natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
AB. ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da so znotraj Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in med njim ter njegovimi generalnimi pravobranilci v različnih zadevah obstajala različna stališča in razlage direktive o napotitvi delavcev na delo, zlasti v zadevi C-341/05, Laval
AB. whereas it has been noted that differing views and interpretations existed within the ECJ and between the Court and its Advocates-General in the various cases relating to the PWD, in particular in Case C-341/05 Laval
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 18. decembra 2007 v zadevi C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd [2007] ECR I 11767 (zadeva Laval). in zadevi C-346/06, Rüffert
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2007 in Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd [2007] ECR I‑11767 (the Laval case). and Case C-346/06 Rüffert
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 3. aprila 2008 v zadevi C-346/06, Rüffert , še neobjavljena v ZES (glej OJ C 128, 24.5.2008, p.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 April 2008 in Case C-346/06 Rüffert , not yet published in the ECR (see OJ C 128, 24.5.2008, p.
9). ; ker bi bila ob takšnem razhajanju stališč in razlag morda potrebna jasnejša opredelitev ravnotežja med temeljnimi pravicami in svoboščinami,
9). ; whereas when such views and interpretations differ, there may be a case for clarification of the balance between fundamental rights and freedoms,
4. pozdravlja lizbonsko pogodbo in dejstvo, da bo listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah postala pravno zavezujoča; ugotavlja, da bo to vključevalo pravico sindikatov, da se pogajajo in sklepajo kolektivne pogodbe na ustreznih ravneh, v primeru nasprotja interesov pa pravico do kolektivnih ukrepov (na primer stavke) za obrambo svojih interesov;
Welcomes the Lisbon treaty and the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is to be made legally binding; notes that this would include the right of trade unions to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in the case of conflicts of interest, to take collective action (such as strike action) to defend their interests;
6. poudarja, da direktiva o napotitvi delavcev omogoča, da javni organi in socialni partnerji določijo za delavce ugodnejše pogoje za delo in zaposlitev v skladu z različnimi tradicijami držav članic;
Stresses that the PWD allows public authorities and social partners to lay down terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers according to the different traditions in the Member States;
9. poudarja, da je treba preprečiti negativen vpliv na modele trga dela, ki že lahko združujejo veliko stopnjo prožnosti na trgu dela z visoko ravnijo varnosti, ter nadalje spodbujati ta pristop;
Underlines the importance of preventing negative effects on labour market models that are already able to combine a high degree of flexibility in the labour market with a high level of security and, instead, of promoting this approach further;
Splošni vpliv
General impact
11. pozdravlja dejstvo, da so po načelih in tradicijah Evropske unije mnoge države članice v sodelovanju s socialnimi partnerji uvedle visoke standarde za delovne pogoje, ki izboljšujejo dobro počutje vseh delavcev in večajo gospodarsko rast in konkurenčnost;
Welcomes the fact that, according to the principles and traditions of the European Union, many Member States, in cooperation with social partners, have put in place high standards of working conditions that improve the well-being of all workers and enhance economic growth as well as competitiveness;
13. meni tudi, da se svoboda zagotavljanja čezmejnih storitev na notranjem trgu poveča, če se zagotovi, da se domači in tuji ponudniki storitev pomerijo v enakih gospodarskih razmerah in pogojih na trgu dela na kraju opravljanja storitev;
Also takes the view that the freedom to provide cross border services in the internal market is further enhanced by ensuring that domestic and foreign service providers face similar economic and labour market conditions at the place of service delivery;
18. priznava, da je Sodišče s sodbami v zadevah Laval, Rüffert in Luxembourg povzročilo nekaj hudih pomislekov glede tega, kako naj se razlagajo direktive o minimalnem usklajevanju;
Acknowledges that the ECJ rulings in the Laval, Rüffert and Luxembourg cases have caused some great concerns as to the way in which minimum harmonisation directives must be interpreted;
22. opozarja, da je devet držav članic ratificiralo konvencijo Mednarodne organizacije dela št. 94 o določbah o delu (javna naročila); obžaluje, da celo odločitve sodišča ne dovolj upoštevajo te konvencije ter je zaskrbljen, da bi bila uporaba te konvencije v zadevnih državah članicah lahko v nasprotju z uporabo direktive o napotitvi delavcev; poziva Komisijo, naj nujno pojasni te razmere in še naprej spodbuja ratifikacijo te konvencije, da bi še bolj spodbudila uvedbo socialnih določb v predpisih o javnem naročilih, kar je samo po sebi cilj direktive o javnih naročilih;
Recalls that nine Member States have ratified the ILO Convention 94 on Labour Clauses (Public Contracts); regrets that even judicial rulings fail sufficiently to take into consideration ILO convention 94 and is worried that the application of this Convention in the Member States concerned might be in conflict with the application of the PWD; calls on the Commission to clarify this situation as a matter of urgency and to continue to promote the ratification of this Convention in order to enhance further the development of social clauses in public procurement regulations, which itself is an aim of the Public Procurement Directive;
25. meni, da so v sedanji zakonodaji Skupnosti vrzeli in nedoslednosti ter je bila zato direktiva o napotitvi delavcev razlagana drugače, kot je bil namen zakonodajalca Skupnosti; ta je poskušal poiskati pravično ravnotežje med svobodo zagotavljanja storitev in varstvom pravic delavcev; poziva Komisijo, naj pripravi potrebne zakonodajne predloge, ki bi pripomogli, da si razlage v prihodnje ne bi nasprotovale;
Considers that current Community legislation has both loopholes and inconsistencies and therefore may have lent itself to interpretations of the PWD that were not the intention of the Community legislator, who was looking for a fair balance between the freedom to provide services and the protection of workers rights; calls on the Commission to prepare the necessary legislative proposals which would assist in preventing conflicting interpretation in the future;
29. meni, da ne bi smeli ogroziti uveljavljanja temeljnih pravic, kot jih priznavajo države članice, konvencije Mednarodne organizacije dela in Listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, vključno s pravico do pogajanja, sklepanja in izvajanja kolektivnih pogodb ter pravica do kolektivnih ukrepov;
Believes that the exercise of fundamental rights as recognised in the Member States, in ILO Conventions and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including the right to negotiate, conclude and enforce collective agreements and the right to take industrial action should not be put at risk.
31. poziva Komisijo, naj izvaja sklepe Sveta v zvezi za čimprejšnjo uvedbo elektronskega sistema za izmenjavo informacij, saj bi to državam članicam omogočilo, da bi se učinkoviteje borile proti zlorabam;
Calls on the Commission to implement the decisions of the Council regarding the establishment of an electronic system for exchange of information as a matter of urgency as it could enable Member States to combat abuses more effectively.
35. poziva Komisijo, naj predstavi dolgo pričakovano sporočilo o nadnacionalnem kolektivnem pogajanju, v katerem se predlaga vzpostavitev pravnega okvira za nadnacionalne kolektivne sporazume;
Calls on the Commission to put forward the long awaited Communication on transnational collective bargaining proposing the establishment of a legal framework for transnational collective agreements;
Decembra 2007 je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti izdalo sodbo v dveh zadevah o tem, kako Evropska unija ohranja ravnotežje med gospodarskimi in družbenimi cilji Pogodbe.
In December 2007 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its judgments in two cases on how the EU balances the economic and the social objectives of the Treaty.
Zadeva Viking se nanaša na kolektivne ukrepe, povezane z zamenjavo zastave ribiških plovil na poti iz Finske v Estonijo.
The Viking case concerns a collective action relating to the reflagging of a vessel from Finland to Estonia.
V zadevi Laval je švedski sindikat latvijskega ponudnika storitev s kolektivnimi ukrepi poskusil prisiliti v podpis kolektivne pogodbe pri opravljanju storitev na Švedskem.
In the Laval case a Swedish trade union, by means of collective action, had tried to force a Latvian provider of services to sign a collective agreement when performing services in Sweden.
Aprila 2008 je Sodišče razsodilo o zadevi Rüffert .
In April 2008 the ECJ delivered another verdict in the Rüffert case .
Ta zadeva se nanaša na pravico javnih organov, da pri dodeljevanju javnih naročil od ponudnikov zahtevajo, da se zavežejo plačam v skladu s stopnjami, ki so že dogovorjene v okviru kolektivnih pogajanj, kjer se delo opravlja, in na vprašanje, ali bi lahko to prepovedali kot omejitev svobode opravljanja storitev v skladu s členom 49 Pogodbe.
The case concerns the right of public authorities, when awarding contracts for work, to demand that tendering companies commit themselves to pay wages that are in line with rates already agreed through collective bargaining where the work is carried out, or whether this could be outlawed as a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 49 of the Treaty.
Poročilo je osredotočeno na glavne posledice sodb, ne pa toliko na težave držav pri izvajanju, ki bi jih bilo treba hitro odpraviti na nacionalni ravni.
The report is focusing on the principle consequences of the verdicts and not so much on national problems in the implementation which should be dealt with promptly at the national level.
Prvi del poročila obravnava vodilna načela za notranji trg ter potrebno ravnotežje med prostim pretokom storitev in pravicami delavcev.
The first part of the report deals with the guiding principles for the internal market and the necessary balance between the free movement of services and the rights of workers.
Vsakdo bi moral imeti pravico, da dela kjer koli v Evropski uniji, in obžalovanja vredno je, da se ta pravica ne uporablja enotno po vsej EU.
Anyone should have the right work anywhere in the European Union and it is regretful that this right is not applied uniformly across the EU.
Vendar je treba na drugi strani upoštevati temeljne pravice ter možnost vlad in sindikatov, da zagotovijo nediskriminacijo in enako obravnavanje.
However this has to be balanced against fundamental rights and the possibility for governments and trade unions to ensure non-discrimination and equal treatment.
Kadar dobijo delavci migranti manjšo plačo od nacionalnih delavcev, ne moremo zamižati na eno oko, saj bi s tem izrazili, da so vredni manj od nacionalnih delavcev, ki opravljajo isto delo.
We cannot turn a blind eye when migrant workers are paid less then national workers, sending the message she/he is worth less than the national workers performing the same job.
V interesu vseh je, da imajo delavci enake pogoje ne glede na to, ali so priseljenci ali nacionalni delavci.
It is in everybody's interest that workers enjoy equal conditions, whether national or migrant.
Zaradi tega bi moralo glavno načelo vedno biti enako obravnavanje in plačilo za enako delo.
Thus, equal treatment and pay for equal work should always be the main principle.
Učinek sodb Sodišča
Effects of the ECJ ruling
Direktiva o napotitvi delavcev
The posting Directive (PWD)
Direktivo o napotitvi delavcev se je od nekdaj razlagalo kot minimalno direktivo v smislu, da določa „trdno jedro“ minimalnih delovnih pogojev, ki jih morajo zagotoviti države članice, uporablja pa se tudi za tuje delavce za določen čas.
Traditionally, the PWD has been interpreted as a minimum directive in the sense that it lays down a “hard core” of minimum working conditions that member states have to ensure and that also applies to temporary, foreign workers.
Vendar direktiva o napotitvi delavcev ne izključuje sistemov z višjo zaščito.
However, the PWD does not exclude systems with higher protection.
Razloge za to razlago najdemo predvsem v členu 3(7) direktive: „ Odstavki od 1 do 6 ne onemogočajo uporabe za delavce ugodnejših pogojev za delo in zaposlitev “.
The reasons for this interpretation are mainly to be found in article 3(7) in the directive “ Paragraphs 1 to 6 shall not prevent application of terms and conditions that are more favourable to workers ”.
Ta razlaga pa se je spremenila s sodbo o zadevi Laval, v kateri je Sodišče navedlo, da člena 3(7) direktive o napotitvi delavcev „ ni mogoče razlagati tako, da omogoča državi članici gostiteljici, da izvedbo storitev na svojem ozemlju pogojuje z upoštevanjem pogojev za delo in zaposlitev, tako da presega prisilne predpise glede minimalne zaščite“.
This perception is, however, changed with the Laval ruling, in which the court states that article 3(7) in the Posting Directive “ 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 ”.
V sodbi je tudi navedeno, da direktiva o napotitvi delavcev določa stopnjo zaščite, ki jo država članica gostiteljica „ lahko naloži podjetjem “ (poudarek dodan) (odst.
The ruling furthermore states that the PWD lays down the degree of protection that the host member state “ is entitled to require those undertakings to observe ” (our emphasis) (Para.
80), v naslednjem odstavku pa piše, da je „ raven zaščite, ki jo je treba zagotoviti napotenim delavcem na ozemlju države članice gostiteljice, načelno omejena z ravnijo zaščite, predvidene v členu 3(1), prvi pododstavek, točke od (a) do (g), Direktive 96/71 “.
80), and continues in the next paragraph “ 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 ”.
To, kar lahko država članica naloži gostujočemu podjetju, je torej omejeno na jedro direktive o napotitvi delavcev in nič več.
What the host member state can impose on a visiting company is thus limited to the core of the PWD, and nothing beyond that.
Povedano drugače, kar je veljalo za direktivo z minimalnimi zahtevami, je postalo direktiva z maksimalnimi zahtevami.
In other words, what we thought was a minimum directive has become a maximum directive.
Pri utemeljitvi te sodbe je Sodišče iz praktičnih razlogov odpravilo člen 3(7), ki omogoča ugodnejše pogoje.
In the reasoning of this ruling, the court has, for practical purposes, abolished article 3(7) allowing more favourable terms and conditions.
Tako je mogoče za napotene delavce zmanjšati nacionalne sporazume o plačah.
Thus, national wage agreements can be undercut for posted workers.
Razlaga je nadalje podana in razširjena v zadevi Rüffert .
This interpretation is further developed and explained in the Rüffert case.
Sodišče v odstavku 32 navaja, da „ take urne postavke tudi ni mogoče šteti za delavce ugodnejši pogoj za delo in zaposlitev v smislu člena 3(7) Direktive 96/71 “.
The ECJ states in paragraph 32 that the normal wage in Niedersachsen " cannot be considered to be a term and condition of employment which is more favourable to workers within the meaning of Article 3(7) of Directive 96/71. "
V nadaljevanju je zapisano, da „ bi taka razlaga navedeni direktivi odvzela polni učinek (zgoraj navedena sodba Laval un Partneri, točka 80) “.
The Court continues to say that " such an interpretation would amount to depriving the directive of its effectiveness (see Laval un Partneri , paragraph 80). "
Z drugimi besedami, direktive ni mogoče razlagati tako, kot je napisana, saj bi bilo to v nasprotju z njenim namenom, ki je po mnenju Sodišča zagotoviti svobodo opravljanja storitev, ne pa zaščita delavcev.
In other word the directive could not be interpreted in the way it is written since it would go against the purpose of the directive which according to the court is to bring about the freedom to provide services and not the protection of workers.
Ravnotežje med prostim pretokom storitev in temeljno pravico do stavke
The balance between the free movement of services and the fundamental right to strike
Sodišče je v zadevah Viking in Laval uvedlo neposredni horizontalni učinek členov 43 in 49, ki ju lahko delodajalci in ponudniki storitev uporabljajo za izpodbijanje kolektivnih pogodb ter ukrepanje sindikatov s čezmejnim učinkom.
The ECJ in the Viking and Laval cases introduces a horizontal direct effect of article 43 and 49 which can be used by employers and service providers to challenge collective agreements and industrial actions with a cross-border effect.
Neodvisnost kolektivnih pogajanj od pravil o konkurenci se s tem ne razširi na področje prostega pretoka.
The autonomy for collective bargaining from competition rules is thereby not extended to the field of free movement.
To prinaša s seboj tveganje: odnosi med delodajalci in delojemalci v državah članicah bi se lahko znašli pod pravnim nadzorom; negotovost teh odnosov; Sodišče bi bilo preplavljeno z zadevami.
This brings about risks: Industrial relations in the Member States could be put under legal scrutiny; uncertainty in industrial relations; a “flood” of cases to the ECJ.
Katero koli podjetje v čezmejnem sporu ima možnost, da to sodbo uporabi proti sindikalnemu ukrepanju z utemeljitvijo, da je bilo „nesorazmerno“.
Any company in a transnational dispute has the opportunity to use this judgement against union actions, alleging that it was" disproportional”.
Sodba pravi, da je pravica do stavke temeljna pravica, vendar ne tako temeljna kot določbe o prostem pretoku v EU.
The verdict says that the right to strike is a fundamental right but not so fundamental as the EU's free movement provisions.
To bi lahko povzročilo konkurenco za nizke plače in sindikatom otežilo zagotavljanje enakega obravnavanja.
This could lead to wage competition and make it difficult for trade unions to ensure equal treatment.
Ker so te sodbe pokazale, da veljavna zakonodaja ne zadostuje za zagotovitev ravnotežja med svobodo opravljanja storitev ter pravicami delavcev, je treba nemudoma ukrepati, da bi ustrezno spremenili evropsko zakonodajo in preprečili morebitne škodljive družbene, gospodarske in politične učinke sodb Sodišča.
Since these verdicts have proven that the current legislation is not sufficient enough to provide a balance between the freedom to provide services and the workers rights, we need to take immediate action to ensure that necessary changes in European legislation are made in order to counter the possible detrimental social, economical and political effects of the ECJ judgements.
Treba je razmisliti o naslednjih spremembah:
These changes should be considered;
· Revizija direktive o napotitvi delavcev.
· Review the PWD.
· Povzetek socialnih določb iz Montijeve direktive ter direktive o storitvah v socialni določbi v primarni zakonodaji ali medinstitucionalnem sporazumu.
· Summarize the social clauses of the Monti directive and the Service directive in a social clause in primary law or in an inter-institutional agreement.
· Takojšnje sprejetje direktive o agencijah za začasno zaposlovanje, v kateri bi bilo pojasnjeno, da se morajo za delavce, zaposlene za določen čas prek agencij, uporabljati ista pravila, kot če bi jih neposredno zaposlilo podjetje.
· Immediately adopt the Temporary Agency Directive in which it is clarified that the same rules should immediately apply to temporary agency workers as if they were employed directly by the enterprise.
· Sprejetje ukrepov za boj proti ustanavljanju podjetij – poštnih nabiralnikov (angl. letterbox companies ), ki v resnici ne opravljajo pravih dejavnosti v državi izvora – včasih jih celo neposredno ustanovi glavni izvajalec v državi gostiteljici –, ustanovljena pa so zgolj zato, da bi ponujala „storitve“ državi gostiteljici, da bi se izognila polnemu izpolnjevanju pravil in predpisov te države, zlasti kar zadeva plače in delovne pogoje.
· Adopt measures to combat letterbox-companies, undertakings not engaged in any genuine and meaningful business in the country of origin but created, sometimes even directly by the main contractor in the host country, for the sole purpose of offering ‘services’ to the host country in order to avoid the full application of host country rules and regulations especially with regard to wages and working conditions.
(*) Postopek s pridruženimi odbori - člen 47 Poslovnika
(*) Associated committees – Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
A. ker Pogodba o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti priznava temeljne pravice, določene v Listini o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, v ustavah držav članic ter v različnih mednarodnih pogodbah in konvencijah, kot osnovo, na katero se sklicujeta zakonodaja in praksa EU,
A. whereas the Treaty establishing the European Community acknowledges the fundamental rights laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as in the Member States' constitutions and in different international treaties and conventions, as fundamental references for EU law and practice,
B. ker Pogodba o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti določa vrsto načel in ker je ena od glavnih dejavnosti Skupnosti oblikovanje notranjega trga, za katerega je značilna odprava ovir pri prostem pretoku blaga, oseb, storitev in kapitala med državami članicami, pa tudi politika na socialnem področju,
B. whereas the Treaty establishing the European Community lays down a number of principles; whereas one of the main activities of the Community is an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, as well as a policy in the social sphere,
E. ker v skladu s členom 39 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti prosti pretok delavcev vključuje odpravo vseh oblik diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva med delavci držav članic glede zaposlovanja, plačila in drugih pogojev dela in zaposlovanja,
E. whereas, according to Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, freedom of movement for workers entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment,
F. ker je pravica do kolektivnega ukrepanja in sklepanja kolektivnih pogodb temeljna pravica in sestavni del splošnih načel prava Skupnosti; ker se v tem kontekstu Sodišče ne sme sklicevati na izjavo Sveta in Komisije z dne 24. septembra 1996, ki je Evropski parlament kot sozakonodajalec ni sprejel, da bi omejil razlago konceptov „javnega reda” in „nacionalnih predpisov, bistvenih za politično ureditev” zgolj na obvezne zakonske predpise,
F. whereas the right to take collective action and to conclude collective agreements is a fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of Community law; whereas in that context the Court of Justice should not rely on a statement of the Council and the Commission dated 24 September 1996 that has not been adopted by the European Parliament as co-legislator in order to restrict the interpretation of the concepts of "public policy provisions" and "national provisions crucial to political order" merely to mandatory rules laid down in legislation,
G. ker člen 3(1) direktive o storitvah jasno določa, da ta direktiva ne nadomešča Direktive 96/71/ES (direktiva o napotitvi delavcev na delo)
G. whereas Article 3(1)(a) of the Services Directive clearly indicates that that Directive is not intended to replace Directive 96/71/EC (the PWD)
Direktiva 96/71/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. decembra 1996 o napotitvi delavcev na delo v okviru opravljanja storitev (UL L 18, 21.1.1997, str.
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services ( OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p.