natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
54 No relevance attaches in this regard to the fact that those conditions do not constitute an express limitation on the duration of residence ratione temporis or to the fact that indefinite leave to remain may also, in certain circumstances, cease to have any effect.
54 U ovom smislu činjenica da navedeni uvjeti ne čine izričito ograničenje trajanja boravka ratione temporis ni činjenica da odobrenje boravka na neodređeno vrijeme može također u određenim okolnostima prestati proizvoditi učinke, nisu relevantne.
The fact that the EEA Order may apply to United Kingdom nationals as well is also immaterial in this regard.
Činjenica da se EEA Order može primijeniti na državljane Ujedinjene Kraljevine također je u ovom pogledu nebitna.
55 Furthermore, it follows from the foregoing that the Court's reasoning in Kaba was based on the lack of comparability of the situations in issue and not on the justification for a difference in treatment between the spouse of a migrant worker who is a national of a Member State other than the United Kingdom and the spouse of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom, as the situations governed by paragraphs 255 and 287 of the Immigration Rules respectively are not comparable.
55 Osim toga, iz navedenoga proizlazi da su se argumenti Suda u presudi Kaba zasnivali na nemogućnosti usporedbe situacija o kojima je riječ, a ne na osnovanosti razlike između postupanja prema bračnom drugu radnika migranta koji je državljanin države članice koja nije Ujedinjena Kraljevina i postupanja prema bračnom drugu osobe koja je prisutna i nastanjena u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini, budući da situacije na koje se primjenjuju članak 255. i članak 287. Immigration Rules nisu usporedive.
56 The answer to the second question must therefore be that the reply which the Court, in its judgment in Kaba , gave to the questions referred in that case for a preliminary ruling would not have been different had the Court taken into consideration the fact that the situation under national law of the spouse of a migrant worker who is a national of a Member State other than the United Kingdom and that of the spouse of a person who is present and settled in the United Kingdom are, according to the referring tribunal, comparable in all respects except with regard to the period of prior residence which is required for the purpose of being granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
56 Na drugo pitanje, dakle, valja odgovoriti da odgovor koji je Sud u presudi Kaba dao na prethodna pitanja koja su mu upućena ne bi bio drukčiji da je Sud uzeo u obzir činjenicu da su situacija u kojoj se prema nacionalnom pravu nalazi bračni drug radnika migranta koji je državljanin države članice koja nije Ujedinjena Kraljevina i situacija u kojoj se nalazi bračni drug osobe koja je prisutna i nastanjena u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini, u skladu s mišljenjem suda koji je uputio zahtjev usporedive u svakom pogledu osim u odnosu na razdoblje prethodnog boravka koje je potrebno u svrhu odobrenja boravka na državnom području Ujedinjene Kraljevine na neodređeno vrijeme.
In view of the fact that the situations are not comparable under Community law, the question whether such a difference in treatment may be justified has no relevance in this regard.
S obzirom na činjenicu da situacije nisu usporedive na temelju prava Zajednice, pitanje može li takva razlika u postupanju biti osnovana nije u ovom smislu relevantno.
57 In its examination of the second question in the reference, the Court has addressed the doubts which led the national tribunal to refer fresh questions for a preliminary ruling.
57 Na sumnje koje su sud koji je uputio zahtjev potaknule da uputi nova prethodna pitanja, Sud je odgovorio u razmatranju drugog prethodnog pitanja .
58 That being so, it is unnecessary to reply to the first question.
58 U tim okolnostima nije potrebno odgovoriti na prvo pitanje.
59 The costs incurred by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
59 Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu vlade Ujedinjene Kraljevine i Nizozemske te Komisije ne nadoknađuju se.
As these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national tribunal, the decision on costs is a matter for that tribunal.
Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka.
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Immigration Adjudicator by order of 19 December 2000, hereby rules:
odgovarajući na pitanja koja mu je Immigration Adjudicator postavio rješenjem od 19. prosinca 2000., odlučuje:
The reply which the Court, in its judgment in Case C-356/98 Kaba , gave to the questions referred in that case for a preliminary ruling would not have been different had the Court taken into consideration the fact that the situation under national law of the spouse of a migrant worker who is a national of a Member State other than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that of the spouse of a person who is present and settled in the United Kingdom are, according to the referring tribunal, comparable in all respects except with regard to the period of prior residence which is required for the purpose of being granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
Odgovor koji je Sud u svojoj presudi od 11. travnja 2000., Kaba, (C-357/98), dao na pitanja koja su mu zahtjevom za prethodnu odluku upućena u tom predmetu ne bi bio drukčiji da je Sud uzeo u obzir činjenicu da su situacija u kojoj se prema nacionalnom pravu nalazi bračni drug radnika migranta koji je državljanin države članice koja nije Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske i situacija u kojoj se nalazi bračni drug osobe koja je prisutna i nastanjena u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini, u skladu s mišljenjem suda koji je uputio zahtjev usporedive u svakom pogledu osim u odnosu na razdoblje prethodnog boravka koje je potrebno u svrhu odobrenja boravka na državnom području Ujedinjene Kraljevine na neodređeno vrijeme.
Judgment of the Court, 7 January 2004
PRESUDA SUDA
Summary of the Judgment
7. siječnja 2004.()
(Art. 141 EC)
„Članak 141.
((Article 141 EC - Directive 75/117/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women - Transsexual partner not entitled to a survivor's pension payable solely to a surviving spouse - Discrimination on grounds of sex))
UEZ-a - Direktiva 75/117/EEZ - Jednako postupanje prema muškarcima i ženama - Transseksualni partner koji nema pravo na obiteljsku mirovinu koja se isplaćuje isključivo preživjelom supružniku - Diskriminacija na temelju spolaˮ
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je Sudu uputio Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (Žalbeni sud (Engleska i Wales) (Građanski odjel), Ujedinjena Kraljevina), u postupku koji se vodi pred tim sudom između
K.B.
K. B.
and National Health Service Pensions Agency,Secretary of State for Health,
i National Health Service Pensions Agency, Secretary of State for Health,
on the interpretation of Article 141 EC and of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19),
o tumačenju članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive Vijeća 75/117/EEZ od 10. veljače 1975. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o primjeni načela jednakih plaća za muškarce i žene (SL 1975 L 45, str. 19.)
composed of: V. Skouris, President, C.W.A. Timmermans, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges,
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, C. W. A. Timmermans, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (izvjestitelj) i A. Rosas, predsjednici vijeća, D. A. O. Edward, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken, N. Colneric i S. von Bahr, suci,
K.B., by C. Hockney and L. Cox QC, and by T. Eicke, Barrister,
za K. B., C. Hockney i L. Cox, QC, i T. Eicke, barrister,
─ the United Kingdom Government, by J.E. Collins, acting as Agent, and N. Paines QC, ─
za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, J. E. Collins, u svojstvu agenta, i uz asistenciju N. Painesa, QC,
the Commission of the European Communities, by N. Yerrel, acting as Agent,
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, N. Yerrel, u svojstvu agenta,
after hearing the oral observations of K. B., represented by L. Cox and T. Eicke, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by J.E. Collins and N. Paines QC, and of the Commission, represented by J. Sack and L. Flynn, acting as Agents, at the hearing on 23 April 2002,
saslušavši na raspravi održanoj 23. travnja 2002. usmena očitovanja K. B., koju zastupaju L. Cox i T. Eicke, vlade Ujedinjene Kraljevine koju zastupaju J. E. Collins uz asistenciju N. Painesa, QC, te Komisije, koju zastupaju J. Sack i L. Flynn, u svojstvu agenata,
1 By order of 14 December 2000, received at the Court on 15 March 2001, the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC a question on the interpretation of Article 141 EC and of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19).
1 Rješenjem od 14. prosinca 2000., koje je Sud zaprimio 15. ožujka 2001., Court of Appeal (Engleska i Wales) (Civil Division), uputio je Sudu zahtjev za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a o tumačenju članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive Vijeća 75/117/EEZ od 10. veljače 1975. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o primjeni načela jednakih plaća za muškarce i žene (SL 1975 L 45, str. 19.).
2 That question was raised in proceedings between (i) K.B., a member of the National Health Service ( NHS) Pension Scheme, and (ii) the NHS Pensions Agency and the Secretary of State for Health concerning the refusal to award a widower's pension to K.B.'s transsexual partner.
2 To je pitanje je postavljeno u okviru spora između K. B., članice National Health Service (NHS) Pension Scheme s jedne strane i NHS Pensions Agency i Secretary of State for Health s druge strane, u vezi s odbijanjem dodjele mirovine udovca njezinom transseksualnom partneru.
3 Article 141 EC provides: 1.
3 Članak 141. UEZ-a propisuje:
Each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.2.
1. Svaka država članica osigurava primjenu načela o jednakim plaćama muškaraca i žena za jednak rad ili za rad jednake vrijednosti.
For the purpose of this Article, pay means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer.....
2. Za potrebe ovog članka pojam „plaćaˮ znači redovitu osnovnu ili minimalnu nadnicu ili plaću te svako drugo primanje u gotovini ili u naravi koju radnik prima neposredno ili posredno od svojeg poslodavca u vezi sa zaposlenjem. [...] 4 Članak 1. stavak 1.
4 Article 1(1) of Directive 75/117 provides: The principle of equal pay for men and women outlined in Article 119 of the Treaty, hereinafter called principle of equal pay, means, for the same work or for work to which equal value is attributed, the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of sex with regard to all aspects and conditions of remuneration.....
Direktive 75/117 propisuje: „Načelo jednakih plaća za muškarce i žene, utvrđeno u članku 119. Ugovora, u daljnjem tekstu: načelo jednakih plaća, znači da se za isti rad ili rad kojemu se pripisuje ista vrijednost ukida svaka diskriminacija na temelju spola u pogledu svih vidova i uvjeta plaćanja.ˮ [neslužbeni prijevod]. [...] 5 Članak 3. te Direktive propisuje:
5 Article 3 of the Directive provides: Member States shall abolish all discrimination between men and women arising from laws, regulations or administrative provisions which is contrary to the principle of equal pay.
„Države članice ukidaju svaku diskriminaciju između muškaraca i žena koja proizlazi iz zakona i drugih propisa, a protivna je načelu jednakih plaća.ˮ [neslužbeni prijevod].
6 It follows from sections 1 and 2 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 ( the 1975 Act) that it is unlawful to discriminate directly against a person of one sex by treating her or him less favourably than a member of the opposite sex is, or would be, treated.
6 Iz članaka 1. i 2. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Zakon o spolnoj diskriminaciji iz 1975., u daljnjem tekstu: Zakon iz 1975.) proizlazi da je izravna diskriminacija protiv osobe jednog spola, tako da se prema njemu ili njoj postupa nepovoljnije nego što se postupa ili što bi se postupalo prema članu suprotnog spola, nezakonita.
Those sections also forbid indirect sex discrimination, which they define essentially as the application of a uniform condition or requirement which has a disproportionate and unjustified adverse impact on one sex.
Ti članci također zabranjuju neizravnu spolnu diskriminaciju, koju oni u osnovi definiraju kao primjenu jednakog uvjeta ili zahtjeva koji ima nerazmjeran i nepravedan negativan utjecaj na osobe određenog spola.
7 Following the decision of the Court in Case C-13/94 P. v S. [1996] ECR I-2143, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland introduced the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999, which amended the 1975 Act so as to bring direct discrimination on the ground of an employee's gender reassignment within the Act.
7 Na temelju presude Suda od 30. travnja 1996., P. protiv S., C-13/94, Zb., str. I-2143., Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske donijela je Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 (Uredba iz 1999. godine o spolnoj diskriminaciji u slučaju promjene spola), kojim je izmijenjen zakon iz 1975. kako bi se u njega uključila izravna diskriminacija na temelju promjene spola zaposlene osobe.
8 Section 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provides that a marriage is void if the parties are not respectively male and female.
8 Članak 11(c) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (zakon iz 1973. godine o bračnim odnosima) propisuje da je brak nevaljan ako stranke u njemu nisu muškarac i žena.
9 Section 29(1) and (3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 does not allow for any alteration of the register of births except in the case of a clerical error or an error of fact.
9 Članak 29(1) i (3) Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (zakon iz 1953. godine o vođenju registra rođenih i umrlih) ne dopušta nikakvu izmjenu registra rođenih osim u slučaju pogreške u pisanju ili činjenične pogreške.
10 The NHS Pension Scheme Regulations 1995 provide, at regulation G7(1), that, if a female member dies in certain circumstances, prescribed by the Regulations, and leaves a surviving widower, the widower shall, in principle, be entitled to a survivor's pension.
10 NHS Pension Scheme Regulations 1955 [Uredba iz 1955. godine o sustavu mirovinskog osiguranja NHS] u članku G7(1) propisuje da ako osiguranica umre u određenim okolnostima koje su utvrđene u toj uredbi i ostavi za sobom preživjelog udovca, takav udovac ima, u načelu, pravo na obiteljsku mirovinu.
Widower is not defined.
Pojam udovca nije definiran.
However, it is not disputed that under English law the term refers to a person married to the scheme member.
Međutim, nije sporno da se u engleskom pravu ovaj izraz odnosi na osobu koja je u braku s osiguranikom.
The dispute before the national court and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
Glavni postupak i prethodno pitanje
11 K.B., the claimant in the main proceedings, is a woman who has worked for approximately 20 years for the NHS, inter alia as a nurse, and is a member of the NHS Pension Scheme.
11 K. B., tužiteljica u glavnom postupku, žena je koja je radila približno 20 godina za NHS, između ostalog kao medicinska sestra, i osigurana je pri NHS Pension Scheme.
12 K.B. has shared an emotional and domestic relationship for a number of years with R., a person born a woman and registered as such in the Register of Births, who, following surgical gender reassignment, has become a man but has not, however, been able to amend his birth certificate to reflect this change officially.
12 K. B. je više godina u emocionalnoj vezi i živi u istom kućanstvu s R., osobom koja je rođena kao žena te je kao takva upisana u registar rođenih, i koja je nakon kirurške promjene spola postala muškarac, ali nije mogla izmijeniti svoj rodni list kako bi ta promjena postala službena.
As a result, and contrary to their wishes, K.B. and R. have not been able to marry.
Radi toga i suprotno njihovim željama K. B. i R. nisu mogli sklopiti brak.
K.B. stated in her pleadings and confirmed at the hearing that their union was celebrated in an adapted church ceremony approved by a Bishop of the Church of England and that they exchanged vows of the kind which would be used by any couple entering marriage.
K. B. je navela u svom podnesku i potvrdila na raspravi da je njihova veza bila potvrđena „prilagođenim crkvenim obredom koji je odobrio biskup anglikanske crkve", te da su razmijenili „onakve zavjete kakve bi upotrijebio bilo koji par koji ulazi u brak".
13 The NHS Pensions Agency informed K.B. that, as she and R. were not married, if she were to pre-decease R., R. would not be able to receive a widower's pension, since that pension was payable only to a surviving spouse and that no provision of United Kingdom law recognised a person as a spouse in the absence of a lawful marriage.
13 NHS Pensions Agency obavijestila je K. B. da, budući da ona i osoba R. nisu u braku, ako ona umre prije osobe R., R. neće moći primati mirovinu udovca, budući da se takva mirovina isplaćuje samo preživjelom supružniku, te da niti jedna odredba prava Ujedinjene Kraljevine ne priznaje osobu kao supružnika ako ne postoji zakoniti brak.
14 K.B. brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, arguing that the national provisions restricting the pension to widowers and widows of members of the scheme amounted to discrimination based on sex, contrary to the provisions of Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117.
14 K. B. je pokrenula postupak pred Employment Tribunalom (Radni sud) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina), tvrdeći da nacionalne odredbe kojima se mirovine ograničavaju na udovce i udovice osiguranika predstavljaju spolnu diskriminaciju, koja je u suprotnosti s odredbama članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive 75/117.
For K.B., the Community provisions require that in such a context widower should be interpreted in such a way as to encompass the surviving member of a couple, who would have achieved the status of widower had his sex not resulted from surgical gender reassignment.
Za K. B., odredbama se Zajednice zahtijeva da se u takvom kontekstu pojam „udovacˮ tumači na način da uključuje preživjelog člana para koji bi dobio status udovca da njegov spol nije rezultat kirurške promjene spola.
15 Both the Employment Tribunal, by decision of 16 March 1998, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London (United Kingdom), in its judgment on appeal of 19 August 1999, found that the pension scheme at issue was not discriminatory.
15 I Employment Tribunal u presudi od 16. ožujka 1998. i Employment Appeal Tribunal, London (Radni žalbeni sud, London) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina) u presudi povodom žalbe od 19. kolovoza 1999. utvrdili su da predmetni mirovinski sustav nije diskriminirajući.
16 K.B. took her case to the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), which decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: Does the exclusion of the female-to-male transsexual partner of a female member of the National Health Service Pension Scheme, which limits the material dependant's benefit to her widower, constitute sex discrimination in contravention of Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117?
16 K. B. je uputila spor pred Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), koji je odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeće prethodno pitanje: „Predstavlja li odbijanje dodjele mirovine transseksualnom partneru (osobi koja je prvobitno bila žena) ženske osobe članice National Health Service Pension Scheme, u skladu s kojim na isplata davanja uzdržavanoj osobi ima pravo samo njezin njezinog udovca, spolnu diskriminaciju zabranjenu člankom 141.
The question referred for a preliminary ruling
UEZ-a i Direktivom 75/117[?]" O prethodnom pitanju
Observations submitted to the Court
Očitovanja podnesena sudu
17 For K.B., the decision denying her the right to nominate R. as the beneficiary of the widower's pension was made solely for a reason related to R.'s gender reassignment.
17 K. B. smatra da je odluka kojom joj je uskraćeno pravo određivanja osobe R. kao korisnika mirovine udovca donesena isključivo radi razloga povezanih s promjenom spola te osobe.
If R. had not undergone gender reassignment and if that did not prevent R. from marrying, R. would be entitled to a survivor's pension as a surviving spouse.
Da osoba R. nije promijenila spol i da je to nije spriječilo da sklopi braka, osoba R. bi imala pravo na obiteljsku mirovinu kao preživjeli supružnik.
18 K.B. submits that the judgment in P. v S., according to which Community law prohibits discrimination arising from the fact that a person has undergone gender reassignment, applies in the present case, given that the referring court regarded K.B. and R. as a heterosexual couple where the only distinguishing feature was that the gender of one partner had been reassigned.
18 K. B. tvrdi da se presuda u predmetu P. protiv S., prema kojoj pravo Zajednice zabranjuje diskriminaciju koja proizlazi iz činjenice da je osoba promijenila spol, primjenjuje na predmet u glavnom postupku, budući da je sud koji je uputio zahtjev smatrao K. B. i R. heteroseksualnim parom, pri čemu je jedino posebno obilježje bilo to što je jedan od partnera promijenio spol.
Consequently, the unfavourable treatment is based solely on the fact that R. has undergone gender reassignment, which constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117.
Dakle, nepovoljno se postupanje temelji isključivo na činjenici da je osoba R. promijenila spol, što predstavlja izravnu diskriminaciju na temelju spola, koja je zabranjena člankom 141. UEZ-a i Direktivom 75/117.
19 In the alternative, K.B. submits that the marriage requirement amounts to indirect discrimination against transsexuals since, unlike a heterosexual couple neither of the partners to which is a transsexual, in the case of a heterosexual couple one of whose members has undergone gender reassignment surgery, the marriage requirement can never be met.
19 Podredno, K. B. tvrdi da uvjet sklopljenog braka predstavlja neizravnu diskriminaciju transseksualnih osoba budući da, za razliku od heteroseksualnog para kod kojeg niti jedan od partnera nije promijenio spol, u slučaju heteroseksualnog para kod kojeg se jedan od partnera podvrgnuo kirurškoj promjeni spola, uvjet sklopljenog braka ne može nikad biti ispunjen.
20 The United Kingdom Government contends that both male and female workers with partners to whom they are not married are unable to benefit from the survivor's benefits provided for by the NHS Pension Scheme. That is true whatever the reason for the parties not being married.
20 Vlada Ujedinjene Kraljevine tvrdi da ni muški ni ženski djelatnici, koji imaju partnere s kojima nisu sklopili brak, ne mogu koristiti obiteljsku mirovinu koju predviđa NHS Pension Scheme, bez obzira na razlog zbog kojeg partneri nisu sklopili brak.