natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
No system of monthly wages is applicable to the type of workers concerned in the main proceedings.
Nijedan sustav mjesečnih plaća nije primjenjiv na dotičnu vrstu radnika u predmetu u glavnom postupku.
26 According to those trade unions, negotiations on pay are conducted in the context of a social truce which must follow the conclusion of a collective agreement.
26 Prema tim sindikatima, pregovori o plaćama odvijaju se u okviru socijalnog primirja koje mora uslijediti nakon sklapanja kolektivnog ugovora.
The agreement on pay is concluded, in principle, at local level between the trade union and the employer.
Sporazum o plaćama sklapa se, u načelu, na lokalnoj razini između sindikata i poslodavca.
If management and labour fail to reach an agreement at this level, negotiations on pay are centralised, at which point Byggnads acts as the principal party on the side of the employees.
Ako socijalni partneri ne postignu sporazum na ovoj razini, pregovori o plaćama postaju predmet centraliziranih pregovora u kojima Byggnads ima glavnu ulogu na strani radnika.
If management and labour still do not reach an agreement in such negotiations, the basic wage is then determined according to the `fall-back clause'.
Ukoliko socijalni partneri i dalje ne postignu sporazum u okviru takvih pregovora, osnovna plaća utvrđuje se u skladu s „rezervnom odredbom".
According to those trade unions, the `fall-back' wage, which in fact represents only a negotiating mechanism of last resort, and does not constitute a minimum wage, amounted to SEK 109 approximately (EUR 12) per hour for the second half of 2004.
Prema mišljenju navedenih sindikata, „rezervna" plaća koja u stvari predstavlja tek krajnji pregovarački mehanizam i ne čini minimalnu plaću, iznosila je za drugu polovicu 2004. godine 109 SEK (otprilike 12 EUR) po satu.
The dispute in the main proceedings
Glavni postupak
27 It is apparent from the order of reference that Laval is a company incorporated under Latvian law, whose registered office is in Riga.
27 Iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da je Laval društvo osnovano na temelju latvijskog prava sa sjedištem u Rigi.
Between May and December 2004, it posted around 35 workers to Sweden to work on building sites operated by L&P Baltic Bygg AB (`Baltic'), a company incorporated under Swedish law whose entire share capital was held by Laval until the end of 2003, inter alia, for the purposes of the construction of school premises in Vaxholm.
U razdoblju između svibnja i prosinca 2004. uputio je u Švedsku oko 35 radnika kako bi radili na gradilištima L&P Baltic Bygg AB-a (u daljnjem tekstu: Baltic), društva osnovanog na temelju švedskog prava, čiji je kapital do kraja 2003. godine bio u stopostotnom vlasništvu Lavala, osobito za potrebe izgradnje školske ustanove u Vaxholmu.
28 Laval, which had signed, on 14 September and 20 October 2004, in Latvia, collective agreements with the Latvian building sector's trade union, was not bound by any collective agreement entered into with Byggnads, Byggettan or Elektrikerna, none of whose members were employed by Laval.
28 Laval, koji je 14. rujna i 20. listopada 2004. u Latviji potpisao kolektivne ugovore s latvijskim sindikatom radnika u graditeljstvu, nije bio vezan nikakvim kolektivnim ugovorom sklopljenim s Byggnadsom, Byggettanom ili Elektrikernom, koji nisu imali članove među radnicima Lavala.
Around 65% of the Latvian workers concerned were members of the building workers' trade union in their State of origin.
Oko 65 % dotičnih latvijskih radnika bili su članovi sindikata radnika u graditeljstvu u svojoj državi podrijetla.
29 It is clear from the file that, in June 2004, contacts were established between Byggettan, on the one hand, and Baltic and Laval, on the other, and negotiations were begun with a view to Laval's signing the collective agreement for the building sector.
29 Iz spisa proizlazi da su tijekom lipnja 2004. uspostavljeni kontakti između Byggettana, s jedne strane, te Baltica i Lavala, s druge strane, i započeti pregovori radi pristupanja Lavala kolektivnom ugovoru za graditeljstvo.
Laval asked for wages and other terms and conditions of employment to be defined in parallel with the negotiations, so that the level of pay and terms and conditions of employment would already be fixed by the time that agreement was signed.
Laval je tražio da se plaće i drugi uvjeti rada definiraju usporedno s tim pregovorima kako bi razina plaća i uvjeti rada već bili utvrđeni u trenutku pristupanja ugovoru.
Byggettan agreed to this request, even though, generally, the negotiation of a collective agreement needs to have been completed before discussions on wages and other terms and conditions of employment are entered into in the framework of the mandatory social truce.
Byggettan se složio s tim zahtjevom, iako se općenito pregovori o kolektivnom ugovoru trebaju okončati prije nego što započnu razgovori o plaćama i drugim uvjetima rada u okviru obaveznog socijalnog primirja.
Byggettan refused to allow the introduction of a system of monthly wages, but did agree to Laval's proposal on the principle of an hourly wage.
Byggettan je odbio uvođenje sustava mjesečnih plaća, ali je prihvatio prijedlog Lavala o načelu plaće po satu.
30 According to the order for reference, during the negotiations held on 15 September 2004, Byggettan had demanded that Laval, first, sign the collective agreement for the building sector in respect of the Vaxholm site, and secondly, guarantee that the posted workers would receive an hourly wage of SEK 145 (approximately EUR 16).
30 Iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da je tijekom pregovora održanih 15. rujna 2004. Byggettan zahtijevao od Lavala, prvo, pristupanje kolektivnom ugovoru za graditeljstvo za gradilište u Vaxholmu i, drugo, osiguranje da će upućeni radnici dobiti plaću po satu od 145 SEK (otprilike 16 EUR).
That hourly wage was based on statistics on wages for the Stockholm (Sweden) region for the first quarter of 2004, relating to professionally-qualified builders and carpenters.
Ova plaća po satu temeljila se na statistikama o plaćama za regiju Stockholm (Švedska) za prvo tromjesečje 2004. godine u pogledu stručno kvalificiranih graditelja i tesara.
Byggettan declared that it was prepared to take collective action forthwith in the event that Laval failed to agree to this.
Byggettan je izrazio pripravnost na poduzimanje kolektivne mjere u slučaju nepostizanja sporazuma u tom smislu.
31 According to the documents on the file, during the procedure before the Arbedstomstolen, Laval stated that it would pay its workers a monthly wage of SEK 13 600 (approximately EUR 1 500), which would be supplemented by benefits in kind in respect of meals, accommodation and travel amounting to SEK 6 000 (approximately EUR 660) per month.
31 Prema dokumentima iz spisa, tijekom postupka pred Arbedstomstolenom Laval je izjavio da je svojim radnicima isplaćivao mjesečnu plaću od 13 600 SEK (otprilike 1500 EUR), kojoj su bila dodana davanja u naravi u obliku obroka, smještaja i prijevoza u iznosu od 6000 SEK (otprilike 660 EUR) mjesečno.
32 If the collective agreement for the building sector had been signed, Laval would have been bound, in principle, by all its terms, including those relating to the pecuniary obligations to Byggettan and FORA set out in paragraph 20 of this judgment.
32 Da je pristupio kolektivnom ugovoru za graditeljstvo, sve njegove odredbe, uključujući one koje se odnose na novčane obveze prema Byggettanu i FORA-i navedene u točki 20. ove presude, bile bi obvezujuće za Laval.
A proposal to subscribe to insurance contracts with FORA was made to Laval by way of a declaration form sent to it in December 2004.
Prijedlog za potpisivanje ugovora o osiguranju s FORA-om upućen je Lavalu u obliku obrasca izjave koji mu je poslan tijekom prosinca 2004.
33 Since those negotiations were not successful, Byggettan requested Byggnads to take measures to initiate the collective action against Laval announced at the meeting of 15 September 2004.
33 S obzirom na to da ti pregovori nisu bili uspješni, Byggettan je zahtijevao od Byggnadsa donošenje mjera namijenjenih provedbi kolektivne mjere protiv Lavala na pregovaračkom sastanku održanom 15. rujna 2004.
Notice was given in October 2004.
Obavijest je dostavljena u listopadu 2004.
34 Blockading (`blockad') of the Vaxholm building site began on 2 November 2004.
34 Blokada gradilišta u Vaxholmu započela je 2. studenoga 2004.
The blockading consisted, inter alia, of preventing the delivery of goods onto the site, placing pickets and prohibiting Latvian workers and vehicles from entering the site.
Blokada se sastojala, između ostaloga, od sprečavanja dostave dobara na gradilište, postavljanja štrajkaške straže i zabrane ulaska na gradilište latvijskim radnicima i vozilima.
Laval asked the police for assistance but they explained that since the collective action was lawful under national law they were not allowed to intervene or to remove physical obstacles blocking access to the site.
Laval je zatražio pomoć policije, ali je ona objasnila da ne smije intervenirati niti ukloniti fizičke prepreke koje sprečavaju pristup gradilištu, s obzirom na to da je kolektivna mjera zakonita prema nacionalnom pravu.
35 At the end of November 2004, Laval spoke to the liaison office referred to in paragraph 9 above in order to obtain information on the terms and conditions of employment which it had to apply in Sweden, on whether or not there was a minimum wage and on the nature of any contributions which it had to pay.
35 Krajem studenoga 2004. Laval se obratio uredu za kontakt navedenom u točki 9. ove presude kako bi dobio informacije o uvjetima rada i zapošljavanja koje treba primjenjivati u Švedskoj, o postojanju minimalne plaće i vrsti doprinosa koje mora plaćati.
By letter of 2 December 2004, the liaison office's head of legal affairs informed Laval that it was required to apply the provisions to which the law on the posting of workers refers, that it was for management and labour to agree on wage issues, that the minimum requirements under the collective agreements also applied to foreign posted workers, and that, if a foreign employer was having to pay double contributions, the matter could be brought before the courts.
Dopisom od 2. prosinca 2004. direktor pravnih poslova toga tijela obavijestio je Laval da se od njega zahtijeva primjena odredaba na koje se odnosi Zakon o upućivanju radnika, da je dužnost socijalnih partnera postizanje dogovora o plaćama, da se minimalni uvjeti predviđeni kolektivnim ugovorima također primjenjuju na upućene strane radnike i da se, ako strani poslodavac mora platiti dvostruke doprinose, takav predmet može podnijeti sudovima.
In order to ascertain what provisions under the agreements were applicable, Laval had to speak to management and labour in the sector concerned.
Kako bi utvrdio koje su ugovorne odredbe primjenjive, Laval se trebao obratiti socijalnim partnerima u dotičnom sektoru.
36 At the mediation meeting arranged on 1 December 2005 and at the conciliation hearing held before the Arbetsdomstolen on 20 December 2005, Laval was requested by Byggettan to sign the collective agreement for the building sector before the issue of wages was dealt with.
36 Tijekom sastanka mirenja organiziranog 1. prosinca 2004. i postupka mirenja pred Arbetsdomstolenom 20. prosinca 2004., Byggettan je pozvao Laval na pristupanje kolektivnom ugovoru za graditeljstvo prije razmatranja plaća.
If Laval had accepted that proposal, the collective action would have ceased immediately, and the social truce, which would have allowed negotiations on wages to begin, would have come into effect.
Da je Laval prihvatio taj prijedlog, kolektivna mjera bila bi odmah prekinuta i socijalno primirje koje bi omogućilo početak pregovora o plaćama stupilo bi na snagu.
Laval, however, refused to sign the agreement, since it was not possible for it to know in advance what conditions would be imposed on it in relation to wages.
Laval je, međutim, odbio pristupiti navedenom ugovoru, s obzirom na to da nije mogao unaprijed znati koje će mu obaveze biti nametnute u pogledu plaća.
37 In December 2004, the collective action directed against Laval intensified.
37 Kolektivne mjere usmjerene protiv Lavala su se u prosincu 2004. pojačale.
On 3 December 2004, Elektrikerna initiated sympathy action.
Elektrikerna je 3. prosinca 2004. pokrenula mjeru podrške.
That measure had the effect of preventing Swedish undertakings belonging to the organisation of electricians' employers from providing services to Laval.
Ta je mjera imala za učinak sprečavanje švedskih poduzeća koja pripadaju organizaciji radnika električara u pružanju usluga Lavalu.
At Christmas, the workers posted by Laval went back to Latvia and did not return to the site in question.
Za Božić su se radnici koje je uputio Laval vratili nazad u Latviju i nisu se vratili na dotično gradilište.
38 In January 2005, other trade unions announced sympathy actions, consisting of a boycott of all Laval's sites in Sweden, with the result that the undertaking was no longer able to carry out its activities in that Member State.
38 Drugi sindikati su u siječnju 2005. najavili mjere podrške u obliku bojkota svih Lavalovih gradilišta u Švedskoj, tako da to poduzeće više nije bilo u mogućnosti obavljati svoje djelatnosti na državnom području te države članice.
In February 2005, the town of Vaxholm requested that the contract between it and Baltic be terminated, and on 24 March 2005 the latter was declared bankrupt.
Grad Vaxholm je u veljači 2005. zatražio raskid ugovora s Balticom, a 24. ožujka 2005. to je društvo objavilo stečaj.
The questions referred
O prethodnim pitanjima
39 On 7 December 2004, Laval commenced proceedings before the Arbetsdomstolen against Byggnads, Byggettan and Elektrikerna, seeking a declaration that both the blockading and the sympathy action affecting all its worksites were illegal and an order that such action should cease.
39 Laval je 7. prosinca 2004. pred Arbetsdomstolenom pokrenuo postupak protiv Byggnadsa, Byggettana i Elektrikerne, kojim je tražio da se blokada i mjera podrške koje utječu na sva njegova gradilišta proglase nezakonitima i da se naredi njihovo okončanje.
It also sought an order that the trade unions pay compensation for the damage suffered.
Također je tražio da se sindikatima naloži plaćanje naknade za pretrpljenu štetu.
By decision of 22 December 2004, the national court dismissed Laval's application for an interim order that the collective action should be brought to an end.
Odlukom od 22. prosinca 2004. sud koji je uputio zahtjev odbacio je Lavalov zahtjev za izdavanje privremenog naloga za okončanje kolektivnih mjera.
40 Since it wished to ascertain whether Articles 12 EC and 49 EC and Directive 96/71 preclude trade unions from attempting, by means of collective action, to force a foreign undertaking which posts workers to Sweden to apply a Swedish collective agreement, the Arbetsdomstolen decided on 29 April 2005 to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
40 S obzirom na to da je želio utvrditi sprečavaju li članci 12. UEZ-a i 49. UEZ-a te Direktiva 96/71 sindikate u njihovim pokušajima da putem kolektivne mjere prisile strano poduzeće koje upućuje radnike u Švedsku na primjenu švedskog kolektivnog ugovora, Arbetsdomstolen je 29. travnja 2005. odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu zahtjev za prethodnu odluku.
In its order for reference, of 15 September 2005, the national court refers the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
U svojem zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku od 15. rujna 2005. taj je sud uputio sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) Is it compatible with rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the prohibition of any discrimination on the grounds of nationality and with the provisions of Directive 96/71/EC ... for trade unions to attempt, by means of collective action in the form of a blockade (`blockad'), to force a foreign provider of services to sign a collective agreement in the host country in respect of terms and conditions of employment, such as that described in the decision of the Arbetsdomstolen [of 29 April 2005 (collective agreement for the building sector)], if the situation in the host country is such that the legislation to implement Directive 96/71 has no express provisions concerning the application of terms and conditions of employment in collective agreements?
„1. Je li pokušaj sindikata da putem kolektivne mjere u obliku blokade prisile stranog pružatelja usluga da u državi domaćinu pristupi kolektivnom ugovoru u pogledu uvjeta rada i zapošljavanja, kao što je [kolektivni ugovor za graditeljstvo] u skladu s pravilima Ugovora o EZ-u o slobodnom pružanju usluga i zabrani svake diskriminacije na osnovi državljanstva, kao i Direktivi 96/71 [...], ako je situacija u državi domaćinu takva da zakonodavstvo kojim je prenesena navedena direktiva ne posjeduje nikakvu izričitu odredbu o primjeni uvjeta rada i zapošljavanja u kolektivnim ugovorima?
(2) The [MBL] prohibits a trade union from taking collective action with the intention of circumventing a collective agreement concluded by other parties.
2. [MBL] zabranjuje sindikatu poduzimanje kolektivne mjere čija je namjena odstupanje od kolektivnog ugovora sklopljenog između socijalnih partnera.
That prohibition applies, however, pursuant to a special provision contained in part of the law known as the "Lex Britannia", only where a trade union takes collective action in relation to conditions of work to which the [MBL] is directly applicable, which means in practice that the prohibition is not applicable to collective action against a foreign undertaking which is temporarily active in Sweden and which brings its own workforce.
Međutim, ta se zabrana primjenjuje u skladu s posebnom odredbom koja čini dio zakona „lex Britannia", samo kada sindikat poduzima kolektivnu mjeru u vezi s uvjetima rada na koje se [MBL] izravno primjenjuje, što u praksi znači da zabrana nije primjenjiva na kolektivne mjere usmjerene protiv stranih društava koja privremeno posluju u Švedskoj i dovode vlastitu radnu snagu.
Do the rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality and the provisions of Directive 96/71 preclude application of the latter rule - which, together with other parts of the Lex Britannia, mean in practice that Swedish collective agreements become applicable and take precedence over foreign collective agreements already concluded - to collective action in the form of a blockade taken by Swedish trade unions against a foreign temporary provider of services in Sweden?'
Je li pravilima Ugovora o EZ-u o slobodnom pružanju usluga i zabrani diskriminacije na osnovi državljanstva kao i Direktivi 96/71 protivna primjena ovog zadnjeg pravila - koje zajedno s ostalim odredbama zakona lex Brittannia u praksi znači da se švedski kolektivni ugovori trebaju primjenjivati i imati prednost pred stranim već sklopljenim kolektivnim ugovorima - na kolektivnu mjeru u obliku blokade koju švedski sindikati poduzimaju protiv stranog pružatelja usluga koji privremeno boravi u Švedskoj?"
41 By order of the President of the Court of Justice of 15 November 2005, the application for a ruling to be given in this case under the accelerated procedure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure was dismissed.
41 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 15. studenoga 2005., zahtjev za prethodnu odluku da se ovaj predmet riješi po hitnom postupku predviđenom člankom 104.a prvim podstavkom Poslovnika je odbačen.
42 Byggnads, Byggettan and Elektrikerna challenge the admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling.
42 Byggnads, Byggettan i Elektrikerna osporavaju dopuštenost zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku.
43 First of all, they claim that there is no link between the questions referred and the facts of the case in the main proceedings.
43 Prvo, tvrde da nema povezanosti između upućenih pitanja i činjeničnih okolnosti u glavnom postupku.
The national court asks the Court of Justice to interpret provisions relating to freedom to provide services and Directive 96/71, although Laval is established in Sweden, in accordance with Article 43 EC, through its subsidiary, Baltic, in which it held 100% of the share capital until the end of 2003.
Sud koji je uputio zahtjev traži od Suda tumačenje odredaba koje se odnose na slobodno pružanje usluga i Direktive 96/71, iako je Laval osnovan u Švedskoj, u skladu s člankom 43. UEZ-a, putem svoje podružnice Baltica u kojoj je imao 100 %-tni vlasnički udio do kraja 2003.
Since the share capital of Laval and of Baltic were held by the same persons, and those companies had the same representatives and used the same trademark, they should be regarded as one and the same economic entity from the point of view of Community law, even though they constitute two separate legal persons.
S obzirom na to da je temeljni kapital Lavala i Baltica bio u vlasništvu istih osoba i da su ta društva imala iste predstavnike i koristila isti žig, treba ih smatrati jednim te istim gospodarskim subjektom s gledišta prava Zajednice, iako ona čine dvije zasebne pravne osobe.
Therefore, Laval was under an obligation to pursue its activity in Sweden under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the legislation of that Member State, for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 43 EC.
Stoga je Laval imao obavezu obavljati svoju djelatnost u Švedskoj u uvjetima utvrđenima zakonodavstvom te države članice za svoje državljane, u smislu članka 43. drugog podstavka UEZ-a.
44 Secondly, they submit that the purpose of the dispute in the main proceedings is to enable Laval to circumvent Swedish law and, for that reason, the dispute, at least in part, is artificial.
44 Drugo, tvrde da je svrha spora u glavnom postupku omogućiti Lavalu zaobilaženje švedskog zakonodavstva te zbog toga ima, barem djelomično, umjetan karakter.
Laval, whose activity consists of placing, on a temporary basis, staff of Latvian origin with companies which carry on their activities on the Swedish market, is seeking to escape all the obligations under Swedish legislation and rules relating to collective agreements and, by relying on the provisions of the Treaty on services and on Directive 96/71, is making an improper attempt to take advantage of the possibilities offered by Community law.
Laval, čija se djelatnost sastoji od privremenog zapošljavanja osoblja latvijskog podrijetla u društvima koja obavljaju svoju djelatnost na švedskom tržištu, nastojao je izbjeći sve obveze koje proizlaze iz švedskog zakonodavstva i propisa u vezi s kolektivnim ugovorima te, pozivajući se na odredbe ugovora koje se odnose na usluge kao i na Direktivu 96/71, nedopušteno pokušao iskoristiti mogućnosti koje nudi pravo Zajednice.
45 In this regard, it must be recalled that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court.
45 S tim u vezi valja podsjetiti da u okviru postupka predviđenog člankom 234. UEZ-a, koji se temelji na jasnom razgraničenju funkcija između nacionalnih sudova i Suda, svaka procjena činjenica u predmetu ulazi u nadležnost nacionalnog suca.
Similarly, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
Također, samo je na nacionalnom sucu, pred kojim je pokrenut postupak i koji mora preuzeti odgovornost za sudsku odluku koja će biti donesena, da s obzirom na posebnosti predmeta ocijeni koliko je prethodna odluka potrebna kako bi mogao donijeti svoju odluku kao i o relevantnosti pitanja koja postavlja Sudu.