natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Recital (14) in the preamble to Directive 1999/70 states that the aim of the framework agreement is, in particular, to improve the quality of fixedterm work by setting out the minimum requirements in order to ensure the application of the principle of non-discrimination.
Štirinajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 1999/70 v zvezi s tem določa, da je namen okvirnega sporazuma zlasti izbolj�anje kakovosti dela za določen čas z določitvijo minimalnih zahtev za zagotovitev uporabe načela prepovedi diskriminacije.
The framework agreement, in particular Clause 4, thus follows an aim which is akin to the fundamental objectives enshrined in the first paragraph of Article 136 EC as well as in the third paragraph of the preamble to the EC Treaty and Article 7 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers to which Article 136 EC refers, and which are associated with the improvement of living and working conditions and the existence of proper social protection for workers, in the present case, for fixedterm workers.
Okvirni sporazum, zlasti njegova določba 4, tako zasleduje cilj, ki spada med temeljne cilje, ki so zapisani v členu 136, prvi odstavek, ES ter v tretjem pododstavku preambule Pogodbe in v točkah 7 in 10, prvi odstavek, Listine Skupnosti o temeljnih socialnih pravicah delavcev, na katero se sklicuje zgoraj navedena določba Pogodbe, in ki so povezani z izbolj�anjem življenjskih razmer in delovnih pogojev ter z ustrezno socialno za�čito delavcev, v obravnavanem primeru delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas.
Moreover, the first paragraph of Article 136 EC, which defines the objectives with a view to which the Council may, in respect of the matters covered by Article 137 EC, implement in accordance with Article 139(2) EC agreements concluded between social partners at Community level, refers to the European Social Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961, which includes at point 4 of Part I the right for all workers to a ‘fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of living for themselves and their families’ among the objectives which the contracting parties have undertaken to achieve, in accordance with Article 20 in Part III of the Charter.
Poleg tega se člen 136, prvi odstavek, ES, v katerem so opredeljeni cilji, za doseganje katerih lahko Svet na področjih iz člena 137 ES izvaja v skladu s členom 139(2) ES sporazume, sklenjene med socialnimi partnerji na ravni Skupnosti, sklicuje na Evropsko socialno listino, podpisano v Torinu 18. oktobra 1961, v kateri je med cilje, ki so se jih pogodbenice zavezale doseči v skladu z delom III, člen 20, te listine, vključena v delu I, točka 4, pravica vseh delavcev do „pravičnega plačila, ki njim in njihovim družinam zagotavlja dostojen življenjski standard“.
In the light of those objectives, Clause 4 of the framework agreement must be interpreted as articulating a principle of Community social law which cannot be interpreted restrictively (see Del Cerro Alonso, paragraph 38).
Ob upo�tevanju teh ciljev je treba določbo 4 okvirnega sporazuma razumeti, kot da izraža načelo socialnega prava Skupnosti, ki se ne more razlagati restriktivno (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Del Cerro Alonso, točka 38).
As submitted by both Impact and the Commission, to interpret Clause 4 of the framework agreement as categorically excluding from the term ‘employment conditions’ for the purposes of that clause financial conditions such as those relating to remuneration and pensions, effectively reduces — contrary to the objective attributed to that clause — the scope of the protection against discrimination for the workers concerned by introducing a distinction based on the nature of the employment conditions, which the wording of that clause does not in any way suggest.
Kot sta poudarjala Impact in Komisija, bi se na podlagi razlage določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma, ki bi kategorično izključevala iz pojma „pogojev zaposlitve“ za namen te določbe tak�ne finančne pogoje, ki so povezani s plačilom in pokojninami, ne glede na cilj, določen v navedeni določbi, zmanj�al obseg varstva zadevnih delavcev pred diskriminacijo in bi se uvedlo razlikovanje na podlagi vrste pogojev zaposlitve, na kar besedilo določbe nikakor ne nakazuje.
Moreover, as the Advocate General noted at point 161 of her Opinion, such an interpretation would render the reference in Clause 4(2) of the framework agreement to the principle of pro rata temporis meaningless, that principle being intended by definition only to apply to divisible performance, such as that deriving from financial employment conditions linked, for example, to remuneration and pensions.
Kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točki 161 sklepnih predlogov, bi poleg tega s tako razlago sklicevanje na načelo pro rata temporis v določbi 4, točka 2, okvirnega sporazuma postalo nesmiselno, ker se to načelo per definitionem uporablja le za deljive dajatve, kot so te, ki izhajajo iz finančnih pogojev zaposlitve, in ki so na primer povezane s plačilom in pokojninami.
That caselaw is accounted for by the existence also of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty were replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and of a directive dedicated to the equal treatment of men and women in relation to pay, namely Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19).
Navedena sodna praksa se namreč lahko razloži s skupnim obstojem člena 119 Pogodbe ES (člene od 117 do 120 Pogodbe ES so nadomestili členi od 136 ES do 143 ES) in direktive o enakem obravnavanju mo�kih in žensk na področju plačila, to je Direktive Sveta 75/117/EGS z dne 10. februarja 1975 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z uporabo načela enakega plačila za mo�ke in ženske (UL L 45, str. 19).
Since there is no such duality of legislation in respect of the principle of nondiscrimination of fixedterm workers, it is not possible to draw any lessons from that caselaw as regards the interpretation of ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4 of the framework agreement.
Ob upo�tevanju neobstoja take normativne dvojnosti v zvezi z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas, ni v tej sodni praksi nobene opore za razlago pojma „delovnih pogojev“ v smislu določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma.
As regards the objection by Ireland and the United Kingdom Government based on Article 137(5) EC, as interpreted by the judgment in Case C-14/04 Dellas and Others [2005] ECR I-10253, paragraphs 38 and 39, it must be borne in mind that Directive 1999/70 was adopted on the basis of Article 139(2) EC, which refers to Article 137 EC for the list of matters within the competence of the Council for the purposes, inter alia, of implementing agreements concluded between social partners at Community level.
V zvezi z ugovorom Irske in vlade Združenega kraljestva na podlagi člena 137(5) ES, kot je bil razložen v sodbi z dne 1. decembra 2005 v zadevi Dellas in drugi (C-14/04, ZOdl., str. I-10253, točki 38 in 39), je treba opozoriti, da je bila Direktiva 1999/70 sprejeta na podlagi člena 139(2) ES, ki se sklicuje na člen 137 ES glede na�tevanja področij, na katerih je Svet pristojen za, med drugim, izvajanje sporazumov, sklenjenih med socialnimi partnerji na ravni Skupnosti.
According to Article 137(5) EC, the provisions of Article 137 EC ‘shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs’.
V skladu z besedilom člena 137(5) ES se določbe tega člena „ne uporabljajo za plače, pravico združevanja, pravico do stavke ali pravico do izprtja“.
As the Court has already held, as Article 137(5) EC derogates from paragraphs 1 to 4 of that article, the matters reserved by that paragraph must be interpreted strictly so as not to unduly affect the scope of paragraphs 1 to 4, nor to call into question the aims pursued by Article 136 EC (Del Cerro Alonso, paragraph 39).
Kot je Sodi�če že presodilo, ker je člen 137(5) ES izjema od odstavkov od 1 do 4 istega člena, je treba področja, ki jih odstavek 5 izključuje, razlagati ozko, da se ne bi neupravičeno posegalo na področje uporabe navedenih odstavkov od 1 do 4 in vplivalo na cilje, ki jim sledi člen 136 ES (zgoraj navedena sodba Del Cerro Alonso, točka 39).
More particularly, the exception relating to ‘pay’ set out in Article 137(5) EC is explained by the fact that fixing the level of pay falls within the contractual freedom of the social partners at a national level and within the relevant competence of Member States.
Razlog za obstoj izjeme, ki se nana�a na „plače“ iz člena 137(5) ES, je dejstvo, da določitev plač spada na področje pogodbene avtonomije socialnih partnerjev na nacionalni ravni in v pristojnost držav članic na tem področju.
In those circumstances, in the present state of Community law, it was considered appropriate to exclude determination of the level of wages from harmonisation under Article 136 EC et seq. (Del Cerro Alonso, paragraphs 40 and 46).
V teh okoli�činah je bilo presojeno, da je glede na sedanje stanje prava Skupnosti primerno, da se določitev vi�ine plač izključi iz usklajevanja na podlagi členov 136 ES in naslednjih (zgoraj navedena sodba Del Cerro Alonso, točki 40 in 46).
As the Commission contended, that exception must therefore be interpreted as covering measures — such as the equivalence of all or some of the constituent parts of pay and/or the level of pay in the Member States, or the setting of a minimum guaranteed Community wage — which amount to direct interference by Community law in the determination of pay within the Community.
Kot je uveljavljala Komisija, je treba razumeti navedeno izjemo tako, kot da se nana�a na ukrepe, kot so poenotenje vseh ali nekaterih elementov plačila in/ali njegova vi�ina v državah članicah ali uvedba minimalne skupnostne mezde, ki bi pomenili neposredno poseganje prava Skupnosti v določanje plačil znotraj Skupnosti.
It cannot, however, be extended to any question involving any sort of link with pay; otherwise some of the areas referred to in Article 137(1) EC would be deprived of much of their substance (see, to that effect, Del Cerro Alonso, paragraph 41; see also, to the same effect, Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755, concerning the Council’s competence to adopt, on the basis of Article 118a of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty were replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p.
Vendar je ni mogoče raz�iriti na vsa vpra�anja, ki so kakor koli povezana s plačilom, ker bi s tem nekatera področja iz člena 137(1) ES izgubila velik del svoje vsebine (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Del Cerro Alonso, točka 41, v istem smislu glej tudi sodbo z dne 12. novembra 1996 v zadevi Združeno kraljestvo proti Svetu (C-84/94, Recueil, str. I-5755) glede pristojnosti Sveta za sprejetje, na podlagi člena 118a Pogodbe ES (člene od 117 do 120 Pogodbe ES so nadomestili členi od 136 ES do 143 ES), Direktive Sveta 93/104/ES z dne 23. novembra 1993 o določenih vidikih organizacije delovnega časa (UL L 307, str.
18), in particular Article 7 of that directive, relating to the grant of four weeks’ paid annual leave).
18), zlasti člena 7 te direktive o dodelitvi plačanega letnega dopusta najmanj �tirih tednov).
It follows that the derogation in Article 137(5) EC does not preclude the interpretation of Clause 4 of the framework agreement as imposing on the Member States the obligation to ensure that fixedterm workers are also guaranteed the application of the principle of nondiscrimination in relation to pay.
Iz tega izhaja, da izjema iz člena 137(5) ES ne nasprotuje temu, da bi se določbo 4 okvirnega sporazuma razumelo, kot da določa obveznost za države članice, da zagotavljajo v korist delavcem, zaposlenim za določen čas, uporabo načela prepovedi diskriminacije tudi na področju plačila.
That derogation cannot therefore prevent workers such as the complainants in the main proceedings from pleading the direct effect of Clause 4(1) in contesting the application, in relation to pay, of less favourable treatment than that which is given to comparable permanent workers and for which there is no objective justification (see, to that effect, Del Cerro Alonso, paragraphs 42 and 47).
Ta izjema posledično ne more preprečiti delavcem, kot so pritožniki iz postopka v glavni stvari, da s sklicevanjem na neposredni učinek navedene določbe 4, točka 1, nasprotujejo uporabi na področju plačila obravnavanju, ki je brez objektivne utemeljitve manj ugoden od obravnavanja primerljivih delavcev, zaposlenih za nedoločen čas (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Del Cerro Alonso, točki 42 in 47).
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 43 to 45 of the judgment in Del Cerro Alonso, the foregoing interpretation is in no way incompatible with the arguments in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the judgment in Dellas and Others.
Zaradi razlogov, navedenih v točkah od 43 do 45 zgoraj navedene sodbe Del Cerro Alonso predhodna razlaga ni nezdružljiva z ugotovitvami, navedenimi v točkah 38 in 39 zgoraj navedene sodbe Dellas in drugi.
At the hearing, the United Kingdom Government submitted that it may be inferred from the judgment in Del Cerro Alonso that the principle of nondiscrimination laid down by the framework agreement concerns only the constituent parts of pay, excluding the level of pay, which the national competent authorities remain free to set differently for permanent and for fixedterm workers.
Na obravnavi je vlada Združenega kraljestva poudarila, da se lahko iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Del Cerro Alonso sklepa, da se načelo prepovedi diskriminacije iz okvirnega sporazuma nana�a le na elemente plačila, z izjemo njegove vi�ine, ki jo lahko pristojni nacionalni organi različno določijo za delavce, zaposlene za nedoločen oziroma določen čas.
However, while it is true — as paragraphs 40 and 46 of the judgment in Del Cerro Alonso show and as has been noted in paragraphs 123 and 124 of the present judgment — that the establishment of the level of the various constituent parts of the pay of a worker falls outside the competence of the Community legislature and is unquestionably still a matter for the competent bodies in the various Member States, those bodies must nevertheless exercise their competence consistently with Community law — particularly Clause 4 of the framework agreement — in the areas in which the Community does not have competence (see, to that effect, Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union [2007] ECR I-10779, paragraph 40, and Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri [2007] ECR I-11767, paragraph 87).
Čeprav, kot izhaja iz točk 40 in 46 zgoraj navedene sodbe Del Cerro Alonso in kot je bilo ponovljeno v točkah 123 in 124 te sodbe, določitev vi�ine različnih elementov plačila delavca res ne spada v pristojnost zakonodajalca Skupnosti in ostaja nesporno v domeni pristojnih organov različnih držav članic, morajo ti organi pri izvajanju svojih pristojnosti na področjih, ki ne spadajo v pristojnost Skupnosti, kljub temu spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 11. decembra 2007 v zadevi International Transport Workers’ Federation in Finnish Seamen’s Union, C-438/05, ZOdl., I-10779, točka 40; in z dne 18. decembra 2007 v zadevi Laval un Partneri, C-341/05, ZOdl., I-11767, točka 87), zlasti določbo 4 okvirnega sporazuma.
It follows that, in establishing both the constituent parts of pay and the level of those constituent parts, the national competent bodies must apply to fixedterm workers the principle of nondiscrimination as laid down in Clause 4 of the framework agreement.
Iz tega izhaja, da morajo pristojni nacionalni organi pri določanju elementov plačila in njihovih vi�in uporabiti za delavce, zaposlene za določen čas, načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, kot izhaja iz določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma.
With regard to pensions, it must be noted that, according to the settled caselaw of the Court in relation to Article 119 of the Treaty, or, with effect from 1 May 1999, in relation to Article 141 EC, which concern the principle of equal treatment of men and women in relation to pay, the term ‘pay’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 141(2) EC covers pensions which depend on the employment relationship between worker and employer, excluding those deriving from a
V zvezi s pokojninami je treba pojasniti, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča, vzpostavljeno v zvezi s členom 119 Pogodbe ter od 1. maja 1999 v zvezi s členom 141 ES, ki se nana�ata na načelo enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk na področju plačila, pojem „plačila“ v smislu člena 141(2), drugi pododstavek, ES zajema pokojnine, ki izhajajo iz delovnega razmerja med delavcem in delodajalcem, z izjemo tistih, ki izhajajo iz zakonskega sistema financiranja, v katerega prispevajo delavci, delodajalci in morebiti javni organi v delu, ki je določen manj s tak�nim delovnim
Taking that caselaw into account, it must be held that the term ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement covers pensions which depend on an employment relationship between worker and employer, excluding statutory social-security pensions, which are determined less by that relationship than by considerations of social policy.
Ob upo�tevanju te sodne prakse je treba ugotoviti, da pojem „pogoji zaposlitve“ v smislu določbe 4, točka 1, okvirnega sporazuma zajema pokojnine, ki izhajajo iz delovnega razmerja med delavcem in delodajalcem, z izjemo pokojnin iz zakonskih sistemov socialne varnosti, ki so manj določene s tem razmerjem kot pa so s socialnim redom.
That interpretation is supported by the information in the fifth paragraph of the preamble to the framework agreement, according to which the parties to the agreement ‘recognis[e] that matters relating to statutory social security are for decision by the Member States’ and call on the Member States to give effect to the Employment Declaration of the Dublin European Council in 1996 which emphasised, inter alia, the need to adapt social-security systems to new patterns of work in order to provide appropriate social protection to those engaged in such work.
Ta razlaga je podprta tudi z navedbo iz petega pododstavka preambule okvirnega sporazuma, v skladu s katero stranke sporazuma „upo�teva[jo], da o zadevah v zvezi z obveznim socialnim varstvom odločajo države članice“, in jih pozivajo, da uresničijo njihovo Deklaracijo o zaposlovanju, sprejeto na zasedanju Evropskega sveta leta 1996 v Dublinu, v kateri je med drugim poudarjena potreba po prilagoditvi sistemov socialne varnosti novim vzorcem dela, da bi zagotavljali ustrezno varstvo osebam, ki tak�no delo opravljajo.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the fifth question must be that Clause 4 of the framework agreement must be interpreted as meaning that employment conditions within the meaning of that clause encompass conditions relating to pay and to pensions which depend on the employment relationship, to the exclusion of conditions relating to pensions arising under a statutory social-security scheme.
Glede na predhodne ugotovitve je treba na peto vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba določbo 4 okvirnega sporazuma razlagati tako, da pogoji zaposlitve v smislu te določbe zajemajo pogoje v zvezi s plačilom in pokojninami, ki izhajajo iz delovnega razmerja, z izjemo pogojev v zvezi s pokojninami iz zakonskega sistema socialne varnosti.
Community law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, requires that a specialised court which is called upon, under the, albeit optional, jurisdiction conferred on it by the legislation transposing Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to hear and determine a claim based on an infringement of that legislation, must also have jurisdiction to hear and determine an applicant’s claims arising directly from the directive itself in respect of the period between the deadline for transposing the directive and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force if it is established that the obligation on that applicant to bring, at the same time, a separate claim based directly on the directive before an ordinary court would involve procedural disadvantages liable to render excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred on him by Community law.
Pravo Skupnosti, zlasti načelo učinkovitosti, zahteva, da se mora specializirano sodišče, ki mu je bila zadeva predložena v okviru pristojnosti, čeprav fakultativne, podeljene z zakonodajo, s katero je bila prenesena Direktiva Sveta 1999/70/ES z dne 28. junija 1999 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP, za odločanje o zahtevi zaradi kršitve te zakonodaje, izreči za pristojno za odločanje tudi o zahtevah posameznika, ki temeljijo neposredno na tej direktivi za obdobje po poteku roka za njen prenos in pred začetkom veljavnosti navedene zakonodaje, če se izkaže, da bi obveznost za tega posameznika, da mora vzporedno pri rednem sodišču vložiti ločeno zahtevo, ki temelji neposredno na navedeni direktivi, povzročila takšne postopkovne težave, da bi bilo izvrševanje pravic, ki jih ima na podlagi pravnega reda Skupnosti, pretežko.
It is for the national court to undertake the necessary checks in that regard.
Glede tega mora potrebno presojo opraviti nacionalno sodišče.
Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to be able to rely upon it before a national court; that is not the case, however, as regards Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement.
Določba 4, točka 1, okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas, ki je bil sklenjen 18. marca 1999 in ki je priloga k Direktivi 1999/70, je brezpogojna in dovolj natančna, da se posameznik lahko sklicuje nanjo pred nacionalnim sodiščem. Nasprotno pa to ne velja za določbo 5, točka 1, navedenega okvirnega sporazuma.
Article 10 EC, the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as meaning that an authority of a Member State acting in its capacity as a public employer may not adopt measures contrary to the objective pursued by that directive and the framework agreement on fixedterm work as regards prevention of the abusive use of fixedterm contracts, which consist in the renewal of such contracts for an unusually long term in the period between the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70 and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force.
Člena 10 ES in 249, tretji odstavek, ES ter Direktivo 1999/70 je treba razlagati tako, da organ države članice, ki nastopa kot delodajalec javnega sektorja, ni pooblaščen za sprejetje ukrepov, ki so v nasprotju s ciljem, zasledovanim z navedeno direktivo in okvirnim sporazumom o delu za določen čas, v zvezi s preprečevanjem zlorab pri uporabi pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas, to je obnovitev takšnih pogodb za neobičajno dolgo obdobje v obdobju po poteku roka za prenos te direktive in pred začetkom veljavnosti zakona za prenos.