natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
52 However, it does not appear from recital 20 in the preamble or from any other provision of Directive 2000/78 that the European Union legislature intended to limit the concept of ‘patterns of working time’ to such elements and to exclude the adaptation of working hours, in particular the possibility for persons with a disability who are not capable, or no longer capable, of working full-time to work part-time. 
52 Međutim, ni iz uvodne izjave 20. ni iz bilo koje druge odredbe Direktive 2000/78 ne proizlazi da je zakonodavac Unije namjeravao ograničiti pojam „rasporeda radnog vremena” na te elemente i isključiti prilagodbu radnih sati, a posebno mogućnost da osobe s invaliditetom koje nisu sposobne ili više nisu sposobne raditi puno radno vrijeme, rade skraćeno.
53 In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 2 of the UN Convention, ‘reasonable accommodation’ is ‘necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms’. It follows that that provision prescribes a broad definition of the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’. 
53 Prema četvrtom stavku članka 2. Konvencije UN-a „razumna prilagodba” znači „potrebnu i prikladnu preinaku i podešavanja koja ne predstavljaju nerazmjerno ili neprimjereno opterećenje, da bi se takvo što u pojedinačnom slučaju, tamo gdje je to potrebno kako bi se osobama s invaliditetom osiguralo uživanje ili korištenje svih ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda na ravnopravnoj osnovi s drugima”. Iz tog slijedi da ta odredba propisuje široku definiciju pojma „razumna prilagodba”.
54 Thus, with respect to Directive 2000/78, that concept must be understood as referring to the elimination of the various barriers that hinder the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. 
54 Stoga u pogledu Direktive 2000/78 taj pojam treba shvatiti tako da se odnosi na uklanjanje različitih prepreka koje sprječavaju puno i učinkovito sudjelovanje osoba s invaliditetom u profesionalnoj karijeri na ravnopravnoj osnovi s drugim radnicima.
55 As recital 20 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78 and the second paragraph of Article 2 of the UN Convention envisage not only material but also organisational measures, and the term ‘pattern’ of working time must be understood as the rhythm or speed at which the work is done, it cannot be ruled out that a reduction in working hours may constitute one of the accommodation measures referred to in Article 5 of that directive. 
55 Budući da uvodna izjava 20. Direktive 2000/78 i četvrti stavak članka 2. Konvencije UN-a predviđaju ne samo materijalne nego i organizacijske mjere, a pojam „raspored radnog vremena” treba shvatiti kao ritam ili brzinu rada, ne može se isključiti da skraćeno radno vrijeme može biti jedna od mjera prilagodbe iz članka 5. te direktive.
56 It should be observed, moreover, that the list of appropriate measures to adapt the workplace to the disability in recital 20 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78 is not exhaustive and, consequently, even if it were not covered by the concept of ‘pattern of working time’, a reduction in working hours could be regarded as an accommodation measure referred to in Article 5 of the directive, in a case in which reduced working hours make it possible for the worker to continue employment, in accordance with the objective of that article. 
56 Valja primijetiti da popis prikladnih mjera za prilagodbu radnog mjesta invaliditetu iz uvodne izjave 20. Direktive 2000/78 nije konačan i da u skladu s ciljem tog članka, čak i da nije obuhvaćeno pojmom „raspored radnog vremena”, skraćeno radno vrijeme bi se moglo smatrati mjerom prilagodbe iz članka 5. te direktive u slučaju da smanjenje radnih sati omogućava radniku da nastavi obavljati svoj posao.
57 It must be recalled, however, that, as stated in recital 17 in the preamble, Directive 2000/78 does not require the recruitment, promotion or maintenance in employment of a person who is not competent, capable and available to perform the essential functions of the post concerned, without prejudice to the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities, which includes a possible reduction in their hours of work. 
57 Ipak treba podsjetiti da se, kako se navodi u uvodnoj izjavi 17., Direktivom 2000/78 ne zahtijeva zapošljavanje, unaprjeđivanje ili zadržavanje na radu osobe koja nije stručna, sposobna ni raspoloživa za obavljanje osnovnih zadataka odgovarajućeg radnog mjesta, ne dovodeći u pitanje obvezu razumne prilagodbe potrebama osoba s invaliditetom što uključuje moguće smanjenje njihove satnice.
58 Moreover, in accordance with Article 5 of that directive, the accommodation persons with disabilities are entitled to must be reasonable, in that it must not constitute a disproportionate burden on the employer. 
58 Osim toga, u skladu s člankom 5. te direktive, prilagodbe na koje osobe s invaliditetom imaju pravo, moraju biti razumne u smislu da ne smiju biti nerazmjerno opterećenje za poslodavca.
59 In the disputes in the main proceedings, it is therefore for the national court to assess whether a reduction in working hours, as an accommodation measure, represents a disproportionate burden on the employers. 
59 U glavnom postupku na nacionalnom je sudu da ocijeni može li smanjenje radnih sati kao mjera prilagodbe biti nerazmjerno opterećenje za poslodavca.
60 As follows from recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78, account must be taken in particular of the financial and other costs entailed by such a measure, the scale and financial resources of the undertaking, and the possibility of obtaining public funding or any other assistance. 
60 Kako to proizlazi iz uvodne izjave 21. Direktive 2000/78, valja voditi računa osobito o povezanim financijskim i drugim troškovima, veličini i financijskim sredstvima poduzeća te o mogućnostima dobivanja javnih sredstava ili kakve druge pomoći.
61 It should be recalled that, in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, which is 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. However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (Case C-433/05 Sandström [2010] ECR I-2885, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). 
61 Valja podsjetiti da je u okviru postupka iz članka 267. UFEU-a, koji se temelji na jasnom odvajanju funkcija između nacionalnih sudova i Suda, ocjena činjeničnog stanja u nadležnosti nacionalnog suda. Međutim, da bi nacionalnom sudu dao koristan odgovor, Sud mu može, u duhu suradnje s nacionalnim sudovima, dati sve upute koje smatra potrebnima (presuda od 15. travnja 2010., Sandström, C-433/05, Zb., str. I-2885., t. 35. i navedena sudska praksa).
62 It may be of relevance for the purposes of that assessment that, as noted by the referring court, immediately after the dismissal of Ms Ring, DAB advertised a position for an office worker to work part-time, 22 hours a week, in its regional office in Lyngby. There is nothing in the documents before the Court to show that Ms Ring was not capable of occupying that part-time post or to explain why it was not offered to her. Moreover, the referring court stated that soon after her dismissal Ms Ring started a new job as a receptionist with another company and her actual working time was 20 hours a week. 
62 U svrhu te ocjene može biti relevantna činjenica koju je iznio sud koji je uputio zahtjev, da je neposredno nakon otkaza koji je dobila J. Ring, DAB objavio oglas za radno mjesto uredskog službenika na nepuno radno vrijeme, 22 sata tjedno, u regionalnom uredu u Lyngbyju. U spisima koji su dostavljeni Sudu nema nikakvih dokaza da J. Ring nije bila sposobna obavljati taj posao na nepuno radno vrijeme niti je objašnjeno zašto joj to mjesto nije bilo ponuđeno. Osim toga, sud koji je uputio zahtjev naveo je da je nedugo nakon otkaza J. Ring počela raditi na novom poslu kao recepcionarka u drugom poduzeću i njezino radno vrijeme je bilo 20 sati tjedno.
63 In addition, as the Danish Government pointed out at the hearing, Danish law makes it possible to grant public assistance to undertakings for accommodation measures whose purpose is to facilitate the access to the labour market of persons with disabilities, including initiatives aimed at encouraging employers to recruit and maintain in employment persons with disabilities. 
63 Osim toga, kako je danska vlada istaknula na raspravi, dansko pravo predviđa mogućnost dodjele pomoći iz javnih sredstava za mjere prilagodbe čiji je cilj olakšati pristup tržištu rada za osobe s invaliditetom, uključujući inicijative kojima je cilj potaknuti poslodavce da zapošljavaju i zadržavaju na radu osobe s invaliditetom.
64 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 3 is that Article 5 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a reduction in working hours may constitute one of the accommodation measures referred to in that article. It is for the national court to assess whether, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, a reduction in working hours, as an accommodation measure, represents a disproportionate burden on the employer. 
64 S obzirom na gore navedeno, na treće pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 5. Direktive 2000/78 treba tumačiti u smislu da smanjenje radnih sati može biti jedna od mjera prilagodbe iz tog članka. Na nacionalnom je sudu da ocijeni je li u okolnostima glavnog postupka smanjenje radnih sati kao mjera prilagodbe nerazmjerno opterećenje za poslodavca.
Question 4(b) 
Četvrto pitanje, točka (b)
65 By part (b) of its fourth question, the referring court asks essentially whether Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of the employer’s failure to take the appropriate measures in accordance with the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation laid down in Article 5 of that directive. 
65 Četvrtim pitanjem točkom (b) sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li Direktivu 2000/78 tumačiti tako da joj je protivna nacionalna odredba prema kojoj poslodavac može prekinuti ugovor o radu uz kraći otkazni rok ako je dotična osoba s invaliditetom bila odsutna zbog bolesti 120 dana tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci i primala plaću, ako je ta odsutnost posljedica toga što poslodavac nije poduzeo prikladne mjere u skladu s obvezom razumne prilagodbe predviđenoj u članku 5. te direktive.
66 The circumstance that an employer has failed to take those measures may have the consequence, having regard to the obligation under Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, that the absences of a worker with a disability are attributable to the employer’s failure to act, not to the worker’s disability. 
66 Valja napomenuti da okolnost u kojoj poslodavac nije poduzeo te mjere može imati za posljedicu, uzimajući u obzir obvezu iz članka 5. Direktive 2000/78, da se odsutnost radnika s invaliditetom može pripisati neispunjavanju obveze poslodavca, a ne invaliditetu radnika.
67 Should the national court find that the absences of the workers are attributable, in the present cases, to the employer’s failure to adopt appropriate accommodation measures, Directive 2000/78 would preclude the application of a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings. 
67 Ako nacionalni sud utvrdi da se odsutnost radnika u ovim slučajevima može pripisati neispunjavanju obveze poslodavca da provede odgovarajuće mjere prilagodbe, primjena odredbe nacionalnog prava kao što je ona o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku protivna je Direktivi 2000/78.
68 Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to Question 4(b) is that Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of the employer’s failure to take the appropriate measures in accordance with the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation laid down in Article 5 of that directive. 
68 Uzimajući u obzir gore navedeno, na četvrto pitanje točku (b) valja odgovoriti da Direktivu 2000/78 treba tumačiti tako da joj je protivna nacionalna odredba prema kojoj poslodavac može prekinuti ugovor o radu uz kraći otkazni rok ako je dotična osoba s invaliditetom bila odsutna zbog bolesti 120 dana tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci i primala plaću, ako je ta odsutnost posljedica toga što poslodavac nije poduzeo prikladne mjere u skladu s obvezom razumne prilagodbe predviđenoj u članku 5. te direktive.
Question 4(a) 
Četvrto pitanje točka (a)
69 By part (a) of its fourth question, the referring court asks essentially whether Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of his disability. 
69 Četvrtim pitanjem točkom (a) sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li Direktivu 2000/78 tumačiti tako da joj je protivna nacionalna odredba prema kojoj poslodavac može prekinuti ugovor o radu uz kraći otkazni rok ako je dotična osoba s invaliditetom bila odsutna zbog bolesti 120 dana tijekom proteklih 12 mjeseci i primala plaću, ako je ta odsutnost posljedica njezina invaliditeta.
70 By this question the referring court is raising the case of Paragraph 5(2) of the FL being applied to a disabled person following absence on grounds of illness attributable wholly or partly to his disability, not to the employer’s failure to take the appropriate measures in accordance with the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation laid down in Article 5 of Directive 2000/78. 
70 Valja smatrati da se ovim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev odnosi na slučaj iz točke 5. stavka 2. FL-a koji se primjenjuje na osobu s invaliditetom uslijed odsutnosti zbog bolesti koja se u cijelosti ili djelomično može pripisati njezinom invaliditetu, a ne neispunjavanju obveze od strane poslodavca da provede odgovarajuće mjere u skladu s obvezom razumne prilagodbe predviđenoj u članku 5. Direktive 2000/78.
71 As the Court held in paragraph 48 of Chacón Navas, unfavourable treatment on grounds of disability undermines the protection provided for by Directive 2000/78 only in so far as it constitutes discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive. A disabled worker covered by that directive must be protected against all discrimination in comparison to a worker not so covered. The question thus arises whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is liable to produce discrimination against persons with disabilities. 
71 Kako je Sud potvrdio u točki 48. gore navedene presude Chacón Navas , manje povoljno postupanje na temelju invaliditeta u suprotnosti je sa zaštitom predviđenom Direktivom 2000/78 u mjeri u kojoj predstavlja diskriminaciju u smislu članka 2. stavka 1. te direktive. Radnik s invaliditetom na kojeg se odnosi ta direktiva mora biti zaštićen protiv svih vrsta diskriminacije u odnosu na radnika na kojeg se direktiva ne odnosi. Stoga se postavlja pitanje može li nacionalna odredba o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku uzrokovati diskriminaciju osoba s invaliditetom.
72 On the question whether the provision at issue in the main proceedings contains a difference of treatment on grounds of disability, it must be noted that Paragraph 5(2) of the FL, which relates to absences on grounds of illness, applies in the same way to disabled and non-disabled persons who have been absent for more than 120 days on those grounds. In those circumstances, that provision cannot be regarded as establishing a difference of treatment based directly on disability, within the meaning of Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78. 
72 U pogledu pitanja predviđa li odredba o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku različito postupanje na temelju invaliditeta, valja primijetiti da se članak 5. stavak 2. FL-a u vezi s odsutnosti zbog bolesti na jednak način primjenjuje na osobe s invaliditetom kao i na osobe bez invaliditeta koje su bile odsutne više od 120 dana iz tog razloga. U tim se okolnostima ne može smatrati da se tom odredbom uspostavlja različito postupanje koje se temelji izravno na invaliditetu, u smislu članka 1. u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (a) Direktive 2000/78.
73 It should be observed that a person whose employer terminates his employment contract with a shortened notice period solely on grounds of illness does not fall within the general framework laid down for combating discrimination on grounds of disability by Directive 2000/78 (see, by analogy, Chacón Navas, paragraph 47). 
73 S tim u vezi valja primijetiti da osoba s kojom poslodavac prekine ugovor o radu sa skraćenim otkaznim rokom isključivo zbog bolesti ne potpada pod opći okvir koji je utvrđen Direktivom 2000/78 za borbu protiv diskriminacije na temelju invaliditeta (vidjeti po analogiji Chacón Navas, gore navedena, t. 47.).
74 It must therefore be concluded that Paragraph 5(2) of the FL does not contain direct discrimination on grounds of disability, in so far as it uses a criterion that is not inseparably linked to disability. 
74 Valja utvrditi da članak 5. stavak 2. FL-a ne sadržava izravnu diskriminaciju na temelju invaliditeta, u mjeri u kojoj se temelji na kriteriju koji nije neodvojivo povezan s invaliditetom.
75 On the question whether that provision is liable to produce a difference of treatment indirectly based on disability, it must be observed that taking account of days of absence on grounds of illness linked to disability in the calculation of days of absence on grounds of illness amounts to assimilating illness linked with disability to the general concept of illness. However, as the Court said in paragraph 44 of Chacón Navas, the concepts of ‘disability’ and ‘sickness’ cannot simply be treated as being the same. 
75 U pogledu pitanja može li ta odredba uzrokovati različito postupanje koje se neizravno temelji na invaliditetu, valja primijetiti da uzimajući u obzir dane odsustva zbog bolesti na temelju invaliditeta kod izračuna dana odsustva zbog bolesti dovodi do izjednačivanja bolesti zbog invaliditeta s općim pojmom bolesti. Međutim, kako je Sud to potvrdio u točki 44. presude Chacón Navas, jednostavno izjednačavanje pojmova „invaliditet” i „bolest” je isključeno.
76 A worker with a disability is more exposed to the risk of application of the shortened notice period laid down in Paragraph 5(2) of the FL than a worker without a disability. As the Advocate General observes in point 67 of her Opinion, compared with such a worker, a worker with a disability has the additional risk of an illness connected with his disability. He thus runs a greater risk of accumulating days of absence on grounds of illness, and consequently of reaching the 120-day limit provided for in Paragraph 5(2) of the FL. It is thus apparent that the 120-day rule in that provision is liable to place disabled workers at a disadvantage and so to bring about a difference of treatment indirectly based on disability within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78. 
76 U tom pogledu valja utvrditi da je radnik s invaliditetom izloženiji riziku da se na njega primjeni skraćeni otkazni rok predviđen u članku 5. stavku 2. FL-a u odnosu na radnika bez invaliditeta. Kao što je nezavisna odvjetnica primijetila u točki 67. svojeg mišljenja, u odnosu na takvog radnika radnik s invaliditetom izložen je dodatnom riziku od bolesti povezane s invaliditetom. On je stoga izložen većem riziku od gomilanja dana odsutnosti zbog bolesti i dostizanju ograničenja od 120 dana koje je predviđeno u članku 5. stavku 2. FL-a. Iz toga proizlazi da bi pravilo o 120 dana iz spomenute odredbe moglo dovesti u nepovoljniji položaj radnike s invaliditetom te time prouzročiti različito postupanje koje se neizravno temelji na invaliditetu u smislu članka 2. stavka 2. točke (b) Direktive 2000/78.
77 In accordance with point (i) of that provision, it must be examined whether that difference of treatment is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and whether the means used to achieve that aim are appropriate and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the aim pursued by the Danish legislature. 
77 U skladu s točkom (i) te odredbe, valja ispitati može li se takvo različito postupanje objektivno opravdati legitimnim ciljem i jesu li sredstva za postizanje tog cilja prikladna i ne prelaze ono što je nužno za postizanje cilja koji je zadao danski zakonodavac.
78 As regards the aim of Paragraph 5(2) of the FL, the Danish Government states that this is to encourage employers to recruit and maintain in their employment workers who are particularly likely to have repeated absences because of illness, by allowing them subsequently to dismiss them with a shortened period of notice, if the absences tend to be for very long periods. As a counterpart, those workers can retain their employment during the period of illness. 
78 U pogledu cilja iz članka 5. stavka 2. FL-a danska vlada navodi da se time potiče poslodavce da zapošljavaju i zadržavaju radnike za koje je vjerojatno da će biti opetovano odsutni zbog bolesti, tako što im se dopušta da ih naknadno otpuste uz kraći otkazni rok ako bi se takva odsustva mogla odužiti na vrlo duga razdoblja. S druge strane, ti radnici mogu zadržati radno mjesto tijekom razdoblja bolesti.
79 The Danish Government observes that the provision thus has regard to the interests both of employers and employees and is in line with the general regulation of the Danish labour market, which is based on a combination of flexibility and freedom of contract, on the one hand, and the protection of workers, on the other. 
79 Danska vlada primjećuje da ta odredba štiti interese poslodavaca i zaposlenika te da je usklađena s općim uređenjem danskog tržišta rada, koje se temelji na kombinaciji fleksibilnosti i slobode ugovora, s jedne strane, i zaštite radnika, s druge strane.
80 DAB and Pro Display state that the 120-day rule laid down in Paragraph 5(2) of the FL is regarded as protection for workers who are ill, since an employer who has agreed to apply it will generally be inclined to wait longer before dismissing such a worker. 
80 DAB i Pro Display navode da se pravilo o 120 dana predviđeno u članku 5. stavku 2. FL-a smatra zaštitom za bolesne radnike, budući da je poslodavac koji je pristao na njegovu primjenu obično skloniji duže pričekati prije otkazivanja radnika.
81 It should be recalled that the Member States have a broad discretion not only in choosing to pursue a particular aim in the field of social and employment policy but also in defining measures to implement it (see, to that effect, Case C-141/11 Hörnfeldt [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 32, and Case C-152/11 Odar [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 47). 
81 Valja podsjetiti da države članice imaju široku marginu procjene, ne samo u izboru cilja u području socijalne politike i zapošljavanja, već također u definiranju mjera kojima se taj cilj može ostvariti (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 5. srpnja 2012., Hörnfeldt, C-141/11, t. 32, i od 6. prosinca 2012., Odar, C-152/11, t. 47.).