natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
29 It must be recalled in this regard that the continued payment of wages to a worker in the event of illness falls within the concept of ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 141 EC (Case 171/88 Rinner-Kühn [1988] ECR 2743, paragraph 7), a concept which comprises any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his or her employment from his or her employer, and irrespective of whether it is received under a contract of employment, by virtue of legislative provisions or on a voluntary basis (Case C-66/96 Høj Pedersen and Others [1998] ECR I-7327, paragraph 32). 
29 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da kontinuirana isplata plaće radniku u slučaju bolesti ulazi u koncept „plaće” u smislu članka 141. UEZ-a (vidjeti presudu od 13. srpnja 1989., Rinner-Kühn, 171/88, Zb., str. 2743., t. 7.), koji obuhvaća sva primanja u gotovini ili u naravi, sadašnja ili buduća, koja radnik u vezi sa zaposlenjem prima od svojeg poslodavca, makar i posredno, bez obzira isplaćuju li se na temelju ugovora o radu, zakonskih odredbi ili na dragovoljnoj osnovi (presuda od 19. studenoga 1998., Høj Pedersen i dr., C-66/96, Zb., str. I-7327., t. 32.).
30 Pay within the terms of Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 cannot also come within the scope of Directive 76/207. As is clear from the second recital in its preamble, Directive 76/207 does not apply to ‘pay’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions (see Case C-342/93 Gillespie and Others [1996] ECR I-475, paragraph 24). 
30 Plaća u smislu članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive 75/117 ne može istovremeno ulaziti u područje primjene Direktive 76/207. Kao što se vidi iz njezine druge uvodne izjave, Direktiva 76/207 ne primjenjuje se na „plaću” u smislu gore navedenih odredbi (vidjeti presudu od 13. veljače 1996., Gillespie i dr., C-342/93. Zb., str. I-475., t. 24.).
31 A scheme such as that in issue in the main proceedings defines the conditions governing maintenance of the worker’s pay in the event of absence on grounds of illness. It makes the maintenance of full pay subject to the condition that a maximum annual period of sick leave is not exceeded and, if that period is exceeded, it provides for the maintenance of pay at 50% of its level for a maximum total period determined over the course of four years. 
31 Sustav poput onog navedenog u glavnom postupku utvrđuje uvjete daljnje isplate plaće radnika u slučaju odsutnosti zbog bolesti. Na temelju toga sustava puna se plaća i dalje isplaćuje ako se ne prekorači maksimalno godišnje razdoblje bolovanja, a ako se taj period prekorači, sustavom se utvrđuje daljnja isplata 50 % plaće za maksimalno ukupno razdoblje tijekom četiri godine.
32 Such a scheme, which results in a reduction in pay and subsequently in an exhaustion of entitlement to pay, operates automatically on the basis of an arithmetical calculation of the days of absence on grounds of illness. 
32 Takav sustav, koji rezultira smanjenjem plaće i naposljetku prestankom prava na plaću, funkcionira automatski na osnovi aritmetičkog izračuna dana odsutnosti zbog bolesti.
33 The rules established thus come within the scope of Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 (see by way of analogy, in respect of a system for acquiring entitlement to a higher salary on the basis of rules on seniority, Case C-184/89 Nimz [1991] ECR I-297, paragraphs 9 and 10). 
33 Stoga utvrđena pravila ulaze u područje primjene članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive 75/117 (vidjeti, analogijom, u pogledu sustava za stjecanje prava na veću plaću na osnovi pravila o godinama provedenim u službi, presudu od 7. veljače 1991., Nimz, C-184/89, Zb., str. I-297., t. 9. i 10.).
34 The fact that a reduction or extinction of entitlement to maintenance of pay is not immediate but occurs on the expiry of maximum periods does not deprive those rules of their automatic nature once the conditions laid down have been satisfied. 
34 Činjenica da smanjenje ili prestanak prava na daljnju isplatu plaće nije trenutačno već se događa po isteku maksimalnih razdoblja, ne ukida ona pravila o njihovoj automatskoj prirodi kada se ispune predviđeni uvjeti.
35 The answer to the first and fourth questions referred must therefore be that a sick-leave scheme which treats identically female workers suffering from a pregnancy-related illness and other workers suffering from an illness that is unrelated to pregnancy comes within the scope of Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117. 
35 Odgovor na prvo i četvrto pitanje stoga mora biti da sustav bolovanja koji izjednačuje radnice oboljele od bolesti povezane s trudnoćom s ostalim radnicima oboljelima od bolesti koja nije povezana s trudnoćom ulazi u područje primjene članka 141. UEZ-a i Direktive 75/117.
The second, third and fifth questions 
Drugo, treće i peto pitanje
36 In the light of the reply given to the first and fourth questions and of the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings requiring consideration by the national court, it is appropriate to examine together the second, third and fifth questions. 
36 S obzirom na odgovor na prvo i četvrto pitanje i činjenica spora u glavnom postupka koje treba razmotriti nacionalni sud, drugo, treće i peto pitanje valja ispitati zajedno.
37 By those three questions the national court is essentially asking whether Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 are to be construed as meaning that the following constitute discrimination on grounds of sex: 
37 Tima trima pitanjima nacionalni sud u biti pita tumače li se članak 141. UEZ-a i Direktiva 75/117 u smislu da sljedeće predstavlja diskriminaciju na temelju spola:
"– a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides, in the case of female workers who are absent prior to maternity leave because of a pregnancy-related illness, as well as in the case of male workers who are absent as a result of any other illness, for a reduction in pay in the case where the absence exceeds a certain duration;" 
pravilo sustava bolovanja kojim se predviđa, za radnice koje su odsutne prije rodiljnog dopusta zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom, kao i za radnike odsutne zbog bilo koje druge bolesti, smanjenje plaće ako odsutnost prelazi određeno trajanje,
– a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides for absences on grounds of illness to be offset against a maximum total number of days of paid sick leave to which a worker is entitled during a given period, irrespective of whether the illness is or is not pregnancy-related. 
pravilo sustava bolovanja kojim se predviđa uključivanje odsutnosti zbog bolesti u maksimalni ukupni broj dana plaćenog bolovanja na koje radnik ima pravo tijekom određenog razdoblja, bez obzira radi li se o bolesti povezanoj s trudnoćom.
38 The Board, together with Ireland and the United Kingdom Government, takes the view, with regard to pay, that a female worker is not entitled to full maintenance of her pay and that a rule such as that in issue in the main proceedings is not discriminatory. Neither the Board nor the United Kingdom Government has submitted observations on the offsetting of absences on grounds of illness. Ireland takes the view, generally, that Member States are not obligated to adopt specific provisions applicable to absences by reason of an illness that has arisen during pregnancy. 
38 Board i vlade Irske i Ujedinjene Kraljevine u pogledu plaće smatraju da radnica nema pravo na daljnju isplatu pune plaće te da pravilo poput onog iz glavnog postupka nije diskriminirajuće. Board i vlada Ujedinjene Kraljevine nisu podnijeli očitovanja o uključivanju odsutnosti zbog bolesti. Vlada Irske općenito smatra da države članice nisu obvezne donijeti posebne odredbe za odsutnosti zbog bolesti koja se pojavila tijekom trudnoće.
39 Ms McKenna, the Italian and Austrian Governments and the Commission submit that a reduction in pay such as that in issue in the main proceedings constitutes discrimination on grounds of sex. Ms McKenna, the Italian Government and the Commission contend that the same holds true in regard to the offsetting of absences on grounds of illness against the maximum total number of days of sick leave to which a worker is entitled. The Austrian Government states in general terms that pregnancy-related incapacity to work must be subject to the application of provisions that differ from those applicable to work incapacity unrelated to pregnancy. 
39 M. McKenna, talijanska i austrijska vlada te Komisija smatraju da smanjenje plaće poput onog iz predmeta u glavnom postupku predstavlja diskriminaciju na temelju spola. M. McKenna, talijanska vlada i Komisija smatraju da isto vrijedi u pogledu uključivanja odsutnosti zbog bolesti u maksimalni ukupni broj dana bolovanja na koje radnik ima pravo. Austrijska vlada općenito tvrdi da se na privremenu nesposobnost za rad povezanu s trudnoćom moraju primjenjivati odredbe različite od onih koje se primjenjuju na privremenu nesposobnost za rad koja nije povezana s trudnoćom.
The function and development of the Community-law rules governing equality as between men and women in regard to the rights of pregnant women and women who have given birth 
Funkcija i razvoj pravila prava Zajednice kojima se uređuje jednakost između muškaraca i žena u pogledu prava trudnica i žena koje su rodile
40 It should be stated that, in the case in the main proceedings, the reduction in pay and the offsetting of the absence caused by a pregnancy-related illness result from the application to pregnant women or women who have given birth of the general scheme which is applied to any worker in the event of illness. 
40 Valja navesti da su u glavnom postupku plaće i naknade za odsutnost zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom smanjene jer se na trudnice ili žene koje su rodile primjenjuje opći sustav koji se primjenjuje na bilo kojeg radnika u slučaju bolesti.
41 It is necessary to examine the questions referred in the light of the function and development of the Community-law rules governing equality as between men and women with regard to the rights of pregnant women or women who have given birth. 
41 Postavljena pitanja valja proučiti u smislu funkcije i razvoja pravila prava Zajednice kojima se uređuje jednakost između muškaraca i žena u području prava trudnica i rodilja.
42 In this area, the objective pursued by those rules is to protect female workers before and after they have given birth (see, in connection with maternity leave, Gillespie and Others, cited above, paragraph 20). 
42 U ovom je području cilj tih pravila zaštita radnica prije i nakon poroda (vidjeti, u vezi s rodiljnim dopustom, gore navedenu presudu Gillespie i dr., t. 20.).
43 Community law first of all guarantees specific protection against dismissal up to the end of maternity leave. 
43 Pravo Zajednice prije svega jamči posebnu zaštitu od otkaza do završetka rodiljnog dopusta.
44 The Court has ruled that a woman is protected, during her maternity leave, against dismissal due to absence (Case C-179/88 Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund [1990] ECR I-3979, paragraph 15). 
44 Sud je presudio da se tijekom njezinog rodiljnog dopusta žena štiti od otkaza zbog odsutnosti (presuda od 8. studenoga 1990., Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund, C-179/88, Zb., str. I-3979., t. 15.).
45 By contrast, in the case of an illness manifesting itself after such maternity leave, the Court has ruled there is no reason to distinguish an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement from any other illness, and that such a pathological condition is covered by the general rules applicable in the event of illness. With regard to such a situation, the Court concluded that Community law does not preclude dismissals which are the result of absences due to an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement (Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund, cited above, paragraphs 16 and 19). 
45 Suprotno tomu, u slučaju bolesti koja se bi se pojavila nakon rodiljnog dopusta, Sud je presudio da nema razloga razlikovati bolest koja se povezuje s trudnoćom ili porodom od druge bolesti te da je takvo patološko stanje obuhvaćeno općim pravilima koja se primjenjuju u slučaju bolesti. S obzirom na takvu situaciju, Sud je zaključio da pravu Zajednice nisu protivni otkazi koji su posljedica odsutnosti zbog bolesti koja je posljedica trudnoće ili poroda (gore navedena presuda Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund, t. 16. i 19.).
46 With regard to the possibility of a female worker being dismissed by reason of a pregnancy-related illness which arose prior to her maternity leave, the Court has held that, although pregnancy is not in any way comparable to a pathological condition, it is a period during which disorders and complications may arise compelling a woman to undergo strict medical supervision and, in some cases, to rest absolutely for all or part of her pregnancy. The Court found that those disorders and complications, which could cause incapacity for work, formed part of the risks inherent in the condition of pregnancy and were thus a specific feature of that condition (Case C-394/96 Brown [1998] ECR I-4185, paragraph 22). 
46 U pogledu mogućnosti otkaza radnici zbog bolesti povezane s trudnoćom koja se pojavila prije rodiljnog dopusta, Sud je smatrao, iako se trudnoća nikako ne može usporediti s patološkim stanjem, da se radi o razdoblju tijekom kojeg se mogu pojaviti poremećaji i komplikacije zbog kojih žena mora biti pod strogim medicinskim nadzorom te, u nekim slučajevima, strogo mirovati dio ili cijelu trudnoću. Sud je smatrao da su ti poremećaji i komplikacije, koji bi mogli prouzročiti privremenu nesposobnost za rad, dio rizika karakterističnih za stanjem trudnoće te su stoga posebno obilježje toga stanja (presuda od 30. lipnja 1998., Brown, C-394/96, Zb., str. I-4185., t. 22.).
47 The Court accordingly ruled that protection against dismissal had to be accorded to women not only during maternity leave but also for the entire duration of their pregnancy, after stressing that the risk of dismissal may detrimentally affect the physical and mental state of female workers who are pregnant or have recently given birth, including the particularly serious risk that pregnant women may be prompted voluntarily to terminate their pregnancy. The Court held that dismissal of a female worker during pregnancy for absences due to incapacity for work resulting from her pregnancy is linked to the occurrence of risks inherent in pregnancy and must therefore be regarded as essentially based on the fact of pregnancy. From this the Court concluded that such a dismissal can affect only women and therefore constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex (Brown, cited above, paragraphs 18 and 24). 
47 U skladu s time Sud je presudio da se zaštita od otkaza treba priznati ženama ne samo tijekom rodiljnog dopusta već također i tijekom cijelog trajanja trudnoće, naglasivši da rizik od otkaza može štetiti fizičkom i psihičkom stanju radnica koje su trudne ili su nedavno rodile, uključujući posebno ozbiljan rizik da trudnice budu potaknute na dobrovoljni prekid trudnoće. Sud je utvrdio da je otkaz radnici tijekom trudnoće zbog odsutnosti radi privremene nesposobnosti za rad koja je posljedica trudnoće povezan s pojavom rizika povezanog s trudnoćom te se stoga treba smatrati da se radi o riziku koji se isključivo temelji na trudnoći. Iz ovoga je Sud zaključio da takav otkaz može imati učinak samo na žene te stoga predstavlja izravnu diskriminaciju na temelju spola (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Brown, t. 18. i 24.).
48 In view of the harmful effects which the risk of dismissal may have on the physical and mental state of pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or those who are breastfeeding, Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) laid down a prohibition of dismissal during a period from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternity leave. 
48 S obzirom na štetne učinke koje bi rizik od otkaza mogao imati na fizičko i psihičko stanje trudnih radnica, radnica koje su nedavno rodile ili onih koje doje, članak 10. Direktive 92/85/EEZ od 19. listopada 1992. o uvođenju mjera za poticanje poboljšanja sigurnosti i zdravlja na radu trudnih radnica te radnica koje su nedavno rodile ili doje (deseta pojedinačna direktiva u smislu članka 16. stavka 1. Direktive 89/391/EEZ) (SL L 348, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 5., svezak 4., str. 73.-80.) predviđa zabranu otkaza tijekom razdoblja od početka trudnoće do kraja rodiljnog dopusta.
49 In addition to protection against loss of employment, Community law also guarantees, within certain limits, protection for the income of a worker who is pregnant or has recently given birth. 
49 Uz zaštitu od gubitka zaposlenja pravo Zajednice također jamči, uz određena ograničenja, zaštitu dohotka trudne radnice ili radnice koja je nedavno rodila.
50 The Court has pointed out in this regard that women who are on maternity leave are in a special position which requires them to be afforded special protection, but which is not comparable either to that of a man or to that of a woman actually at work (Gillespie and Others, paragraph 17). The Court went on to rule that neither Article 119 of the EEC Treaty (which became Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC)) nor Article 1 of Directive 75/117 required that women should continue to receive full pay during maternity leave, while stating that the amount payable could not, however, be so low as to undermine the purpose of maternity leave, namely the protection of women before and after giving birth (Gillespie and Others, paragraph 20). 
50 Sud je u tom smislu istaknuo da su žene na rodiljnom dopustu u posebnom položaju zbog kojeg im treba priznati posebnu zaštitu, no koja se ne može biti jednaka sa zaštitom muškaraca koji trenutačno radi (presuda Gillespie i dr., t. 17.). Sud je nastavio i presudio da niti članak 119. Ugovora o EEZ-u (koji je postao članak 119. Ugovora o EZ-u (članci 117. do 120. Ugovora o EZ-u zamijenjeni su člancima 136. do 143. UEZ-a)) ni članak 1. Direktive 75/117 ne zahtijevaju da žene nastave primati punu plaću tijekom rodiljnog dopusta, navodeći, međutim, da iznos naknade ne može biti toliko nizak da narušava svrhu rodiljnog dopusta, a to je zaštita žena prije i nakon poroda (presuda Gillespie i dr., t. 20.).
51 With regard also to maternity leave, Directive 92/85, which was not applicable ratione temporis to the dispute which resulted in the judgment in Gillespie and Others, provides in Article 11(2)(b) that ‘maintenance of a payment to, and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance for, workers within the meaning of Article 2’ must be ensured. Article 11(3) provides that the ‘allowance referred to in point 2(b) shall be deemed adequate if it guarantees income at least equivalent to that which the worker concerned would receive in the event of a break in her activities on grounds connected with her state of health’. 
51 S obzirom na rodiljni dopust, Direktiva 92/85, koja nije bila primjenjiva ratione temporis na spor u kojem je donesena presuda Gillespie i dr., u članku 11. stavku 2. točki (b) predviđa da „redovna isplata plaća i/ili pravo na odgovarajući doplatak radnicama” mora biti osigurano. Stavak 3. istoga članka utvrđuje da „doplatak iz točke 2. (b) smatra se odgovarajućim ako jamči dohodak najmanje jednak onom koji bi dotična radnica dobivala u slučaju prekida radne aktivnosti zbog zdravstvenih razloga”.
"52 The Court has also ruled, by way of an interpretation given in the context of a dismissal but valid also in regard to the remuneration paid to a female worker, that, where pathological conditions caused by pregnancy or childbirth arise after the end of maternity leave, they are covered by the general rules applicable in the event of illness. The Court added that the sole question is whether a female worker’s absences, following maternity leave, caused by her incapacity for work brought on by such disorders, are treated in the same way as a male worker’s absences, of the same duration, caused by incapacity for work; if they are, there is no discrimination on grounds of sex (Brown, paragraph 26). The Court thus acknowledged that a pathological condition linked to pregnancy or childbirth and arising after maternity leave may result in a reduction in remuneration under the same conditions as any other illness." 
52 Osim toga, tumačenjem danim u kontekstu otkaza ali važećim i u pogledu plaće koja se isplaćuje radnici Sud je također presudio da ako se patološka stanja uzrokovana trudnoćom ili porodom pojave nakon završetka rodiljnog dopusta, na njih se primjenjuju opća pravila koja se primjenjuju u slučaju bolesti. Sud je dodao da je jedino pitanje izjednačuje li se odsutnost radnice nakon rodiljnog dopusta, uzrokovana njezinom nesposobnošću za rad zbog takvih poremećaja, s odsutnošću radnika, istoga trajanja, uzrokovanom nesposobnošću za rad, te da se u tom slučaju ne radi o diskriminaciji na osnovi spola (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Brown, t. 26.). Sud je stoga potvrdio da patološko stanje povezano s trudnoćom ili porodom koje se pojavi nakon rodiljnog dopusta može za posljedicu imati smanjenje plaće pod istim uvjetima kao i kod bilo koje druge bolesti.
53 With regard to the case of a pregnancy-related illness affecting a worker before her maternity leave, the Court pointed out in paragraph 33 of its judgment in Høj Pedersen and Others, cited above, replicating the terms used in paragraph 22 of its judgment in Brown, that the disorders and complications linked to pregnancy, which may cause incapacity for work, form part of the risks inherent in the condition of pregnancy and are thus a specific feature of that condition. The Court went on to point out that, within the context of the dispute in the main proceedings, a woman was deprived, before the beginning of her maternity leave, of her full pay when her incapacity for work was the result of a pregnancy-related pathological condition, even though, under the national legislation in issue, all workers were in principle entitled to continue to be paid in full in the event of incapacity for work. In those circumstances, the Court ruled that the application of legislative provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings in that case involved discrimination against women (Høj Pedersen and Others, paragraphs 34, 35 and 37). 
53 U slučaju bolesti povezane s trudnoćom od koje radnica oboli prije rodiljnog dopusta, Sud je istaknuo u točki 33. gore navedene presude Høj Pedersen i dr. da poremećaji i komplikacije povezani s trudnoćom, koji mogu prouzročiti privremenu nesposobnost za rad, čine dio rizika karakterističnih za stanje trudnoće te da su stoga posebno obilježje toga stanja. Sud je nastavio istaknuvši da je u okviru spora iz glavnog postupka prije početka rodiljnog dopusta ženi bilo uskraćeno pravo na puni iznos plaće kada je njezina privremena nesposobnost za rad bila posljedica patološkog stanja povezanog s trudnoćom, unatoč tome što temeljem dotičnog nacionalnog prava svi radnici u načelu imaju pravo i dalje primati punu plaću u slučaju privremene nesposobnosti za rad. U tim je uvjetima Sud presudio da primjena zakonskih odredbi kao što su one o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku predstavljaju diskriminaciju žena (prethodno navedena presuda Høj Pedersen i dr., t. 34., 35. i 37.).
54 It follows that, as Community law stands at present, a female worker: 
54 Iz navedenog proizlazi da, sukladno trenutačno važećem pravu Zajednice, radnica:
"– cannot be dismissed during her maternity leave by reason of her condition or, prior to such leave, by reason of an illness related to the pregnancy and arising before such leave;" 
"ne smije dobiti otkaz tijekom rodiljnog dopusta zbog svojeg stanja ni prije rodiljnog dopusta zbog bolesti koja je povezana s trudnoćom i koja se pojavila prije tog dopusta;"