natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"– may, in appropriate cases, be dismissed by reason of an illness related to pregnancy or childbirth and arising after the maternity leave;" 
"u odgovarajućim slučajevima može dobiti otkaz zbog bolesti koja je povezana s trudnoćom ili porodom, a pojavila se nakon rodiljnog dopusta;"
– may, in appropriate cases, suffer a reduction in pay either during maternity leave or, after such leave, in the event of an illness related to pregnancy or childbirth and arising after such leave. 
u odgovarajućim slučajevima može dobiti smanjenu plaću tijekom rodiljnog dopusta ili nakon rodiljnog dopusta, ako se bolest povezana s trudnoćom ili porodom pojavila nakon rodiljnog dopusta.
55 It also follows from the foregoing that the Court has not hitherto been asked to specify whether a female worker is entitled, in any event, to continue to receive full pay in the event of a pregnancy-related illness arising prior to her maternity leave, even if the contested national rule provides for the application of a reduction in the same measure to the remuneration paid to a worker in the event of an illness unrelated to a condition of pregnancy. 
55 Iz navedenoga također proizlazi da Suda do danas nije odredio ima li radnica u svakom slučaju pravo na daljnju isplatu pune plaće u slučaju bolesti povezane s trudnoćom prije rodiljnog dopusta, čak i ako sporno nacionalno pravilo predviđa primjenu jednakog smanjenja plaće radniku u slučaju bolesti koja nije povezana s trudnoćom.
56 Finally, it follows from the foregoing that the condition of pregnancy is not comparable to a pathological illness and that the disorders and complications linked to pregnancy and causing incapacity for work form part of the risks inherent in the condition of pregnancy and are thus a specific feature of that condition (see paragraphs 46 and 53 of the present judgment). 
56 Na kraju, iz navedenoga slijedi da se trudnoća kao stanje ne može uspoređivati s patološkom bolešću te da poremećaji i komplikacije koji se javljaju u trudnoći i uzrokuju nesposobnost za rad čine dio rizika karakterističnih za s trudnoću te su stoga posebno obilježje toga stanja (vidjeti točke 46. i 53. ove presude).
The remuneration of a female worker during pregnancy 
Plaća radnice tijekom trudnoće
57 It does not necessarily follow from the finding that pregnancy-related illnesses are sui generis that a female worker who is absent by reason of a pregnancy-related illness is entitled to maintenance of full pay, whereas a worker absent by reason of an illness unrelated to pregnancy does not have such a right. 
57 Iz utvrđenja posebne prirode bolesti povezanih s trudnoćom nužno ne proizlazi da radnica koja je odsutna zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom ima pravo na daljnju isplatu punog iznosa plaće, dok radnik odsutan zbog bolesti koja nije povezana s trudnoćom nema to pravo.
58 It is first necessary to point out in this regard that, so far as dismissals are concerned, the special nature of a pregnancy-related illness may only be accommodated by denying an employer the right to dismiss a female worker for that reason. By contrast, so far as pay is concerned, the full maintenance thereof is not the only way in which the special nature of a pregnancy-related illness may be accommodated. That special nature may, indeed, be accommodated within the context of a scheme which, in the event of the absence of a female worker by reason of a pregnancy-related illness, provides for a reduction in pay. 
58 Najprije valja istaknuti da se u tom pogledu, što se tiče otkaza, posebna priroda bolesti povezanih s trudnoćom može uzeti u obzir samo tako da se poslodavcu uskrati pravo da uruči otkaz radnici zbog tog razloga. Međutim, što se tiče plaće, njezino daljnje isplaćivanje nije jedini način na koji se može uzeti u obzir posebna priroda bolesti povezane s trudnoćom. U stvari nije isključeno da ta se posebna priroda može uzeti u obzir u okviru sustava koji u slučaju odsutnosti radnice zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom predviđa smanjenje plaće.
59 Next, it is necessary to bear in mind that, as Community law stands at present, no general provision or principle thereof requires that women should continue to receive full pay during maternity leave, provided that the amount of remuneration payable is not so low as to undermine the Community-law objective of protecting female workers, in particular before giving birth (see, to that effect, Gillespie and Others, paragraph 20). 
59 Nadalje valja podsjetiti da sukladno trenutačno važećem pravu Zajednice nema odredbe ili općeg načela kojima se zahtijeva da žena nastavi primati punu plaću tijekom rodiljnog dopusta, pod uvjetom da iznos plaćene naknade nije toliko nizak da narušava cilj prava Zajednice za zaštitu radnice, posebno prije poroda (u tom smislu vidjeti presudu Gillespie i dr., t. 20.).
60 If a rule providing, within certain limits, for a reduction in pay to a female worker during her maternity leave does not constitute discrimination based on sex, a rule providing, within the same limits, for a reduction in pay to that female worker who is absent during her pregnancy by reason of an illness related to that pregnancy also cannot be regarded as constituting discrimination of that kind. 
60 Ako pravilo kojim se u okviru određenih ograničenja utvrđuje smanjenje naknada isplaćenih radnici tijekom rodiljnog dopusta ne predstavlja diskriminaciju na temelju spola, pravilo kojim se unutar istih ograničenja utvrđuje smanjenje naknada isplaćenih toj radnici koja je odsutna tijekom trudnoće zbog bolesti koja je povezana s trudnoćom ne može se smatrati diskriminacijom takve vrste.
61 In those circumstances, it must be concluded that, as it stands at present, Community law does not require the maintenance of full pay for a female worker who is absent during her pregnancy by reason of an illness related to that pregnancy. 
61 U tim okolnostima valja zaključiti da prema trenutačnom stanju pravo Zajednice ne zahtijeva daljnju isplatu pune plaće radnici koja je odsutna tijekom trudnoće zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom.
62 During an absence resulting from such an illness, a female worker may thus suffer a reduction in her pay, provided that she is treated in the same way as a male worker who is absent on grounds of illness, and provided that the amount of payment made is not so low as to undermine the objective of protecting pregnant workers. 
62 Tijekom odsutnosti zbog takve bolesti radnici se stoga može isplaćivati smanjeni iznos plaće, pod uvjetom da se s jedne strane s njom postupa na isti način kao i s radnikom koji je odsutan zbog bolesti i pod uvjetom da, s druge strane, iznos isplaćenih naknada nije toliko nizak da narušava cilj zaštite trudnih radnica.
Offsetting of absences on grounds of illness against a maximum total number of days of paid sick-leave to which a worker is entitled over a specified period 
Uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti u maksimalni ukupni broj dana plaćenog bolovanja na koje radnik ima pravo tijekom određenog razdoblja
63 The scheme in issue in the main proceedings provides for absences on grounds of illness to be offset against the total number of days of paid sick-leave to which a worker is entitled over a specified period. It thus treats in an identical manner all illnesses, whether or not they are pregnancy-related. 
63 Sustavom iz glavnog postupka utvrđuje se uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti u ukupni broj dana plaćenog bolovanja na koje radnik ima pravo tijekom određenog razdoblja. Tako se izjednačuju sve bolesti, bez obzira jesu li povezane s trudnoćom ili ne.
64 Such a scheme does not take any account of the special nature of pregnancy-related illnesses. 
64 Takav sustav ne uzima u obzir posebnu prirodu bolesti povezanih s trudnoćom.
65 That special nature does not, however, preclude absences on grounds of pregnancy-related illness from being offset, within certain limits, against the total number of days of paid sick-leave. 
65 Međutim, ta posebna priroda ne isključuje da se odsutnosti zbog bolesti povezanih s trudnoćom, u okviru određenih ograničenja, uključuju u ukupni broj dana plaćenog bolovanja.
66 The exclusion, in all circumstances, of such offsetting would not be compatible with the possibility of reducing pay during pregnancy. It would also be difficult to reconcile it with the case-law resulting from the abovementioned judgments in Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund and Brown, according to which, after maternity leave, an illness which has its origin in the pregnancy or childbirth comes under the general scheme applicable in the event of illness. 
66 Zapravo, isključenje takvog uključivanja odsutnosti u svim okolnostima ne bi bilo u skladu s mogućnošću smanjenja plaće tijekom trudnoće. Osim toga, teško bi ga bilo pomiriti sa sudskom praksom iz gore navedenih presuda Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Brown, prema kojima je bolest koja je posljedica trudnoće ili poroda, nakon rodiljnog dopusta, obuhvaćena općim sustavom koji se primjenjuje u slučaju bolesti.
67 However, the offsetting of absences during pregnancy on grounds of a pregnancy-related illness against a maximum total number of days of paid sick-leave to which a worker is entitled over a specified period cannot have the effect that, during the absence affected by that offsetting after the maternity leave, the female worker receives pay that is below the minimum amount to which she was entitled over the course of the illness which arose during her pregnancy (see paragraph 62 of the present judgment). 
67 Međutim, uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti povezanih s trudnoćom u maksimalni ukupni broj dana plaćenog bolovanja na koje radnik ima pravo tijekom određenog razdoblja ne smije imati za posljedicu da za vrijeme odsutnosti obuhvaćene tim uključivanjem nakon rodiljnog dopusta radnica dobiva naknadu manju od minimalne na koju je imala pravo za vrijeme bolesti koja se pojavila za vrijeme trudnoće (vidjeti t. 62. ove presude).
68 Special provisions must therefore be implemented in order to prevent such an effect. 
68 Zbog toga se moraju primijeniti posebne odredbe kako bi se spriječio takav učinak.
69 The answer to the second, third and fifth questions must therefore be that Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 must be construed as meaning that the following do not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex: 
69 Na drugo, treće i peto pitanje stoga valja odgovoriti da članak 141. UEZ-a i Direktivu 75/117 treba tumačiti u smislu da sljedeće ne predstavlja diskriminaciju na temelju spola:
"– a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides, in regard to female workers absent prior to maternity leave by reason of an illness related to their pregnancy, as also in regard to male workers absent by reason of any other illness, for a reduction in pay in the case where the absence exceeds a certain duration, provided that the female worker is treated in the same way as a male worker who is absent on grounds of illness and provided that the amount of payment made is not so low as to undermine the objective of protecting pregnant workers;" 
"pravilo sustava bolovanja kojim se predviđa, za radnice koje su odsutne prije rodiljnog dopusta zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom, kao i za radnike odsutne zbog bilo koje druge bolesti, smanjenje plaće ako odsutnost prelazi određeno vremensko razdoblje, pod uvjetom da se s jedne strane radnica izjednačuje s radnikom koji je odsutan zbog bolesti te s druge strane da iznos isplaćenih naknada nije toliko nizak da narušava cilj zaštite trudnih radnica;"
– a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides for absences on grounds of illness to be offset against a maximum total number of days of paid sick-leave to which a worker is entitled over a specified period, whether or not the illness is pregnancy-related, provided that the offsetting of the absences on grounds of pregnancy-related illness does not have the effect that, during the absence affected by that offsetting after the maternity leave, the female worker receives pay that is lower than the minimum amount to which she was entitled during the illness which arose while she was pregnant. 
pravilo sustava bolovanja kojim se predviđa uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti u maksimalni ukupni broju dana plaćenog bolovanja na koje radnik ima pravo tijekom određenog razdoblja, bez obzira radi li se o bolesti povezanoj s trudnoćom, pod uvjetom da uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom nema za posljedicu da za vrijeme odsutnosti obuhvaćene tim uključivanjem nakon rodiljnog dopusta radnica dobiva naknadu manju od minimalne na koju je imala pravo za vrijeme bolesti koja se pojavila za vrijeme trudnoće.
70 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. 
70 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. Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu, koji nisu troškovi spomenutih stranaka, ne nadoknađuju se.
1. A sick-leave scheme which treats identically female workers suffering from a pregnancy-related illness and other workers suffering from an illness that is unrelated to pregnancy comes within the scope of Article 141 EC and 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. 
1. Sustav bolovanja kojim se izjednačuju radnice oboljele od bolesti povezane s trudnoćom i ostali radnici oboljeli od bolesti koja nije povezana s trudnoćom ulazi u područje primjene članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive 75/117 o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o primjeni načela jednakih plaća za muškarce i žene.
2. Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 must be construed as meaning that the following do not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex: 
2. Članak 141. UEZ-a i Direktivu 75/117 treba tumačiti u smislu da sljedeće ne predstavlja diskriminaciju na temelju spola:
"– a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides, in regard to female workers absent prior to maternity leave by reason of an illness related to their pregnancy, as also in regard to male workers absent by reason of any other illness, for a reduction in pay in the case where the absence exceeds a certain duration, provided that the female worker is treated in the same way as a male worker who is absent on grounds of illness and provided that the amount of payment made is not so low as to undermine the objective of protecting pregnant workers;" 
"pravilo sustava bolovanja kojim se predviđa, za radnice koje su odsutne prije rodiljnog dopusta zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom, kao i za radnike odsutne zbog bilo koje druge bolesti, smanjenje plaće ako odsutnost prelazi određeno vremensko razdoblje, pod uvjetom da se s jedne strane radnica izjednačuje s radnikom koji je odsutan zbog bolesti te s druge strane da iznos isplate nije toliko nizak da narušava cilj zaštite trudnih radnica;"
– a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides for absences on grounds of illness to be offset against a maximum total number of days of paid sick-leave to which a worker is entitled over a specified period, whether or not the illness is pregnancy-related, provided that the offsetting of the absences on grounds of a pregnancy-related illness does not have the effect that, during the absence affected by that offsetting after the maternity leave, the female worker receives pay that is lower than the minimum amount to which she was entitled during the illness which arose while she was pregnant. 
pravilo sustava bolovanja kojim se predviđa uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti u maksimalni ukupni broj dana plaćenog bolovanja na koje radnik ima pravo tijekom određenog razdoblja, bez obzira radi li se o bolesti povezanoj s trudnoćom, pod uvjetom da uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom nema za posljedicu da za vrijeme odsutnosti obuhvaćene tim uključivanjem nakon rodiljnog dopusta radnica dobiva naknadu manju od minimalne na koju je imala pravo za vrijeme bolesti koja se pojavila za vrijeme trudnoće.
* Language of the case: English. 
* Jezik postupka: engleski
11 July 2006 (*) 
11. srpnja 2006.( *)
(Appeal – Competition – Management bodies of the Spanish national health system – Medical treatment – Definition of ‘undertaking’ – Payment conditions imposed on suppliers of medical goods and equipment) 
„Žalba – Tržišno natjecanje – Tijela koja upravljaju španjolskim nacionalnim zdravstvenim sustavom – Liječenje – Pojam ,poduzetnikʼ – Uvjeti plaćanja nametnuti dobavljačima medicinskih proizvoda i opreme”
In Case C-205/03 P, 
U predmetu C-205/03 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 13 May 2003, 
povodom žalbe na temelju članka 56. Statuta Suda podnesene 13. svibnja 2003.,
Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN), formerly Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domínguez Pérez, abogados, 
Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN), prije Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental, sa sjedištem u Madridu (Španjolska), koji zastupaju J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier i D. Domínguez Pérez, abogados,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by W. Wils and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and J. Rivas de Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, abogados, with an address for service in Luxembourg, 
Komisija Europskih zajednica, koju zastupaju W. Wils i F. Castillo de la Torre, u svojstvu agenata, uz asistenciju J. Rivas de Andrés i J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, abogados, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu,
defendant at first instance, 
tuženik u prvom stupnju,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by M. Bethell, acting as Agent, and G. Barling QC, with an address for service in Luxembourg, 
Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske, koju zastupa M. Bethell, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju G. Barlinga, QC, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu,
Kingdom of Spain, represented by N. Díaz Abad, L. Fraguas Gadea and F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, 
Kraljevina Španjolska, koju zastupaju N. Díaz Abad, L. Fraguas Gadea i F. Díez Moreno, u svojstvu agenata, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu,
interveners in the appeal, 
intervenijenti u žalbi,
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans i A. Rosas, predsjednici vijeća, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (izvjestitelj), J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus i E. Levits, suci,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 September 2005, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 13. rujna 2005.,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 November 2005, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 10. studenoga 2005.,
1 By its appeal, the Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (‘FENIN’) seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 4 March 2003 in Case T-319/99 FENIN v Commission [2003] ECR II-357 (‘the judgment under appeal’) dismissing its action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 August 1999 dismissing the complaint it had lodged against 26 public bodies, including three ministries, which run the national health system (Sistema Nacional de Salud) (‘the SNS’) on the ground that those bodies (‘the SNS management bodies’) are not undertakings for the purposes of the application of Article 82 EC (‘the contested decision’). 
1 Svojom žalbom Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (dalje u tekstu: FENIN) traži ukidanje presude Prvostupanjskog suda Europskih zajednica od 4. ožujka 2003., FENIN/Komisija (T-319/99, Zb., str. II-357.), (dalje u tekstu: pobijana presuda) kojom je taj sud odbio njegovu tužbu za poništenje odluke Komisije od 26. kolovoza 1999. kojom je odbijen prigovor koji je on uložio protiv 26 javnih tijela, uključujući tri ministarstva, koja upravljaju nacionalnim zdravstvenim sustavom (Sistema Nacional de Salud) (SNS) s obrazloženjem da ta tijela (dalje u tekstu: tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om) nisu poduzetnici za potrebe primjene članka 82. UEZ-a (dalje u tekstu: sporna odluka).
Factual background 
Okolnosti spora
2 The facts, as they appear in the judgment under appeal, may be summarised as follows. 
2 Činjenice, kako su prikazane u pobijanoj presudi, mogu se sažeti kako slijedi.
3 FENIN is an association of the majority of the undertakings which market medical goods and equipment, particularly medical instruments, used in Spanish hospitals. The members of that association sell those goods, inter alia, to the SNS management bodies. The sales of medical goods and equipment to the SNS management bodies represent more than 80% of the turnover for the undertakings who are members of FENIN. 
3 FENIN je udruženje većine poduzetnika koji stavljaju na tržište medicinske proizvode i opremu, a posebno medicinske instrumente, koji se koriste u španjolskim bolnicama. Članovi tog udruženja prodaju te proizvode, između ostalog, tijelima koja upravljaju SNS-om. Prodaja medicinskih proizvoda i opreme tijelima koja upravljaju SNS-om predstavlja više od 80 % prihoda poduzetnika koji su članovi FENIN-a.
4 On 12 December 1997, FENIN submitted a complaint to the Commission of the European Communities alleging systematic delays in payment by the SNS management bodies, which constitute, in its view, an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC. It stated that those bodies took an average of 300 days to pay their debts to its members, even though they settled their debts to other suppliers within a far more reasonable period of time. That discrimination is attributable to the fact that the members of FENIN cannot exert any commercial pressure on those bodies because they have a dominant position in the Spanish market for medical goods and equipment. 
4 FENIN je 12. prosinca 1997. Komisiji Europskih zajednica podnio prigovor u kojem tvrdi da tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om sustavno kasne s plaćanjem, što po njegovom mišljenju predstavlja zloporabu vladajućeg položaja u smislu članka 82. UEZ-a. Naveo je da je tim tijelima u prosjeku trebalo 300 dana da njegovim članovima plate svoja dugovanja, iako su svoja dugovanja drugim dobavljačima rješavala u daleko razumnijem roku. Tu se diskriminaciju može pripisati činjenici da članovi FENIN-a ne mogu vršiti komercijalni pritisak na ta tijela jer ona na španjolskom tržištu medicinskih proizvoda i opreme imaju vladajući položaj.
5 By the contested decision, the Commission dismissed that complaint on the ground that, first, the SNS management bodies do not act as undertakings where they participate in the management of the public health service and, second, their capacity as purchasers cannot be dissociated from the use which is made of the medical goods and equipment following their purchase. Consequently, the Commission submits that those bodies do not act as undertakings within the meaning of Community competition law when they purchase medical goods and equipment, and that Articles 81 EC and 82 EC are not applicable to them. 
5 Spornom odlukom Komisija je odbila prigovor s obrazloženjem da, kao prvo, tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om u slučaju kada sudjeluju u upravljanju javnim zdravstvom ne nastupaju kao poduzetnici i, drugo, da se njih u svojstvu kupaca ne može odvojiti od uporabe tih medicinskih proizvoda i opreme nakon kupnje. Slijedom navedenog, Komisija smatra da ta tijela ne nastupaju kao poduzetnici u smislu prava Zajednice u području tržišnog natjecanja kada kupuju medicinske proizvode i opremu i da članci 81. i 82. UEZ-a nisu primjenjivi na njih.