natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
53 Accordingly, the national court’s first question must be understood as asking, in essence, whether Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, and Directive 96/71, are to be interpreted as precluding a trade union, in a Member State in which the terms and conditions of employment concerning the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g) of that directive, save for minimum rates of pay, are contained in legislative provisions, from attempting, by means of collective action in the form of blockading sites such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to force a provider of services established in another Member State to enter into negotiations with it on the rates of pay for posted workers, and to sign a collective agreement, the terms of which lay down, as regards some of those matters, more favourable conditions than those resulting from the relevant legislative provisions, while other terms relate to matters not referred to in Article 3 of the directive. 
53 Stoga valja shvatiti da svojim prvim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članke 12. UEZ-a i 49. UEZ-a te Direktivu 96/71 tumačiti na način da im je protivan pokušaj sindikata da u državi članici u kojoj su uvjeti rada i zapošljavanja u vezi s pitanjima predviđenima u članku 3. stavku 1. prvom podstavku točkama (a) do (g) te direktive sadržani u zakonodavnim odredbama, osim minimalne plaće, putem kolektivne mjere u obliku blokade gradilišta kao što je ona u predmetu u glavnom postupku, prisili pružatelja usluga s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici da započne s njim pregovore o plaćama za upućene radnike i da pristupi kolektivnom ugovoru čijim se odredbama za određena navedena pitanja utvrđuju povoljniji uvjeti od onih koji proizlaze iz relevantnih zakonodavnih odredaba, dok se ostale odredbe odnose na pitanja koja nisu predviđena člankom 3. navedene direktive.
55 So far as the freedom to provide services is concerned, that principle was given specific expression and effect by Article 49 EC (Case C-22/98 Becu and Others [1999] ECR I-5665, paragraph 32, and Case C-55/98 Vestergaard [1999] ECR I-7641, paragraph 17). It is for that reason unnecessary to rule on Article 12 EC. 
55 Što se tiče slobodnog pružanja usluga, ovo je načelo provedeno i konkretizirano člankom 49. UEZ-a (presuda od 16. rujna 1999., Becu i dr., C-22/98, Zb., str. I-5665., t. 32. i od 28. listopada 1999., Vestergaard, C-55/98, Zb., str. I-7641., t. 17.). Stoga se Sud ne treba izjašnjavati u pogledu članka 12. UEZ-a.
56 As regards the temporary posting of workers to another Member State so that they can carry out construction work or public works in the context of services provided by their employer, it is clear from the settled case-law of the Court that Articles 49 EC and 50 EC preclude a Member State from prohibiting a person providing services established in another Member State from moving freely on its territory with all his staff and also preclude that Member State from making the movement of staff in question subject to more restrictive conditions. To impose such conditions on the person providing services established in another Member State discriminates against that person in relation to his competitors established in the host country who are able to use their own staff without restrictions, and moreover affects his ability to provide the service (Case C-113/89 Rush Portuguesa [1990] ECR I-1417, paragraph 12). 
56 S obzirom na privremeno upućivanje radnika u drugu državu članicu kako bi tamo obavljali građevinske ili javne radove u okviru usluga koje pruža njihov poslodavac, iz sudske prakse Suda proizlazi da je člancima 49. UEZ-a i 50. UEZ-a protivno da neka država članica zabrani pružatelju usluga s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici slobodno kretanje na njezinom državnom području sa svim osobljem ili da ta država članica podvrgne kretanje dotičnog osoblja strožim uvjetima. Nametanje takvih uvjeta pružatelju usluga s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici predstavlja njegovu diskriminaciju u odnosu na njegove konkurente s poslovnim nastanom u državi domaćinu, koji se mogu slobodno koristiti svojim osobljem, te osim toga utječe na njegovu sposobnost pružanja usluga (presuda od 27. ožujka 1990., Rush Portuguesa, C-113/89, Zb., str. I-1417., t. 12.).
57 Conversely, Community law does not preclude Member States from applying their legislation, or collective labour agreements entered into by management and labour relating to minimum wages, to any person who is employed, even temporarily, within their territory, no matter in which country the employer is established (see, in particular, Joined Cases 62/81 and 63/81 Seco and Desquenne & Giral [1982] ECR 223, paragraph 14, and Case C-164/99 Portugaia Construções [2002] ECR I-787, paragraph 21). The application of such rules must, however, be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue, that is, the protection of posted workers, and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (see, to that effect, inter alia, Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96 Arblade and Others [1999] ECR I-8453, paragraph 35 and Case C-341/02 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I-2733, paragraph 24). 
57 Suprotno tome, pravu Zajednice nije protivno da države članice primjenjuju svoje zakonodavstvo ili kolektivne ugovore koje su sklopili socijalni partneri u vezi s minimalnim plaćama na sve osobe koje su zaposlene, čak i privremeno, na njihovom državnom području, bez obzira na državu poslovnog nastana poslodavca (vidjeti, osobito, presudu od 3. veljače 1982., Seco i Desquenne & Giral, 62/81 i 63/81, Zb., str. 223., t. 14. i od 24. siječnja 2002., Portugaia Construções, C-164/99, Zb., str. I-787., t. 21.). Primjena takvih pravila mora, međutim, biti primjerena za osiguranje postizanja cilja kojem teže, odnosno zaštitu upućenih radnika, i ne smije prelaziti ono što je nužno za postizanje navedenog cilja (vidjeti u tom smislu, osobito, presudu od 23. studenoga 1999., Arblade i dr., C-369/96 i C-376/96, Zb., str. I-8453., t. 35. i od 14. travnja 2005., Komisija/Njemačka, C-341/02, Zb., str. I-2733., t. 24.).
60 Nevertheless, Directive 96/71 did not harmonise the material content of those mandatory rules for minimum protection. That content may accordingly be freely defined by the Member States, in compliance with the Treaty and the general principles of Community law (Case C-490/04 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph19). 
60 Direktiva 96/71 nije, međutim, ujednačila materijalni sadržaj tih prisilnih pravila za minimalnu zaštitu. Taj sadržaj stoga mogu slobodno odrediti države članice, uz poštovanje Ugovora o EZ-u i općih načela prava Zajednice (presuda od 18. srpnja 2007., Komisija/Njemačka, C-490/04, Zb., str. I-6095., t. 19.).
61 Consequently, since the facts at issue in the main proceedings, as described in the order of reference, occurred in 2004, that is to say, on a date subsequent to the expiry of the period allowed to the Member States for transposing Directive 96/71, that date being fixed for 16 December 1999, and since those facts fall within the scope of that directive, the first question must be examined with regard to the provisions of that directive interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC (Case C-60/03 Wolff & Müller [2004] ECR I-9553, paragraphs 25 to 27 and 45), and, where appropriate, with regard to the latter provision itself. 
61 Shodno tome, s obzirom da su činjenice u predmetu u glavnom postupku, kako su opisane u zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku, nastupile tijekom 2004., tj. nakon isteka roka koji je državama članicama propisan za prenošenje Direktive 96/71, pri čemu je taj datum utvrđen na 16. prosinca 1999., i s obzirom da te činjenice ulaze u područje primjene te direktive, prvo pitanje valja preispitati s obzirom na odredbe navedene direktive koje su protumačene na temelju članka 49. UEZ-a (presuda od 12. listopada 2004., Wolff & Müller, C-60/03, Zb., str. I-9553., t. 25. do 27. i 45.) te, prema potrebi, s obzirom na tu samu posljednju odredbu.
"62 In the context of the procedure established by Article 234 EC providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, and in order to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it (C-334/95 Krüger [1997] ECR I-4517, paragraph 22; C-88/99 Roquette Frères [2000] ECR I-10465, paragraph 18, and Joined Cases C-393/04 and C-41/05 Air Liquide Industries Belgium [2006] ECR I-5293, paragraph 23), it is appropriate to examine the possibilities available to the Member States for determining the terms and conditions of employment covering the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g), including minimum rates of pay, which undertakings are to guarantee workers they post in the framework of the transnational provision of services." 
"62 U okviru postupka suradnje između nacionalnih sudova i Suda uspostavljene u članku 234. UEZ-a i s ciljem da nacionalnom sudu pruži koristan odgovor koji će mu omogućiti da riješi spor koji se pred njim vodi (vidjeti presudu od 17. srpnja 1997., Krüger, C-334/95, Zb., str. I-4517., t. 22.; od 28. studenoga 2000., Roquette Frères, C-88/99, Zb., str. I-10465., t. 18. kao i od 15. lipnja 2006., Air Liquide Industries Belgium, C-393/04 i C-41/05, Zb., str. I-5293., t. 23.), valja ispitati mogućnosti kojima raspolažu države članice radi utvrđivanja uvjeta rada i zapošljavanja u vezi s pitanjima predviđenima u članku 3. stavku 1. prvom podstavku točkama (a) do (g) Direktive 96/71, uključujući minimalne plaće, koje poduzeća moraju zajamčiti radnicima koje upućuju u okviru transnacionalnog pružanja usluga."
64 According to the first and second indents of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, the terms and conditions of employment covering the matters referred to in (a) to (g) thereof are established, in relation to the transnational provision of services in the construction sector, either by law, regulation or administrative provision, or by collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable. Collective agreements and arbitration awards for the purposes of that provision are those which must be observed by all undertakings in the geographical area and in the profession or industry concerned. 
64 Na temelju članka 3. stavka 1. prvog podstavka prve i druge alineje Direktive 96/71, uvjeti rada i zapošljavanja u vezi s pitanjima predviđenima u točkama (a) do (g) te odredbe utvrđeni su, u pogledu transnacionalnog pružanja usluga u građevinskom sektoru, bilo zakonom ili drugim propisom, ili kolektivnim ugovorima ili arbitražnim pravorijecima proglašenim univerzalno primjenjivima. Kolektivni ugovori i arbitražni pravorijeci u smislu ove odredbe su oni kojih se moraju pridržavati sva poduzeća na zemljopisnom području i u predmetnoj struci ili industriji.
65 The second subparagraph of Article 3(8) of Directive 96/71 also gives Member States the possibility, in the absence of a system for declaring collective agreements or arbitration awards to be of universal application, to base themselves on those which are generally applicable to all similar undertakings in the industry concerned or those which have been concluded by the most representative employers’ and labour organisations at national level and which are applied throughout the national territory. 
65 Članak 3. stavak 8. drugi podstavak Direktive 96/71 daje osim toga državama članicama mogućnost da se, u nedostatku sustava za proglašavanje kolektivnih ugovora ili arbitražnih pravorijeka univerzalno primjenjivima, oslanjaju na one koji su opće primjenjivi na sva slična poduzeća u dotičnom sektoru ili na one koje su sklopile najreprezentativnije organizacije poslodavaca i radnika na nacionalnoj razini i koji se primjenjuju na cijelom državnom području.
66 It is clear from the wording of that provision that recourse to the latter possibility requires, first, that the Member State must so decide, and second, that the application of collective agreements to undertakings which post workers should guarantee equality of treatment in the matters listed in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g) of Directive 96/71 between the latter undertakings and national undertakings in the profession or industry concerned which are in a similar position. Equality of treatment, within the meaning of Article 3(8) of the directive, is deemed to exist where national undertakings are subject to the same obligations, as regards those matters, as posting undertakings, and where each are required to fulfil such obligations with the same effects. 
66 Iz teksta ove odredbe proizlazi da zadnja mogućnost zahtijeva, prvo, da je države članice odaberu te, drugo, da primjena kolektivnih ugovora na poduzeća koja upućuju radnike zajamči tim radnicima, kad je riječ o pitanjima navedenima u članku 3. stavku 1. prvom podstavku točkama (a) do (g) Direktive 96/71, jednako postupanje u odnosu na nacionalna poduzeća koja pripadaju dotičnom sektoru ili profesiji koja se nalaze u sličnoj situaciji. Smatra se da jednako postupanje, u smislu članka 3. stavka 8. navedene direktive, postoji kada nacionalna poduzeća podliježu istim obvezama, s obzirom na navedena pitanja, kao i poduzeća koja upućuju radnike i kada se i od jednih i od drugih zahtijeva ispunjavanje takvih obaveza s istim učincima.
67 It is common ground that, in Sweden, the terms and conditions of employment covering the matters listed in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g) of Directive 96/71, save for minimum rates of pay, have been laid down by law. It is also not disputed that the collective agreements have not been declared universally applicable, and that that Member State has not made use of the possibility provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 3(8) of that directive. 
67 Poznato je da su u Švedskoj uvjeti rada i zapošljavanja u vezi s pitanjima predviđenima u članku 3. stavku 1. prvom podstavku točkama (a) do (g) Direktive 96/71, osim minimalnih plaća, bili utvrđeni zakonom. Također nije sporno da kolektivni ugovori nisu proglašeni univerzalno primjenjivima i da ta država članica nije iskoristila mogućnost predviđenu člankom 3. stavkom 8. drugim podstavkom te direktive.
70 As regards the requirements as to pay which can be imposed on foreign service providers, it should be recalled that the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71 relates only to minimum rates of pay. Therefore, that provision cannot be relied on to justify an obligation on such service providers to comply with rates of pay such as those which the trade unions seek in this case to impose in the framework of the Swedish system, which do not constitute minimum wages and are not, moreover, laid down in accordance with the means set out in that regard in Article 3(1) and (8) of the directive. 
70 U odnosu na obaveze u pogledu plaća koje se mogu nametnuti pružateljima usluga s poslovnim nastanom u drugim državama članicama, valja podsjetiti da se članak 3. stavak 1. prvi podstavak točka (c) Direktive 96/71 odnosi samo na minimalne plaće. Stoga se na tu odredbu nije moguće pozvati kako bi se opravdala obveza tih pružatelja usluga da poštuju plaće poput onih koje traže sindikati, tužene stranke u glavnom postupku u okviru švedskog sustava, koje ne predstavljaju minimalne plaće i koje osim toga nisu utvrđene u skladu s načinima koji su u tom pogledu predviđeni člankom 3. stavcima 1. i 8. navedene direktive.
"73 In order to ensure that the nucleus of mandatory rules for minimum protection are observed, the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71 provides that Member States are to ensure that, whatever the law applicable to the employment relationship, in the framework of the transnational provision of services, undertakings guarantee workers posted to their territory the terms and conditions of employment covering the matters listed in that provision, namely: maximum work periods and minimum rest periods; minimum paid annual holidays; the minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates; the conditions of hiring-out of workers, in particular the supply of workers by temporary employment undertakings; health, safety and hygiene at work; protective measures with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of pregnant women or women who have recently given birth, of children and of young people; and equality of treatment between men and women and other provisions on non-discrimination." 
"73 S ciljem osiguranja poštovanja jezgre prisilnih propisa za minimalnu zaštitu, članak 3. stavak 1. prvi podstavak Direktive 96/71 predviđa da države članice osiguravaju da, neovisno o pravu koje se primjenjuje na radni odnos, poduzeća u okviru transnacionalnog pružanja usluga jamče radnicima koji su upućeni na njihovo državno područje uvjete rada i zapošljavanja nabrojene u toj odredbi, među ostalim maksimalno radno vrijeme i minimalno vrijeme odmora, minimalni plaćeni godišnji odmor; minimalne plaće, uključujući one uvećane za prekovremeni rad; uvjete ustupanja radnika, posebno od strane poduzeća za privremeno zapošljavanje; zdravstvene uvjete, sigurnost i higijenu na radu; zaštitne mjere u odnosu na uvjete zapošljavanja trudnica ili žena koje su nedavno rodile, djece i mladih; te jednako postupanje prema muškarcima i ženama i ostale odredbe o nediskriminaciji."
77 The consequence of affording such minimum protection – if the level of protection resulting from the terms and conditions of employment granted to posted workers in the Member State of origin, as regards the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g) of Directive 96/71, is lower than the level of minimum protection afforded in the host Member State – is to enable those workers to enjoy better terms and conditions of employment in the host Member State. 
77 Posljedica priznavanja takve minimalne zaštite, ako je razina zaštite koja proizlazi iz uvjeta rada i zapošljavanja za upućene radnike u državu članicu podrijetla, u vezi s pitanjima predviđenima člankom 3. stavkom 1. prvim podstavkom točkama (a) do (g) Direktive 96/71, niža od razine minimalne zaštite priznate u državi članici domaćinu, jest omogućiti tim radnicima da uživaju bolje uvjete rada i zapošljavanja u ovoj zadnjoj državi.
79 It is true that Article 3(7) of Directive 96/71 provides that paragraphs 1 to 6 are not to prevent application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers. In addition, according to recital 17, the mandatory rules for minimum protection in force in the host country must not prevent the application of such terms and conditions. 
79 Točno je da članak 3. stavak 7. Direktive 96/71 predviđa da stavci od 1. do 6. ne sprečavaju primjenu uvjeta rada i zapošljavanja koji su povoljniji za radnike. Osim toga, iz uvodne izjave 17. navedene direktive proizlazi da prisilni propisi za minimalnu zaštitu koji su na snazi u državi domaćinu ne smiju sprečavati primjenu takvih uvjeta.
80 Nevertheless, Article 3(7) of Directive 96/71 cannot be interpreted as allowing the host Member State to make the provision of services in its territory conditional on the observance of terms and conditions of employment which go beyond the mandatory rules for minimum protection. As regards the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g), Directive 96/71 expressly lays down the degree of protection for workers of undertakings established in other Member States who are posted to the territory of the host Member State which the latter State is entitled to require those undertakings to observe. Moreover, such an interpretation would amount to depriving the directive of its effectiveness. 
80 Ipak, članak 3. stavak 7. Direktive 96/71 ne može se tumačiti u smislu da omogućava državi članici domaćinu da pružanje usluga na svojem državnom području uvjetuje poštovanjem uvjeta rada i zapošljavanja koji nadilaze prisilne propise za minimalnu zaštitu. U pogledu pitanja predviđenih u njezinom članku 3. stavku 1. prvom podstavku točkama (a) do (g), Direktiva 96/71 izričito predviđa stupanj zaštite čije poštovanje država članica domaćin ima pravo zahtijevati od poduzeća s poslovnim nastanom u drugim državama članicama u korist njihovih radnika upućenih na njezino državno područje. Osim toga, takvim bi se tumačenjem navedenoj direktivi oduzeo koristan učinak.
81 Therefore – without prejudice to the right of undertakings established in other Member States to sign of their own accord a collective labour agreement in the host Member State, in particular in the context of a commitment made to their own posted staff, the terms of which might be more favourable – the level of protection which must be guaranteed to workers posted to the territory of the host Member State is limited, in principle, to that provided for in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g) of Directive 96/71, unless, pursuant to the law or collective agreements in the Member State of origin, those workers already enjoy more favourable terms and conditions of employment as regards the matters referred to in that provision. 
81 Stoga je, ne dovodeći u pitanje mogućnost poduzeća s poslovnim nastanom u drugim državama članicama da u državi članici domaćinu, osobito u okviru obaveza koje imaju prema svojem upućenom osoblju, dobrovoljno pristupe kolektivnom ugovoru koji je eventualno povoljniji, razina zaštite koju trebaju osigurati radnicima upućenima na državno područje države članice domaćina ograničena, u načelu, onom predviđenom člankom 3. stavkom 1. prvim podstavkom točkama (a) do (g) Direktive 96/71, ako navedeni radnici već ne uživaju povoljnije uvjete rada i zapošljavanja u vezi s pitanjima predviđenima navedenom odredbom, na temelju zakona ili kolektivnih ugovora u državi članici podrijetla.
83 In the main proceedings, certain terms of the collective agreement for the building sector relate to matters which are not specifically referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g) of Directive 96/71. In that regard, it follows from paragraph 20 of this judgment that signing that collective agreement entails undertakings accepting pecuniary obligations such as those requiring them to pay to Byggettan a sum equal to 1.5% of total gross wages for the purposes of the pay review which that section trade union carries out, and to the insurance company, FORA, first, 0.8% of total gross wages for the purposes of a charge called the ‘special building supplement’, and, second, a further 5.9% for the purposes of a number of insurance premiums. 
83 U glavnom postupku određene odredbe kolektivnog ugovora za graditeljstvo odnose se na pitanja koja nisu posebno navedena u članku 3. stavku 1. prvom podstavku točkama (a) do (g) Direktive 96/71. S tim u vezi, iz točke 20. ove presude proizlazi da pristupanje tom kolektivnom ugovoru znači da poduzeća moraju prihvatiti novčane obveze poput onih kojima se zahtijeva da plaćaju Byggettanu iznos jednak 1,5 % mase plaća za potrebe nadzora koji taj sindikalni odbor provodi nad plaćama, te osiguravajućem društvu FORA iznose koji predstavljaju, s jedne strane, 0,8 % mase plaća za potrebe davanja nazvanih „posebni dodatak u graditeljstvu” i, s druge strane, 5,9 % te mase za potrebe različitih premija osiguranja.
"84 It is common ground, however, that those obligations were imposed without the national authorities’ having had recourse to Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71. The terms of the collective agreement for the building sector in question were in fact established through negotiation between management and labour; not being bodies governed by public law, they cannot avail themselves of that provision by citing grounds of public policy in order to maintain that collective action such as that at issue in the main proceedings complies with Community law." 
84 Poznato je, međutim, da su te obveze nametnute a da nacionalna tijela nisu primijenila članak 3. stavak 10. Direktive 96/71. Sporne odredbe kolektivnog ugovora za graditeljstvo bile su u stvari utvrđene pregovorima između socijalnih partnera, koji nisu subjekti javnog prava te se ne mogu pozivati na tu odredbu navodeći razloge javnog poretka kako bi se utvrdila sukladnost kolektivne mjere poput one u predmetu u glavnom postupku s pravom Zajednice.