natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘1. For the purposes of this Directive, the “principle of equal treatment” shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1.
„1. Za potrebe ove Direktive ,načelo jednakog postupanjaʼ znači nepostojanje bilo kakve izravne ili neizravne diskriminacije na temelju bilo kojeg od razloga iz članka 1.
5. This Directive shall be without prejudice to measures laid down by national law which, in a democratic society, are necessary for public security, for the maintenance of public order and the prevention of criminal offences, for the protection of health and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’
5. Ova Direktiva ne utječe na mjere koje proizlaze iz nacionalnog zakonodavstva, a koje su u demokratskom društvu potrebne zbog očuvanja javne sigurnosti, održanja javnog reda i prevencije kaznenih djela, radi zaštite zdravlja te zaštite prava i sloboda drugih ljudi.”
(c) employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay’.
(c) zapošljavanje i uvjete rada, uključujući otkaze i plaće”.
(c) the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement.’
(c) određivanje najviše dobi za zapošljavanje, koja se temelji na zahtjevima obuke [određivanje najviše dobi za zapošljavanje na temelju osposobljenosti koja se zahtijeva za dotično] radno mjesto ili na potrebi postojanja razumnog razdoblja zaposlenja prije umirovljenja.”
8 In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 18 of the Directive, it was to be transposed into the legal systems of the Member States by 2 December 2003 at the latest. The second paragraph of Article 18 provided, however, that:
8 U skladu s prvim stavkom članka 18. Direktive, ona je trebala biti prenesena u pravne sustave država članica najkasnije do 2. prosinca 2003. Međutim, drugim stavkom članka 18. propisuje se da:
‘In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of 3 years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of 6 years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination. In that event they shall inform the Commission forthwith …’
„Radi uzimanja u obzir posebnih uvjeta, države članice prema potrebi mogu uzeti dodatno razdoblje od 3 godine, počevši od 2. prosinca 2003., odnosno ukupno 6 godina, za provedbu odredbi ove Direktive u vezi s diskriminacijom na temelju dobi i invaliditeta. U tom slučaju o tome odmah obavješćuju Komisiju [...].”
10 The General Law on equal treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) of 14 August 2006 (BGBl. 2006 I, p. 1897, ‘the AGG’) transposed the Directive. That law did not abolish or amend the age limit applicable to panel dentists, set out below.
10 Direktiva je prenesena Općim zakonom o jednakom postupanju (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) od 14. kolovoza 2006. (BGBl. 2006 I, str. 1897., u daljnjem tekstu: AGG). Tim zakonom nije ukinuta ni izmijenjena u daljnjem tekstu navedena dobna granica koja se primjenjuje na ugovorne stomatologe.
11 The Law on the safeguarding and structural improvement of the statutory health insurance scheme (Gesetz zur Sicherung und Strukturverbesserung der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung) of 21 December 1992 (BGBl. 1992 I, p. 2266, ‘the GSG 1993’) introduced a maximum age limit for panel doctors, which, since 14 November 2003, has appeared in the third sentence of Paragraph 95(7) of Book V of the Social Security Code (Sozialgesetzbuch, BGBl. 2003 I, p. 2190, ‘the SGB V’).
11 Zakonom o zaštiti i strukturnom poboljšanju zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja (Gesetz zur Sicherung und Strukturverbesserung der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung) od 21. prosinca 1992. (BGBI 1992 I, str. 2266., u daljnjem tekstu: GSG 1993) uvedena je maksimalna dobna granica za ugovorne liječnike, koja je od 14. studenoga 2003. uvrštena u treću rečenicu članka 95. stavka 7. knjige V. zakonika o socijalnom osiguranju (Sozialgesetzbuch, BGBI 2003 I, str. 2190., u daljnjem tekstu: SGB V.”).
‘The growth in the number of panel doctors represents a significant cause of excessive rises in expenditure in the statutory health insurance scheme. In view of the constantly increasing number of panel doctors, there is a need to limit the number of panel doctors. The surplus supply cannot be curbed only by restrictions on admission, at the expense of the young generation of doctors. To that end, the introduction of a mandatory age limit for panel doctors is also necessary.’
„Rast broja ugovornih liječnika jedan je od suštinskih razloga prekomjernog rasta izdataka zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja. S obzirom na stalno povećanje broja ugovornih liječnika, treba ograničiti njihov broj. Višak ponude ne može se zaustaviti samo ograničenjem izdavanja odobrenja na račun mlade generacije liječnika. Zbog toga treba uvesti i obveznu dobnu granicu za ugovorne liječnike.”
"– The person concerned had practised as a panel doctor (dentist) for less than 20 years when he or she reached the age of 68, and had been admitted to practise as such before 1 January 1993; in that case the admission is extended at the latest to the expiry of that period of 20 years;"
"– u trenutku kada navrši 68 godina, dotična osoba obavlja praksu ugovornog liječnika (stomatologa) manje od 20 godina, a odobrenje za obavljanje te prakse dobila je prije 1. siječnja 1993.; u tom se slučaju odobrenje produljuje najkasnije do isteka navedenog razdoblja od 20 godina;"
"– A shortage of panel doctors (dentists) exists or is impending in certain areas in the region of admission;"
"– u nekim područjima rada, u regiji za koju se odobrenje izdaje, postoji manjak ugovornih liječnika (stomatologa) ili postoji mogućnost da će doći do njihovog manjka;"
"– In the event of illness, leave or participation in training events by a doctor (dentist);"
"– u slučaju bolesti, odsustva ili sudjelovanja liječnika (stomatologa) u usavršavanju;"
– Since the legislation relates only to doctors (dentists) practising in the panel system, outside that system doctors and dentists can practise without being subject to any age limit.
– budući da se propis odnosi samo na liječnike (stomatologe) koji obavljaju praksu u okviru sustava ugovornih liječnika, liječnici i stomatolozi izvan tog sustava mogu obavljati praksu bez dobne granice.
17 By the Law amending the legislation on panel doctors and other laws (Gesetz zur Änderung des Vertragsarztrechts und anderer Gesetze – Vertragsarztänderungsgesetz) of 22 December 2006 (BGBl. 2006, p. 3439), the legislature repealed Paragraph 102 of the SGB V, which laid down quotas for doctors (dentists) depending on regional demand, with effect from 1 January 2007, but retained the age limit at issue in the main proceedings.
17 Zakonodavac je zakonom o izmjeni zakona o ugovornim liječnicima i drugih zakona (Gesetz zur Änderung des Vertragsarztrechts und anderer Gesetze – Vertragsarztänderungsgesetz) od 22. prosinca 2006. (BGBI. 2006, str. 3439.), s učinkom od 1. siječnja 2007. stavio izvan snage članak 102. SGB-a V., kojim se utvrđuju kvote za liječnike (stomatologe) ovisno o regionalnim potrebama, no zadržao je dobnu granicu o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku.
18 Ms Petersen, who was born on 24 April 1939, reached the age of 68 in 2007. She was admitted to practise as a panel dentist from 1 April 1974.
18 D. Petersen rođena je 24. travnja 1939. i 2007. navršila je 68 godina života. Odobrenje za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa dobila je 1. travnja 1974.
19 By decision of 25 April 2007, the Zulassungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (Admissions board for dentists for the district of Westphalia and Lippe) found that Ms Petersen’s authorisation to provide panel dental care would expire on 30 June 2007.
19 Odlukom od 25. travnja 2007. Zulassungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (povjerenstvo za izdavanje odobrenja stomatolozima iz okruga Westphalia-Lippe) utvrdio je da odobrenje D. Petersen za obavljanje ugovorne prakse pružanja stomatološke skrbi istječe 30. lipnja 2007.
22 That court states that the dismissal of Ms Petersen’s complaint is lawful under national law. It refers in this respect to the positions taken by the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), which regard the age limit at issue in the main proceedings as justified, albeit for different reasons. The Bundessozialgericht considers that the age limit made it possible to ensure a balanced sharing of burdens between the generations and remains of use for preserving the employment opportunities of young panel dentists. However, according to the referring court, that justification is no longer valid following the abolition of quotas for panel dentists and the end of excess supply of care.
22 Taj sud navodi da je u skladu s nacionalnim pravom odbijanje prigovora D. Petersen zakonito. U tom smislu sud se poziva na analize Bundessozialgerichta (Savezni socijalni sud) i Bundesverfassungsgerichta (Savezni ustavni sud) kojima se dobna granica o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku smatra opravdanom iako su to ti sudovi utvrdili zbog različitih razloga. Bundessozialgericht smatra da se dobnom granicom omogućuje uravnotežena podjela tereta među generacijama i da je korisna za očuvanje mogućnosti zapošljavanja mladih ugovornih stomatologa. Međutim, prema mišljenju suda koji je uputio zahtjev, to opravdanje više ne vrijedi budući da su kvote za ugovorne stomatologe ukinute i da ponuda usluga zdravstvene skrbi više nije prekomjerna.
23 The referring court accepts, on the other hand, the objective referred to by the Bundesverfassungsgericht in a judgment of 7 August 2007. According to that judgment, the age limit is justified by the need to protect patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme against the risks presented by older panel dentists whose work is no longer the best. The Bundesverfassungsgericht maintained the position it had adopted in a previous judgment of 1998 and held that the legislature, in view of the discretion available to it, was not required to provide for an individual examination of the physical and mental capacity of every panel doctor who has reached the age of 68. On the contrary, the legislature was entitled to adopt general rules based on experience. The Bundesverfassungsgericht also held that the failure to mention the protection of the health of insured persons in the statement of reasons for the law was immaterial, and pointed out that, when it assessed the constitutionality of a rule of law, it took all aspects into account and was not restricted by the statement of reasons.
23 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev prihvaća, s druge strane, cilj na koji je upozorio Bundesverfassungsgericht u presudi od 7. kolovoza 2007. U skladu s tom presudom, dobna granica opravdana je potrebom zaštite pacijenata osiguranih u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja od rizika koje nose stariji ugovorni stomatolozi čiji rad više nije optimalan. Bundesverfassungsgericht je potvrdio analizu koju je izradio već u ranijoj presudi iz 1998. i presudio da zakonodavac, s obzirom na marginu procjenu koja ima, nije obvezan predvidjeti pojedinačnu provjeru fizičke i mentalne sposobnosti svakog ugovornog liječnika koji je navršio 68 godina života. Upravno suprotno, zakonodavac na temelju iskustva ima pravo donijeti opće propise. Bundesverfassungsgericht je također presudio da nenavođenje zaštite zdravlja osiguranih osoba u obrazloženju zakona nije relevantno i naglasio je da je pri ocjeni ustavnosti zakonske odluke uzeo u obzir sve aspekte i nije bio ograničen tim obrazloženjem.
24 The referring court is uncertain, however, whether that analysis is also valid with respect to the Directive. It considers that the age limit at issue in the main proceedings is not a measure within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the Directive, since the protection of health, as the legislature itself considered, was not the reason for the adoption of the provision concerned. Nor does the age limit constitute a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Directive, in view of the exceptions which were laid down. Finally, the referring court is doubtful as to the compatibility of the age limit with Article 6(1) of the Directive.
24 Međutim, sud koji je uputio zahtjev nije siguran u valjanost te analize u odnosu na navedenu direktivu. On smatra da dobna granica o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku nije mjera u smislu članka 2. stavka 5. Direktive, s obzirom da zaštita zdravlja, po mišljenju zakonodavca, nije bila razlog za donošenje dotične odredbe. Ni dobna granica ne predstavlja stvarni i odlučujući uvjet za obavljanje određenog zanimanja u smislu članka 4. stavka 1. Direktive, imajući u vidu utvrđene iznimke. I naposljetku, sud koji je uputio zahtjev izražava sumnju u kompatibilnost dobne granice s člankom 6. stavkom 1. Direktive.
25 That court is uncertain whether the protection of the health of insured persons, referred to by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, can constitute a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive, given that that aim did not in fact correspond to the intention of the legislature.
25 Taj se sud pita je li zaštita zdravlja osiguranih osoba, na koju je upozorio Bundesverfassungsgericht, legitiman cilj u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. Direktive, s obzirom da taj cilj u stvari ne odgovara namjeri zakonodavca.
26 Finally, the referring court observes that the age limit at issue in the main proceedings has a very punitive effect on panel dentists who wish to continue practising beyond that limit, since 90% of the population are covered by the statutory health insurance scheme based on the panel system. It wonders whether a less restrictive measure such as a case-by-case examination of individual situations would be conceivable.
26 I konačno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev naglašava da dobna granica o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku ima vrlo penalizirajući učinak na ugovorne stomatologe koji žele nastaviti obavljati praksu nakon te granice, s obzirom da je 90 % populacije obuhvaćeno zakonom propisanim sustavom zdravstvenog osiguranja koji se temelji na ugovornom sustavu. Pita se bi li bilo moguće predvidjeti manje restriktivnu mjeru poput pojedinačne provjere svakog pojedinog slučaja.
‘1. May the statutory regulation of a maximum age limit for admission to practise a profession (in this case, to work as a panel dentist) be an objective and reasonable measure to protect a legitimate aim (in this case, the health of patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme) and an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim within the meaning of Article 6 of [the Directive] if it is derived solely from an assumption, based on “general experience”, that a general drop in performance occurs from a certain age, without any account being taken of the individual capacity of the specific person concerned?
„1. Može li zakonom utvrđena maksimalna dobna granica za izdavanje odobrenja za obavljanje profesije (u ovom slučaju, za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa) biti objektivna i opravdana mjera za zaštitu legitimnog cilja (u ovom slučaju, zdravlja pacijenata osiguranih u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava obveznog zdravstvenog osiguranja) i primjereno i potrebno sredstvo za postizanje toga cilja u smislu članka 6. [Direktive] ako se temelji isključivo na pretpostavci koja se zasniva na „općenitom iskustvu” da u određenoj dobi dolazi do općeg umanjena sposobnosti, ne uzimajući u obzir sposobnosti dotične osobe?
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, may a legitimate (legislative) aim within the meaning of Article 6 of [the Directive] (in this case, the protection of the health of patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme) be taken to exist even where that aim was entirely irrelevant to the national legislature in the exercise of its legislative discretion?
2. Ako je odgovor na 1. pitanje potvrdan, može li se smatrati da legitimni (zakonski) cilj u smislu članka 6. Direktive […] (u ovom slučaju, zaštita zdravlja pacijenata osiguranih u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja) postoji i u slučaju kada je taj cilj u potpunosti nevažan za nacionalnog zakonodavca u okviru izvršavanja njegove zakonodavne nadležnosti?
3. If Question 1 or 2 is to be answered in the negative, may a law enacted prior to the adoption of [the Directive] which is incompatible with that directive be disapplied by virtue of the primacy of European law, even where the national law transposing the directive (in this case, the [AGG]) makes no provision for such a legal consequence in the event of a breach of the prohibition of discrimination?’
3. Ako je odgovor na prvo ili drugo pitanje negativan, može li se zakon koji je donesen prije Direktive […], a koji s njom nije u skladu, zanemariti na temelju nadređenosti prava Zajednice, čak i u slučaju kada nacionalno pravo kojim se prenosi Direktiva (u ovom slučaju, [AGG]) ne predviđa takvu pravnu posljedicu u slučaju kršenja zabrane diskriminacije?”
29 On this point, suffice it to say that, as the Advocate General observes in point 32 of his Opinion, the circumstance that such a change is about to be made is not relevant. According to the information in the order for reference, Ms Petersen had her admission to practise as a panel dentist withdrawn and was deprived of the possibility of carrying on that activity from 30 June 2007. It follows that the Court’s answer to the questions referred will be decisive for the outcome of the main proceedings and that the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
29 Što se toga tiče, dovoljno je napomenuti da okolnost, kao što je utvrdio nezavisni odvjetnik u t. 32. svojega mišljenja, da će doći do te promjene nije relevantna. Kao što proizlazi iz informacija iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku, D. Petersen oduzeto je odobrenje za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa i lišena je mogućnosti daljnjeg obavljanja te prakse od 30. lipnja 2007. Iz toga slijedi da će odgovor Suda na postavljena pitanja biti odlučujući za ishod glavnog postupka i da je zahtjev za prethodnu odluku dopušten.
30 By its first and second questions, which should be considered together, the referring court essentially asks whether Article 6(1) of the Directive precludes a national measure setting a maximum age for practising as a panel dentist, in this case 68 years, in order to protect the health of patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme, since it is thought that the performance of those dentists declines from that age. It wishes to know whether the fact that that aim was not taken into account by the legislature is relevant.
30 Svojim prvim i drugim pitanjem, koje valja razmatrati zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita je li članku 6. stavku 1. Direktive protivna nacionalna mjera kojom se određuje maksimalna dob za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa, u ovom slučaju 68 godina, radi zaštite zdravlja pacijenata osiguranih u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja jer se smatra da se sposobnost tih stomatologa umanjuje od tog doba. Nacionalni sud se pita se je li okolnost da zakonodavac nije uzeo u obzir taj cilj relevantna.
33 The measure at issue in the main proceedings lays down a maximum age for practising as a panel dentist within the statutory health insurance scheme. As appears from the information supplied by the referring court, 90% of patients are covered by that scheme. It follows that for a dentist to be unable to practise in the panel scheme is liable to limit the demand for the services he offers. Consequently, by fixing an age above which access to and exercise of the activity of panel dentist are no longer possible, the third sentence of Paragraph 95(7) of the SGB V affects conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) and employment and working conditions within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive.
33 Mjerom o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku utvrđuje se maksimalna dob za obavljanje stomatološke prakse u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja. Kako proizlazi iz informacija koje je dostavio sud koji je uputio zahtjev, 90 % pacijenata obuhvaćeno je tim sustavom. Iz toga slijedi da okolnost u kojoj se stomatologu onemogućuje obavljanje prakse u okviru ugovornog sustava može ograničiti potražnju za uslugama koje on nudi. Stoga određivanjem dobi iznad koje pristup stomatološkoj praksi i obavljanje stomatološke prakse više nisu mogući, treća rečenica točke 95. stavka 7. SGB-a V. utječe na uvjete za pristup zapošljavanju, samozapošljavanju ili uvjete za obavljanje zanimanja u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. točke (a) i zapošljavanje i uvjete rada u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. točke (c) Direktive.
34 In the second place, as regards the question whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings contains a difference of treatment on grounds of age in relation to employment and occupation, it must be noted that, under Article 2(1) of the Directive, for the purposes of the Directive, the ‘principle of equal treatment’ is to mean that there must be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of the Directive. Article 2(2)(a) states that, for the purposes of the application of Article 2(1), direct discrimination is to be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of the Directive (see Palacios de la Villa, paragraph 50, and Age Concern England, paragraph 33).
34 Kao drugo, što se tiče pitanja sadržava li zakonodavstvo o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku razliku u postupanju na temelju dobi u odnosu na zapošljavanje i obavljanje zanimanja, valja utvrditi da, u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 1. Direktive, za potrebe Direktive, „načelo jednakog postupanja” treba značiti nepostojanje izravne ili neizravne diskriminacije, na bilo kojoj osnovi iz članka 1. Direktive. U članku 2. stavku 2. točki (a) navodi se da se, za potrebe primjene članka 2. stavka 1., smatra da se radi o izravnoj diskriminaciji u slučaju kada se prema jednoj osobi postupa lošije nego prema drugoj osobi ili je došlo do takvog postupanja ili je moglo doći do takvog postupanja u sličnim situacijama, zbog bilo kojeg od razloga iz članka 1. Direktive (vidjeti prethodno navedene presude Palacios de la Villa, t. 50., i Age Concern England, t. 33.).
35 The application of a provision such as the third sentence of Paragraph 95(7) of the SGB V has the consequence that persons, in this case panel dentists, are treated less favourably than other persons practising the same profession on the ground that they have exceeded the age of 68 years. Such a provision introduces a difference of treatment on grounds of age within the meaning of the Directive.
35 Primjena odredbe poput one iz treće rečenice točke 95. stavka 7. SGB-a V. ima za posljedicu da se s osobama, u ovom slučaju ugovornim stomatolozima, postupa lošije nego s drugim osobama koje se bave istom profesijom zbog toga što su navršili 68 godina. Takva odredba uvodi različito postupanje na temelju dobi u smislu Direktive.