natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Any undertaking established and having its registered office abroad or having no fixed establishment in Luxembourg within the meaning of the tax law, one or more of whose workers carry out work in whatsoever capacity in Luxembourg, shall be required to retain in Luxembourg with an ad hoc agent resident there the documents necessary for monitoring its compliance with the obligations arising in application of this law and, in particular, of Article 7 above. 
„Svako poduzeće koje ima poslovni nastan i sjedište u inozemstvu ili koje nema trajni poslovni nastan u Luksemburgu u smislu poreznog zakona, čiji jedan radnik ili više radnika u bilo kojem svojstvu obavljaju djelatnost u Luksemburgu, obvezno je u Luksemburgu pri ad hoc zastupniku koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu čuvati dokumente potrebne za nadzor obveza koje mora ispuniti prema ovom zakonu i posebno prema prethodnom članku 7.
Those documents shall be produced to the Labour and Mines Inspectorate on demand and within as short a period as possible. The Labour and Mines Inspectorate must be informed in advance, by registered letter, with proof of receipt, sent by the undertaking or the representative referred to in the previous paragraph, at the very latest prior to the employment activities envisaged, of the exact location of the documents deposited.’ 
Te je dokumente u najkraćem roku potrebno dostaviti tijelu Inspection du travail et des mines, na njegov zahtjev. Poduzeće ili njegov zastupnik iz prethodnog stavka, najkasnije prije početka obavljanja planiranog nesamostalnog rada preporučenim pismom unaprijed informira tijelo Inspection du travail et des mines o točnom mjestu na kojem će dokumenti biti pohranjeni.”
8 By a letter of formal notice of 1 April 2004, the Commission indicated to the Luxembourg authorities that the Law of 20 December 2002 was likely to be incompatible with Community law. In particular that law was said to: 
8 Pismom opomene od 1. travnja 2004. Komisija je obavijestila tijela javne vlasti Luksemburga da je moguće da je Zakon od 20. prosinca 2002. u suprotnosti s pravom Zajednice. Taj zakon:
"– require undertakings established in another Member State which posted workers to Luxembourg to comply with terms and conditions of employment going beyond the requirements of Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71;" 
"zahtijeva od poduzeća s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici, koje upućuje radnike u Luksemburg, da se pridržava uvjeta rada i zaposlenja koji nadilaze propisane zahtjeve iz članka 3. stavaka 1. i 10. Direktive 96/71;"
"– fail to ensure that posted workers are afforded any other rest period (daily rest period) entitlement apart from the weekly rest period;" 
"ne jamči upućenim radnicima, osim tjednog odmora, pravo na drugo razdoblje odmora (dnevni odmor);"
"– lack the necessary clarity to ensure legal certainty, by requiring undertakings posting workers to Luxembourg to make available to the Labour and Mines Inspectorate prior to the commencement of work on demand and within as short a period as possible the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes;" 
nije dovoljno jasan da bi osigurao pravnu sigurnost obvezujući poduzeća koja upućuju radnike u Luksemburg da prije početka radova tijelu Inspection du travail et des mines na njegov zahtjev i u najkraćem roku stave na raspolaganje osnovne informacije potrebne za nadzor, i
– restrict freedom to provide services by requiring undertakings whose registered office is outside the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or which do not have a permanent establishment there to keep the documents necessary for monitoring purposes with an ad hoc agent resident in Luxembourg. 
ograničava slobodu pružanja usluga zahtijevajući od poduzeća koja imaju sjedište izvan državnog područja Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburg ili koja nemaju stalni poslovni nastan u Luksemburgu, da kod ad hoc zastupnika koji ima boravište u toj državi članici čuvaju dokumente potrebne za nadzor.
9 In its response of 30 August 2004, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg stated that the terms and conditions of employment which are the subject of the first complaint raised in the letter of formal notice are ‘public policy provisions’ as provided for in the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71. 
9 U svojem odgovoru od 30. kolovoza 2004. Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg istaknulo je da su uvjeti rada i zaposlenja koji su predmet prvog prigovora u tom pismu opomene dio „odredaba javnog poretka”, kako su predviđene člankom 3. stavkom 10. prvom alinejom Direktive 96/71.
The first plea in law: incorrect transposition of Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71 
Prvi prigovor
16 More specifically, the Commission takes the view that, by wrongly describing the national provisions relating to the areas covered by the measures in question as mandatory provisions falling under national public policy and thereby requiring undertakings which post workers to its territory to comply with them, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg imposes obligations on those undertakings which go beyond those laid down by Directive 96/71. According to the Commission, the notion of public policy in Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71 cannot be unilaterally defined by each Member State, since the latter are not free to impose unilaterally all the mandatory provisions of their employment law on suppliers of services established in another Member State. 
16 Komisija konkretno smatra da time što nacionalne odredbe koje se odnose na područja obuhvaćena dotičnim mjerama pogrešno kvalificira kao prisilne odredbe koje potpadaju pod javni poredak i stoga zahtijeva od poduzeća koja upućuju radnike na njezino državno područje da ih se pridržavaju, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg tim poduzećima nameće obveze koje nadilaze ono što predviđa Direktiva 96/71. Prema toj instituciji, pojam javnog poretka iz članka 3. stavka 10. te direktive ne može jednostrano odrediti svaka država članica budući da potonja nema slobodu jednostranog nametanja svih prisilnih odredaba svojega radnog prava pružateljima usluga s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici.
22 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg contends that the measures referred to in the Commission’s first complaint all relate to mandatory provisions falling under national public policy within the meaning of the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71. In that regard, it submits, first, that Declaration No 10 does not have any binding legal force and, second, that the definition of public policy provisions includes all provisions which, in the view of the host State, meet the imperative requirements of the public interest. Furthermore, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg refers to the legislative procedure which led to the adoption of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36). 
22 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ističe da se odredbe na koje se odnosi prvi prigovor Komisije odnose na sve prisilne odredbe u području nacionalnog pravnog poretka u smislu članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71. U tom pogledu, s jedne strane, smatra da da izjava br. 10 nema nikakvu pravno obvezujuću vrijednost i da, s druge strane, pojam odredaba javnog poretka podrazumijeva sve odredbe koje, prema shvaćanju države domaćina, odgovaraju obveznim zahtjevima javnog interesa. Osim toga, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg upućuje na zakonodavni postupak koji je prethodio donošenju Direktive 2006/123/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 12. prosinca 2006. o uslugama na unutarnjem tržištu (SL L 376, str. 36.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku: poglavlje 13., svezak 47., str. 160.).
– Preliminary observations 
Uvodna očitovanja
23 First of all, in order to address the main argument put forward by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in its defence, it must be pointed out that, according to Article 3(1)(a) thereof, Directive 2006/123 is not intended to replace Directive 96/71 and the latter prevails over the former in the event of conflict. Therefore, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg cannot base its arguments on the legislative procedure which led to the adoption of Directive 2006/123 in order to support its interpretation of a provision of Directive 96/71. 
23 Kao prvo, kao odgovor na glavni argument koji je navelo Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg valja naglasiti da prema njezinom članku 3. stavku 1. točki (a), Direktiva 2006/123 nema namjenu zamijeniti Direktivu 96/71, pri čemu u slučaju sukoba potonja prevladava nad prvom. Stoga se ta država članica ne može oslanjati na zakonodavni postupak koji je doveo do donošenja Direktive 2006/123 kako bi poduprla tumačenje odredbe Direktive 96/71 koju brani.
30 Therefore, contrary to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg’s submissions, the public policy exception is a derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services which must be interpreted strictly, the scope of which cannot be determined unilaterally by the Member States (see, regarding freedom of movement for persons, Case C-503/03 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-1097, paragraph 45). 
30 Stoga, suprotno onome što tvrdi Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, izuzetak od javnoga poretka predstavlja odstupanje od temeljnog načela slobodnog pružanja usluga, koje mora biti shvaćeno strogo i čiji doseg ne mogu jednostrano odrediti države članice (vidjeti u vezi sa slobodnim kretanjem osoba presudu od 31. siječnja 2006., Komisija/Španjolska, C-503/3, Zb., str. I-1097., t. 45.).
31 In the context of Directive 96/71, the first indent of Article 3(10), constitutes a derogation from the principle that the matters with respect to which the host Member State may apply its legislation to undertakings which post workers to its territory are set out in an exhaustive list in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) thereof. The first indent of Article 3(10) must therefore be interpreted strictly. 
31 U kontekstu Direktive 96/71, članak 3. stavak 10. prva alineja jest odstupanje od načela prema kojem su pitanja u kojima država članica domaćin može primijeniti svoje zakonodavstvo na poduzeća koja upućuju radnike na njezino državno područje taksativno navedena u članku 3. stavku 1. podstavku 1. te direktive. Tu prvu odredbu stoga treba usko tumačiti.
32 Moreover, Declaration No 10 which, as the Advocate General rightly pointed out in point 45 of her Opinion, may be relied on in support of an interpretation of the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71, states that the expression ‘public policy provisions’ is to be construed as covering those mandatory rules from which there can be no derogation and which, by their nature and objective, meet the imperative requirements of the public interest. 
32 Osim toga, u izjavi br. 10. u pogledu koje je nezavisna odvjetnica u točki 45. svojega mišljenja ispravno istaknula da bi se na nju moglo pozivati u prilog tumačenju članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71, navodi se da izraz „odredbe javnog poretka” treba smatrati takvim da obuhvaća obvezujuće odredbe od kojih nije moguće odstupati i koje u skladu s njihovom prirodom i ciljem ispunjavaju bitne zahtjeve javnog interesa.
– The requirement of a written contract or document established pursuant to Directive 91/533, as provided for in Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 
Odredba o pisanom ugovoru ili dokumentu na temelju Direktive 91/533, predviđena člankom 1. točkom 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
36 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg submits, first, that the contested requirement is simply a reminder of the condition referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 91/533 and, second, that it is a matter of public policy in so far as its objective is to protect workers. 
36 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ističe da je sporna odredba s jedne strane samo podsjetnik na uvjete iz članaka 2. i 3. Direktive 91/533 i da s druge strane pripada javnom poretku jer je njezin cilj zaštita radnika.
41 Accordingly, the contested provision has the effect of making undertakings which post workers to Luxembourg subject to an obligation to which they are already subject in the Member State in which they are established. Moreover, the aim of Directive 96/71, which is to guarantee compliance with a nucleus of rules for the protection of workers, renders the existence of such an additional obligation all the more redundant since, having regard to the procedures involved, it is likely to dissuade undertakings established in another Member State from exercising their freedom to provide services. 
41 Stoga osporavana odredba ima za učinak podvrgavanje poduzeća, koja upućuju radnike u Luksemburg, obvezi koju već imaju u državi članici u kojoj imaju poslovni nastan. Štoviše, cilj Direktive 96/71, kojim se jamči poštovanje minimalne jezgre pravila za zaštitu radnika, čini još nepotrebnijom takvu dodatnu obvezu koja, s obzirom na postupke koje podrazumijeva, odvraća poduzeća s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici od izvršavanja slobode pružanja usluga.
– The requirement relating to the automatic adjustment of rates of remuneration to the cost of living provided for in Article 1(1)(2) of the Law of 20 December 2002 
Odredba o automatskoj prilagodbi plaća kretanju životnih troškova iz članka 1. stavka 1. točke 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
45 It is clear from the Commission’s application that the latter does not challenge the fact that minimum wages are indexed to the cost of living, a requirement which, as the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg points out, is unquestionably covered by point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, but the fact that that indexation concerns all wages, including those which do not fall within the minimum wage category. 
45 Iz tužbe koju je uložila Komisija proizlazi da ona ne osporava činjenicu da su minimalne plaće usklađene sa životnim troškovima, jer je ta odredba nepobitno obuhvaćena člankom 3. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. točkom (c) Direktive 96/71, kako je napomenulo Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, već okolnost da se to usklađivanje odnosi na sve plaće, uključujući one koje nisu u kategoriji minimalnih plaća.
47 In that connection, it must be pointed out that the Community legislature intended, by means of point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, to limit the possibility of the Member States intervening as regards pay to matters relating to minimum rates of pay. It follows that the requirement in the Law of 20 December 2002 concerning the automatic adjustment of rates of pay other than the minimum wage to the cost of living does not fall within the matters referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71. 
47 S tim u vezi valja naglasiti da je zakonodavac Zajednice člankom 3. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. točkom (c) Direktive 96/71 htio ograničiti mogućnost državama članicama da u području plaća interveniraju u minimalne plaće. Iz toga proizlazi da se odredba Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. o automatskom usklađivanju plaća koje nisu minimalne s kretanjem životnih troškova ne odnosi na pitanja iz članka 3. stavka 1. prvog podstavka Direktive 96/71.
49 In that connection, it must be recalled that that provision of Directive 96/71 gives the host Member State an opportunity to apply to undertakings posting workers to its territory terms and conditions of employment on matters other than those referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, provided that they are public policy provisions. That proviso in the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71 constitutes an exception to the system put in place by that directive and a derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services on which the directive is based and must be interpreted strictly. 
49 S tim u vezi valja podsjetiti da ta odredba Direktive 96/71 otvara mogućnost državi članici domaćinu da poduzećima koja upućuju radnike na njezino područje nametne uvjete rada i zaposlenja za pitanja koja nisu predviđena člankom 3. stavkom 1. prvim podstavkom Direktive 96/71, pod uvjetom da se radi o odredbama javnog poretka. Zato to pridržavanje javnog poretka iz članka 3. stavka 10. prve alineje Direktive 96/71 predstavlja iznimku od sustava uspostavljenog tom direktivom kao i odstupanje od temeljnog načela slobodnog pružanja usluga na kojem se ta direktiva temelji i treba ga tumačiti usko.
50 Thus the Court has already had occasion to observe that, while the Member States are still, in principle, free to determine the requirements of public policy in the light of their national needs, the notion of public policy in the Community context, particularly when it is cited as justification for a derogation from the fundamental principle of the freedom to provide services, must be interpreted strictly, so that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the European Community institutions (see, to that effect, Case C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609, paragraph 30). It follows that public policy may be relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society (see Case C-54/99 Église de scientologie [2000] ECR I-1335, paragraph 17). 
50 Tako je Sud već imao priliku pojasniti da, dok države članice u načelu u skladu s njihovim nacionalnim potrebama imaju slobodu utvrditi zahtjeve javnog poretka, dok u kontekstu Zajednice i osobito kao opravdanje za odstupanje od temeljnog načela slobodnog pružanja usluga taj pojam treba shvatiti strogo, tako da njegov doseg ne može jednostrano utvrditi svaka država članica bez nadzora institucija Europske zajednice (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 14. listopada 2004., Omega, C-36/02, Zb., str. I-9609., t. 30.). Iz toga proizlazi da se na javni poredak moguće pozivati samo u slučaju stvarne i dovoljno ozbiljne opasnosti koja utječe na temeljni interes društva (vidjeti presudu od 14. ožujka 2000., Eglise de scientologie, C-54/99, Zb., str. I-1335., t. 17.).
– The requirement relating to the rules on part-time and fixed-term work laid down in point 8 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 
Odredba o radu na nepuno radno vrijeme i radu na određeno vrijeme predviđena u članku 1. stavku 1. točki 8. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
– The requirement relating to imperative provisions of national law in respect of collective agreements in point 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 
Obvezujuće odredbe nacionalnog prava u pogledu kolektivnih ugovora o radu iz članka 1. stavka 1. točke 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002.
62 The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71 defines the instruments by which the terms and conditions of employment of the host Member State are laid down covering the matters referred to in points (a) to (g) thereof and which are guaranteed to posted workers. The second indent of that provision refers in particular to collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable. 
62 Članak 3. stavak 1. prvi podstavak Direktive 96/71 definira instrumente kojima su uvjeti rada i zaposlenja države članice domaćina utvrđeni u pogledu pitanja iz tog podstavka od (a) do (g) i koji se jamče upućenim radnicima. Druga alineja ove odredbe odnosi se posebno na kolektivne ugovore proglašene univerzalno primjenjivima.
63 Likewise, Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 states that measures resulting, in particular, from collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable concerning the matters referred to in points 1 to 14 thereof constitute mandatory provisions falling under national public policy. Point 11 mentions provisions concerning collective agreements. 
63 U skladu s ovom odredbom članak 1. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. navodi da su prisilni propisi u području nacionalnog javnog poretka odredbe koje među ostalim proizlaze iz kolektivnih ugovora proglašenih univerzalno primjenjivim, koji se odnose na pitanja iz točaka 1. do 14. U točki 11. tog Zakona spomenute su odredbe o kolektivnim ugovorima o radu.
67 Third, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg cannot argue that point 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 ultimately reflects the discretion granted to Member States under the second indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71. Article 3(10) relates exclusively to the terms and conditions of employment laid down in collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable. That is not the case with respect to point 11 of Article 1(1) which expressly refers, in contrast with the introduction to of Article 1, to mere collective labour agreements. 
67 Treće, Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg ne može podupirati tvrdnju da je u članku 1. stavku 1. točki 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. in fine konkretizirano ovlaštenje koje je državama članicama dodijeljeno na temelju članka 3. stavka 10. druge alineje Direktive 96/71. Ta se odredba odnosi isključivo na uvjete rada i zaposlenja utvrđene kolektivnim ugovorima proglašenima univerzalno primjenjivima. To nije slučaj s navedenim člankom 1. stavkom 1. točkom 11. koji se, suprotno uvodnoj rečenici tog istog članka 1., izričito odnosi na obične kolektivne ugovore o radu.
69 Consequently, it follows from the foregoing that the Commission’s first complaint is well founded. 
69 Iz navedenoga stoga slijedi da je prvi prigovor Komisije utemeljen.
"72 It must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C-168/03 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8227, paragraph 24; Case C-433/03 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I-6985, paragraph 32; and Case C-354/06 Commission v Luxembourg [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 7)." 
"72 Valja podsjetiti da prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda postojanje povrede obveze treba ocjenjivati prema stanju u državi članici koje je postojalo do proteka roka određenog u obrazloženom mišljenju pa stoga promjene koje su naknadno nastupile Sud ne može uzeti u obzir (vidjeti osobito presude od 14. rujna 2004., Komisija /Španjolska, C-168/03, Zb., str. I-8227, t. 24.; od 14. srpnja 2005., Komisija/Njemačka, C-433/03, Zb., str. I-6985, t. 32.; i od 27. rujna 2007., Komisija/Luksemburg, C-354/06, t. 7.)."
74 Therefore, the Commission’s second complaint is well founded. 
74 Stoga je drugi prigovor Komisije utemeljen.
75 By its third complaint, the Commission claims that, on account of its lack of clarity, Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is likely to give rise to legal uncertainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg. Thus, the obligation for all undertakings to make available to the Labour and Mines Inspectorate on demand and within as short a period as possible the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes amounts, in the case of a posting, to a prior notification procedure incompatible with Article 49 EC. However, if that should not be the case, the text of the contested provision should nevertheless be amended in order to remove any legal ambiguity. 
75 Komisija u svojem trećem prigovoru tvrdi da članak 7. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. zbog nejasnoće može dovesti do pravne nesigurnosti za poduzeća koja žele uputiti radnike u Luksemburg. Tako se obveza da svako poduzeće prije početka obavljanja radova dostavi tijelu Inspection du travail et des mines na zahtjev i u najkraćem roku osnovne informacije potrebne za nadzor, u slučaju upućivanja približava postupku prethodne prijave koji nije u skladu s člankom 49. UEZ-a. Međutim, ako to nije slučaj, tekst sporne odredbe ipak treba promijeniti kako bi se uklonila svaka pravna nejasnoća.