsret decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions, which are formulated in the same terms in Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
26 U tim je okolnostima Sø-og Handelsret odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja koja u predmetima C-335/11 i C-337/11 glase jednako:
‘1. (a) Is any person who, because of physical, mental or psychological impairments, cannot or can only to a limited extent carry out his work in a period that satisfies the requirement as to duration specified in paragraph 45 of the judgment [in Chacón Navas] covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of [Directive 2000/78]?
„1. (a) Može li se pojam invaliditeta u smislu Direktive 2000/78 […] odnositi na osobu koja zbog tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja ne može ili samo u ograničenoj mjeri može obavljati svoj posao u razdoblju koje zadovoljava uvjete u vezi s trajanjem koje je navedeno u točki 45. presude [Chacón Navas, gore navedena]?
(b) Can a condition caused by a medically diagnosed incurable illness be covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of the directive?
(b) Može li se stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao neizlječiva obuhvatiti pojmom invaliditeta u smislu te direktive?
(c) Can a condition caused by a medically diagnosed temporary illness be covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of the directive?
(c) Može li se stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao izlječiva obuhvatiti pojmom invaliditeta u smislu te direktive?
2. Should a permanent reduction in functional capacity which does not entail a need for special aids or the like but means solely or essentially that the person concerned is not able to work full-time be regarded as a disability in the sense in which that term is used in [Directive 2000/78]?
2. Treba li se trajno smanjenje radne sposobnosti koje ne zahtijeva posebna pomagala ili slično, već znači samo to da u biti dotična osoba nije sposobna raditi puno radno vrijeme, smatrati invaliditetom u smislu u kojem se taj pojam koristi u Direktivi 2000/78?
3. Is a reduction in working hours among the measures covered by Article 5 of [Directive 2000/78]?
3. Je li kraće radno vrijeme jedna od mjera iz članka 5. Direktive 2000/78?
4. Does [Directive 2000/78] preclude the application of a provision of national law under which an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee with a shortened notice period where the employee has received his salary during periods of illness for a total of 120 days within a period of 12 consecutive months, in the case of an employee who must be regarded as disabled within the meaning of the directive, where
4. Sprječava li Direktiva 2000/78 primjenu odredbi nacionalnog prava prema kojima poslodavac može otpustiti zaposlenika uz kraći otkazni rok ako ukupno 120 dana u razdoblju od 12 uzastopnih mjeseci zaposlenik, kojeg u smislu direktive treba smatrati osobom s invaliditetom, prima plaću tijekom bolovanja, ako je:
(a) the absence is caused by the disability,
(a) odsutnost uzrokovana invaliditetom,
(b) the absence is due to the fact that the employer has not implemented the measures appropriate in the specific situation to enable a person with a disability to perform his work?’
(b) odsutnost uzrokovana činjenicom da poslodavac nije proveo odgovarajuće konkretne mjere kojima bi se osobi s invaliditetom omogućilo da obavlja svoj posao?”
27 By order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2011, Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and the judgment.
27 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 4. kolovoza 2011., predmeti C-335/11 i C-337/11 spojeni su u svrhu pisanog i usmenog postupka kao i presude.
28 It should be noted, as a preliminary point, that, by virtue of Article 216(2) TFEU, where international agreements are concluded by the European Union they are binding on its institutions, and consequently they prevail over acts of the European Union (Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America and Others [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).
28 Kao prvo valja podsjetiti da su, na temelju članka 216. stavka 2. UFEU-a, u slučajevima kada Europska unija sklopi međunarodne sporazume, ti sporazumi obvezujući za njezine institucije te su stoga nadređeni aktima Unije (presuda od 21. prosinca 2011., Air Transport Association of America i dr., C-366/10, Zb., str. I-13755., t. 50. i navedena sudska praksa).
29 It should also be recalled that the primacy of international agreements concluded by the European Union over instruments of secondary law means that those instruments must as far as possible be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with those agreements (Joined Cases C-320/11, C-330/11, C-382/11 and C-383/11 Digitalnet and Others [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
29 Također valja podsjetiti da nadređenost međunarodnih sporazuma koje sklopi Unija nad instrumentima sekundarnog prava nalaže tumačenje potonjih, u mjeri u kojoj je to moguće, u skladu s tim sporazumima (presuda od 22. studenoga 2012., Digitalnet i dr., C-320/11, C-330/11, C-382/11 i C-383/11, t. 39. i navedena sudska praksa).
30 It follows from Decision 2010/48 that the European Union has approved the UN Convention. The provisions of that convention are thus, from the time of its entry into force, an integral part of the European Union legal order (see, to that effect, Case 181/73 Haegeman [1974] ECR 449, paragraph 5).
30 Iz Odluke 2010/48 proizlazi da je Unija odobrila Konvenciju UN-a. Stoga odredbe te konvencije čine sastavni dio pravnog poretka Unije od njezinog stupanja na snagu (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 30. travnja 1974., Haegeman, 181/73, Zb., str. 449., t. 5.).
31 Moreover, according to the appendix to the Annex II to that decision, in the field of independent living and social inclusion, work and employment, Directive 2000/78 is one of the European Union acts which refer to matters governed by the UN Convention.
31 Osim toga, iz dodatka Prilogu II. navedenoj odluci proizlazi da je, što se tiče autonomije i socijalne uključenosti, posla i zapošljavanja, Direktiva 2000/78 jedan od akata Unije koji se odnose na pitanja regulirana Konvencijom UN-a.
32 It follows that Directive 2000/78 must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner consistent with that convention.
32 Iz toga slijedi da Direktivu 2000/78 valja u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri tumačiti u skladu s tom konvencijom.
33 It is in the light of those considerations that the questions put to the Court by the referring court must be answered.
33 U svjetlu tih razmatranja valja odgovoriti na pitanja koje je sud koji je uputio zahtjev postavio Sudu.
34 By its first and second questions, which should be considered together, the referring court asks essentially whether the concept of ‘disability’ in Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as including the state of health of a person who, because of physical, mental or psychological impairments, cannot or can only to a limited extent carry out his work, for a period that will probably last for a long time, or permanently. It further asks whether that concept must be interpreted as meaning that a condition caused by a medically diagnosed incurable illness may be covered by that concept, that a condition caused by a medically diagnosed curable illness may also be covered by that concept, and that the nature of the measures to be taken by the employer is decisive for considering that a person’s state of health is covered by that concept.
34 Prvim i drugim pitanjem, koja valja razmotriti zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li pojam „invaliditeta” iz Direktive 2000/78 tumačiti tako da uključuje zdravstveno stanje osobe koja zbog tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja ne može ili samo u ograničenoj mjeri može obavljati svoj posao u razdoblju koje će vjerojatno trajati dugo vremena ili trajno. Sud nadalje pita treba li taj pojam tumačiti u smislu da obuhvaća stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao neizlječiva ili također i stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao izlječiva i u smislu da priroda mjera koje poslodavac mora poduzeti ima odlučujuću ulogu u tome može li se zdravstveno stanje osobe obuhvatiti tim pojmom.