natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
24 In both main proceedings the employers dispute that the applicants’ state of health is covered by the concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78, since the only incapacity that affects them is that they are not able to work full-time. They also dispute that reduced working hours are among the measures contemplated by Article 5 of that directive. They submit, finally, that, in cases of absence on grounds of illness caused by a disability, the dismissal of a worker with a disability pursuant to Paragraph 5(2) of the FL does not constitute discrimination, and is not therefore contrary to that directive. 
24 U oba glavna postupka poslodavci osporavaju da je zdravstveno stanje tužiteljica obuhvaćeno pojmom „invaliditeta” u smislu Direktive 2000/78, budući da su nesposobne samo u smislu da ne mogu raditi puno radno vrijeme. Također se osporava da mjere iz članka 5. te direktive obuhvaćaju skraćeno radno vrijeme. Na kraju navode da u slučaju odsutnosti zbog bolesti uzrokovane invaliditetom, otkaz radnika s invaliditetom sukladno stavku 5. točki 2. FL-a nije diskriminacija i nije u suprotnosti s tom direktivom.
25 The referring court observes that in paragraph 45 of its judgment in Case C-13/05 Chacón Navas [2006] ECR I-6467 the Court stated that, for a limitation of the capacity to participate in professional life to fall within the concept of ‘disability’, it must be probable that it will last for a long time. 
25 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev primjećuje da je u točki 45. presude od 11. srpnja 2006. u predmetu Chacón Navas (C-13/05, Zb., str. I-6467.) Sud potvrdio da, kako bi ograničenje sposobnosti sudjelovanja u profesionalnoj karijeri potpalo pod pojam „invaliditeta”, mora biti vjerojatno da će ono biti dugotrajno.
26 In those circumstances, the Sø- og Handelsret decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions, which are formulated in the same terms in Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
26 U tim je okolnostima Sø-og Handelsret odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja koja u predmetima C-335/11 i C-337/11 glase jednako:
‘1. (a) Is any person who, because of physical, mental or psychological impairments, cannot or can only to a limited extent carry out his work in a period that satisfies the requirement as to duration specified in paragraph 45 of the judgment [in Chacón Navas] covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of [Directive 2000/78]? 
„1. (a) Može li se pojam invaliditeta u smislu Direktive 2000/78 […] odnositi na osobu koja zbog tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja ne može ili samo u ograničenoj mjeri može obavljati svoj posao u razdoblju koje zadovoljava uvjete u vezi s trajanjem koje je navedeno u točki 45. presude [Chacón Navas, gore navedena]?
(b) Can a condition caused by a medically diagnosed incurable illness be covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of the directive? 
(b) Može li se stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao neizlječiva obuhvatiti pojmom invaliditeta u smislu te direktive?
(c) Can a condition caused by a medically diagnosed temporary illness be covered by the concept of disability within the meaning of the directive? 
(c) Može li se stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao izlječiva obuhvatiti pojmom invaliditeta u smislu te direktive?
2. Should a permanent reduction in functional capacity which does not entail a need for special aids or the like but means solely or essentially that the person concerned is not able to work full-time be regarded as a disability in the sense in which that term is used in [Directive 2000/78]? 
2. Treba li se trajno smanjenje radne sposobnosti koje ne zahtijeva posebna pomagala ili slično, već znači samo to da u biti dotična osoba nije sposobna raditi puno radno vrijeme, smatrati invaliditetom u smislu u kojem se taj pojam koristi u Direktivi 2000/78?
3. Is a reduction in working hours among the measures covered by Article 5 of [Directive 2000/78]? 
3. Je li kraće radno vrijeme jedna od mjera iz članka 5. Direktive 2000/78?
4. Does [Directive 2000/78] preclude the application of a provision of national law under which an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee with a shortened notice period where the employee has received his salary during periods of illness for a total of 120 days within a period of 12 consecutive months, in the case of an employee who must be regarded as disabled within the meaning of the directive, where 
4. Sprječava li Direktiva 2000/78 primjenu odredbi nacionalnog prava prema kojima poslodavac može otpustiti zaposlenika uz kraći otkazni rok ako ukupno 120 dana u razdoblju od 12 uzastopnih mjeseci zaposlenik, kojeg u smislu direktive treba smatrati osobom s invaliditetom, prima plaću tijekom bolovanja, ako je:
(a) the absence is caused by the disability, 
(a) odsutnost uzrokovana invaliditetom,
(b) the absence is due to the fact that the employer has not implemented the measures appropriate in the specific situation to enable a person with a disability to perform his work?’ 
(b) odsutnost uzrokovana činjenicom da poslodavac nije proveo odgovarajuće konkretne mjere kojima bi se osobi s invaliditetom omogućilo da obavlja svoj posao?”
27 By order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2011, Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and the judgment. 
27 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 4. kolovoza 2011., predmeti C-335/11 i C-337/11 spojeni su u svrhu pisanog i usmenog postupka kao i presude.
28 It should be noted, as a preliminary point, that, by virtue of Article 216(2) TFEU, where international agreements are concluded by the European Union they are binding on its institutions, and consequently they prevail over acts of the European Union (Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America and Others [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited). 
28 Kao prvo valja podsjetiti da su, na temelju članka 216. stavka 2. UFEU-a, u slučajevima kada Europska unija sklopi međunarodne sporazume, ti sporazumi obvezujući za njezine institucije te su stoga nadređeni aktima Unije (presuda od 21. prosinca 2011., Air Transport Association of America i dr., C-366/10, Zb., str. I-13755., t. 50. i navedena sudska praksa).
29 It should also be recalled that the primacy of international agreements concluded by the European Union over instruments of secondary law means that those instruments must as far as possible be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with those agreements (Joined Cases C-320/11, C-330/11, C-382/11 and C-383/11 Digitalnet and Others [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). 
29 Također valja podsjetiti da nadređenost međunarodnih sporazuma koje sklopi Unija nad instrumentima sekundarnog prava nalaže tumačenje potonjih, u mjeri u kojoj je to moguće, u skladu s tim sporazumima (presuda od 22. studenoga 2012., Digitalnet i dr., C-320/11, C-330/11, C-382/11 i C-383/11, t. 39. i navedena sudska praksa).
30 It follows from Decision 2010/48 that the European Union has approved the UN Convention. The provisions of that convention are thus, from the time of its entry into force, an integral part of the European Union legal order (see, to that effect, Case 181/73 Haegeman [1974] ECR 449, paragraph 5). 
30 Iz Odluke 2010/48 proizlazi da je Unija odobrila Konvenciju UN-a. Stoga odredbe te konvencije čine sastavni dio pravnog poretka Unije od njezinog stupanja na snagu (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 30. travnja 1974., Haegeman, 181/73, Zb., str. 449., t. 5.).
31 Moreover, according to the appendix to the Annex II to that decision, in the field of independent living and social inclusion, work and employment, Directive 2000/78 is one of the European Union acts which refer to matters governed by the UN Convention. 
31 Osim toga, iz dodatka Prilogu II. navedenoj odluci proizlazi da je, što se tiče autonomije i socijalne uključenosti, posla i zapošljavanja, Direktiva 2000/78 jedan od akata Unije koji se odnose na pitanja regulirana Konvencijom UN-a.
32 It follows that Directive 2000/78 must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner consistent with that convention. 
32 Iz toga slijedi da Direktivu 2000/78 valja u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri tumačiti u skladu s tom konvencijom.
33 It is in the light of those considerations that the questions put to the Court by the referring court must be answered. 
33 U svjetlu tih razmatranja valja odgovoriti na pitanja koje je sud koji je uputio zahtjev postavio Sudu.
34 By its first and second questions, which should be considered together, the referring court asks essentially whether the concept of ‘disability’ in Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as including the state of health of a person who, because of physical, mental or psychological impairments, cannot or can only to a limited extent carry out his work, for a period that will probably last for a long time, or permanently. It further asks whether that concept must be interpreted as meaning that a condition caused by a medically diagnosed incurable illness may be covered by that concept, that a condition caused by a medically diagnosed curable illness may also be covered by that concept, and that the nature of the measures to be taken by the employer is decisive for considering that a person’s state of health is covered by that concept. 
34 Prvim i drugim pitanjem, koja valja razmotriti zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li pojam „invaliditeta” iz Direktive 2000/78 tumačiti tako da uključuje zdravstveno stanje osobe koja zbog tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja ne može ili samo u ograničenoj mjeri može obavljati svoj posao u razdoblju koje će vjerojatno trajati dugo vremena ili trajno. Sud nadalje pita treba li taj pojam tumačiti u smislu da obuhvaća stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao neizlječiva ili također i stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao izlječiva i u smislu da priroda mjera koje poslodavac mora poduzeti ima odlučujuću ulogu u tome može li se zdravstveno stanje osobe obuhvatiti tim pojmom.
35 It must be recalled that the purpose of Directive 2000/78, as stated in Article 1, is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination, as regards employment and occupation, on any of the grounds referred to in that article, which include disability (see Chacón Navas, paragraph 41). In accordance with Article 3(1)(c) of the directive, it applies, within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the European Union, to all persons, in relation inter alia to conditions of dismissal. 
35 Prije svega valja istaknuti to da je, kako proizlazi iz njezinog članka 1., svrha Direktive 2000/78 utvrditi opći okvir za borbu protiv diskriminacije u području zapošljavanja i rada na temelju jednog od razloga iz tog članka, među kojima se nalazi i invaliditet (vidjeti presudu Chacón Navas , gore navedena, t. 41.). U skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 1. točkom (c) ta se direktiva, u granicama nadležnosti prenesenih na Europsku uniju, primjenjuje na sve osobe u odnosu na, između ostalog, uvjete otkaza.
36 The concept of ‘disability’ is not defined by Directive 2000/78 itself. The Court therefore held, in paragraph 43 of its judgment in Chacón Navas, that the concept must be understood as referring to a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments and which hinders the participation of the person concerned in professional life. 
36 Valja podsjetiti da pojam „invaliditeta” nije definiran samom Direktivom 2000/78. Sud je stoga u točki 43. presude Chacón Navas smatrao da taj pojam treba shvatiti u smislu da se odnosi na ograničenje koje je prije svega posljedica tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja i koje sprječava sudjelovanje dotične osobe u profesionalnoj karijeri.
37 The UN Convention, which was ratified by the European Union by decision of 26 November 2009, in other words after the judgment in Chacón Navas had been delivered, acknowledges in recital (e) that ‘disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’. Thus the second paragraph of Article 1 of the convention states that persons with disabilities include ‘those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’. 
37 U Konvenciji UN-a, koju je Unija ratificirala odlukom od 26. studenoga 2009., što je bilo nakon donošenja presude u predmetu Chacón Navas , u uvodnoj izjavi (e) prihvaća se da je „invaliditet koncept koji se još uvijek razvija te da invaliditet nastaje kao rezultat međudjelovanja osoba s oštećenjima i prepreka koje proizlaze iz stajališta njihove okoline te iz prepreka koje postoje u okolišu, a koje onemogućuju njihovo puno i djelotvorno sudjelovanje u društvu na izjednačenoj osnovi s drugim ljudima”. Članak 1. stavak 2. te konvencije navode da osobe s invaliditetom uključuju „osobe koje imaju dugotrajna tjelesna, mentalna, intelektualna ili osjetilna oštećenja, koja u međudjelovanju s različitim preprekama mogu sprječavati njihovo puno i učinkovito sudjelovanje u društvu na ravnopravnoj osnovi s drugima”.
38 Having regard to the considerations set out in paragraphs 28 to 32 above, the concept of ‘disability’ must be understood as referring to a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. 
38 Uzimajući u obzir razmatranja iz točaka od 28. do 32. pojam „invaliditeta” valja shvatiti u smislu da se odnosi na ograničenje koje je prije svega posljedica tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja i koje u međudjelovanju s različitim preprekama može sprječavati puno i učinkovito sudjelovanje dotičnih osoba u profesionalnoj karijeri na ravnopravnoj osnovi s drugim radnicima.
39 In addition, it follows from the second paragraph of Article 1 of the UN Convention that the physical, mental or psychological impairments must be ‘long-term’. 
39 Osim toga, iz drugog stavka članka 1. Konvencije UN-a slijedi da tjelesno, mentalno ili duševno oštećenje treba biti „dugotrajno”.
40 It may be added that, as the Advocate General observes in point 32 of her Opinion, it does not appear that Directive 2000/78 is intended to cover only disabilities that are congenital or result from accidents, to the exclusion of those caused by illness. It would run counter to the very aim of the directive, which is to implement equal treatment, to define its scope by reference to the origin of the disability. 
40 Valja dodati i, kako je nezavisna odvjetnica istaknula u točki 32. svojeg mišljenja, da Direktiva 2000/78 ne obuhvaća samo invaliditet koji je prirođen ili posljedica nezgoda, a da isključuje invaliditete uzrokovane bolešću. Bilo bi u suprotnosti sa samim ciljem direktive, koja želi uvesti jednako postupanje, njezino područje primjene definirati u odnosu na uzrok invaliditeta.
41 It must therefore be concluded that if a curable or incurable illness entails a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers, and the limitation is a long-term one, such an illness can be covered by the concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78. 
41 Iz tog razloga valja zaključiti da ako izlječiva ili neizlječiva bolest uzrokuje ograničenje koje je prije svega posljedica tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja koje u međudjelovanju s različitim preprekama može sprječavati puno i učinkovito sudjelovanje dotične osobe u profesionalnoj karijeri na ravnopravnoj osnovi s drugim radnicima, i ako je to ograničenje dugotrajno, takva se bolest može obuhvatiti pojmom „invaliditeta” u smislu Direktive 2000/78.
42 On the other hand, an illness not entailing such a limitation is not covered by the concept of ‘discrimination’ within the meaning of Directive 2000/78. Illness as such cannot be regarded as a ground in addition to those in relation to which Directive 2000/78 prohibits discrimination (see Chacón Navas, paragraph 57). 
42 S druge strane, bolest koja ne uzrokuje takvo ograničenje nije obuhvaćena pojmom „invaliditeta” u smislu Direktive 2000/78. Bolest kao takva ne može se smatrati kao dodatan razlog uz one razloge temeljem kojih Direktiva 2000/78 zabranjuje svaku diskriminaciju (vidjeti Chacón Navas , t. 57.).
43 The circumstance that the person concerned can work only to a limited extent is not an obstacle to that person’s state of health being covered by the concept of ‘disability’. Contrary to the submissions of DAB and Pro Display, a disability does not necessarily imply complete exclusion from work or professional life. 
43 Okolnost u kojoj dotična osoba može raditi samo u ograničenoj mjeri nije prepreka tomu da se njezino zdravstveno stanje obuhvati pojmom „invaliditeta”. Suprotno tvrdnjama DAB-a i Pro Display-a invaliditet ne podrazumijeva nužno puno isključivanje s posla ili profesionalne karijere.
44 The concept of ‘disability’ as defined in paragraph 38 above must be understood as referring to a hindrance to the exercise of a professional activity, not, as DAB and Pro Display submit, to the impossibility of exercising such an activity. The state of health of a person with a disability who is fit to work, albeit only part-time, is thus capable of being covered by the concept of ‘disability’. An interpretation such as that suggested by DAB and Pro Display would, moreover, be incompatible with the objective of Directive 2000/78, which aims in particular to enable a person with a disability to have access to or participate in employment. 
44 Pojam „invaliditeta” prema definiciji iz točke 38. valja shvatiti kao prepreku obavljanju profesionalne djelatnosti, a ne, kao što tvrde DAB i Pro Display, kao nemogućnost obavljanja takve djelatnosti. Zdravstveno stanje osobe s invaliditetom koja je sposobna za rad, iako samo na nepuno radno vrijeme, može se stoga obuhvatiti pojmom „invaliditeta”. Tumačenje koje predlažu DAB i Pro Display bilo bi, osim toga, protivno cilju Direktive 2000/78 koja je posebno usmjerena na to da se osobama s invaliditetom omogući pristup zapošljavanju ili sudjelovanje na radu.
45 In addition, a finding that there is a disability does not depend on the nature of the accommodation measures such as the use of special equipment. It should be noted here that the definition of the concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 comes before the determination and assessment of the appropriate accommodation measures referred to in Article 5 of the directive. 
45 Osim toga, utvrđivanje invaliditeta ne ovisi o prirodi mjera prilagodbe, kao što je uporaba posebne opreme. Valja primijetiti da definicija pojma „invaliditeta” u smislu članka 1. Direktive 2000/78 prethodi određivanju i procjenjivanju prikladnih mjera prilagodbe iz članka 5. te direktive.
46 According to recital 16 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78, such measures are intended to accommodate the needs of disabled persons. They are therefore the consequence, not the constituent element, of the concept of disability. Similarly, the measures or adaptations referred to in recital 20 in the preamble make it possible to comply with the obligation under Article 5 of the directive, but do not apply unless there is a disability. 
46 Prema uvodnoj izjavi 16. Direktive 2000/78 tim se mjerama žele uzeti u obzir potrebe osoba s invaliditetom. One su stoga posljedica, a ne sastavni element, pojma invaliditeta. Slično tomu, mjere ili prilagodbe iz uvodne izjave 20. omogućavaju ispunjavanje obveze prema članku 5. te direktive i primjenjuju se isključivo u slučaju invaliditeta.
47 It follows from the above considerations that the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is that the concept of ‘disability’ in Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as including a condition caused by an illness medically diagnosed as curable or incurable where that illness entails a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers, and the limitation is a long-term one. The nature of the measures to be taken by the employer is not decisive for considering that a person’s state of health is covered by that concept. 
47 Iz gornjih razmatranja slijedi da na prvo i drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da pojam „invaliditeta” iz Direktive 2000/78 treba tumačiti tako da uključuje stanje uzrokovano bolešću koja je dijagnosticirana kao izlječiva ili neizlječiva, ako ta bolest uzrokuje ograničenje koje je prije svega posljedica tjelesnog, mentalnog ili duševnog oštećenja koje u međudjelovanju s različitim preprekama može sprječavati puno i učinkovito sudjelovanje dotične osobe u profesionalnoj karijeri na ravnopravnoj osnovi s drugim radnicima i ako je to ograničenje dugotrajno. Sama priroda mjera koje treba poduzeti poslodavac nije presudna kod odluke da se zdravstveno stanje osobe obuhvati tim pojmom.
48 By its third question the referring court asks essentially whether 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. 
48 Trećim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 5. Direktive 2000/78 tumačiti u smislu da skraćeno radno vrijeme može biti jedna od mjera prilagodbe iz tog članka.
49 As that article states, the employer is required to take appropriate measures in particular to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment. Recital 20 in the preamble to the directive gives a non-exhaustive list of such measures, which may be physical, organisational and/or educational. 
49 Kako navodi taj članak, poslodavac treba poduzeti odgovarajuće mjere kako bi se osobi s invaliditetom omogućio pristup zapošljavanju, sudjelovanje ili napredovanje u radu. Uvodna izjava 20. te direktive netaksativno nabraja takve mjere, koje mogu biti fizičke, organizacijske i/ili edukacijske.
50 Neither Article 5 of Directive 2000/78 nor recital 20 in its preamble mentions reduced working hours. However, the concept of ‘patterns of working time’ mentioned in that recital must be interpreted in order to determine whether an adaptation of working hours may be covered by that concept. 
50 Skraćeno radno vrijeme ne spominje se ni u članku 5. Direktive 2000/78 ni u uvodnoj izjavi 20. Međutim, valja razjasniti pojam „raspored radnog vremena” iz te uvodne izjave kako bi se utvrdilo može li se prilagodba radnih sati obuhvatiti tim pojmom.
51 DAB and Pro Display submit that that concept refers to such matters as the organisation of the patterns and rhythms of work, for example in connection with a production process, and of breaks, so as to relieve as much as possible the burden on workers with disabilities. 
51 DAB i Pro Display ističu da se taj pojam odnosi na elemente kao što je organizacija, u smislu rasporeda i ritma rada, na primjer u okviru proizvodnog postupka i stanke, kako bi se što više rasteretili radnici s invaliditetom.