natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A penalty notice was issued against the person primarily responsible at the undertaking established in Poland, accusing him of paying 53 workers engaged on the building site only 46.57% of the minimum wage laid down.
Glavni odgovorni osebi poljskega podjetja je bila na podlagi očitka, da je 53 delavcev, ki so delali na gradbi�ču, prejemalo le 46,57 % predpisane minimalne plače, izrečena mandatna kazen.
At first instance, the Landgericht Hannover (Regional Court, Hanover) held that Objekt und Bauregie’s outstanding claim under the contract for work was offset in full by the contractual penalty of EUR 84 934.31 (1% of the amount of the contract), in favour of Land Niedersachsen.
Landgericht Hannover je na prvi stopnji ugotovilo, da je terjatev, ki jo je imela družba Objekt und Bauregie na podlagi podjemne pogodbe, prenehala s pobotom pogodbene kazni v vi�ini 84.934,31 EUR (kar zna�a 1 % vrednosti naročila), do katere je bila upravičena Land Niedersachsen.
It dismissed the remainder of that undertaking’s action.
Zahtevek te družbe je v preostalem delu zavrnilo.
The case having come before it on appeal, the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Higher Regional Court, Celle) considers that the resolution of the dispute turns on whether it is precluded from applying the Landesvergabegesetz, in particular Paragraph 8(1), on the ground that it is incompatible with the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 EC.
Predložitveno sodi�če, ki obravnava pritožbo, meni, da je re�itev spora odvisna od tega, ali je dolžno zavrniti uporabo deželnega zakona, natančneje člena 8(1) tega zakona, ker ta ni v skladu s svobodo opravljanja storitev iz člena 49 ES.
In that regard, the national court notes that the obligations to comply with the collective agreements mean that construction undertakings from other Member States must adapt the remuneration they pay to their workers to the normally higher level in force in the place in the Federal Republic of Germany where the contract is to be performed.
Navedeno sodi�če v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da morajo gradbena podjetja iz drugih držav članic zaradi zaveze, da bodo spo�tovale kolektivne pogodbe, uskladiti plače, ki jih izplačujejo svojim delavcem, z običajno vi�jimi plačami, ki se izplačujejo na kraju izvr�itve naročila v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji.
Such a requirement causes those undertakings to lose the competitive advantage which they enjoy by reason of their lower wage costs.
Zaradi te zahteve omenjena podjetja izgubljajo konkurenčno prednost, ki jo imajo zaradi nižjih stro�kov plač.
Consequently, the obligation to comply with the collective agreements constitutes an impediment to market access for persons or undertakings from Member States other than the Federal Republic of Germany.
Obveznost spo�tovanja kolektivnih pogodb je torej ovira za fizične in pravne osebe iz drugih držav članic razen Zvezne republike Nemčije.
In addition, the national court is uncertain as to whether the requirement to comply with the collective agreements is justified by overriding reasons related to the public interest.
Poleg tega predložitveno sodi�če dvomi, da zavezo spo�tovanja kolektivnih pogodb upravičujejo nujni razlogi v javnem interesu.
More specifically, such a requirement goes beyond what is necessary for the protection of workers.
Natančneje, taka zaveza presega nujen obseg za�čite delavcev.
What is necessary for the protection of workers is defined by the mandatory minimum wage which results from the application, in Germany, of the Law on the posting of workers (ArbeitnehmerEntsendegesetz) of 26 February 1996 (BGBl. 1996 I, p.
Nujen obseg za�čite delavcev je opredeljen z obvezno minimalno plačo, ki je v Nemčiji določena z zakonom o napotitvi delavcev (Ar -beitnehmer-Entsendegesetz) z dne 26. februarja 1996 (BGBl. 1996 I, str.
227, ‘the AEntG’).
227, v nadaljevanju: AEntG).
In the case of foreign workers, the obligation to comply with the collective agreements does not enable them to achieve genuine equality of treatment with German workers but rather prevents workers originating in a Member State other than the Federal Republic of Germany from being employed in Germany because their employer is unable to exploit his cost advantage with regard to the competition.
Zaveza spo�tovanja kolektivnih pogodb ne omogoča vzpostavitve dejanske enakosti med tujimi in nem�kimi delavci, temveč preprečuje zaposlovanje delavcev iz drugih držav članic v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji, saj njihovi delodajalci stro�kov ne morejo izkori�čati kot konkurenčno prednost.
As it took the view that the resolution of the dispute before it required the interpretation of Article 49 EC, the Oberlandesgericht Celle decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Oberlandesgericht Celle je menilo, da re�itev spora o glavni stvari zahteva razlago člena 49 ES, zato je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Does it amount to an unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services under the EC Treaty if a public contracting authority is required by statute to award contracts for building services only to undertakings which, when lodging a tender, undertake in writing to pay their employees, when performing those services, at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where those services are performed?’
„Ali dejstvo, da se naročniku zakonsko predpi�e, naj za izvedbo javnih naročil za gradnje izbere le podjetja, ki se ob oddaji ponudbe pisno zavežejo, da bodo svojim delavcem za izvajanje zadevnih storitev izplačevala najmanj tak�no plačo, kot je določena v veljavni kolektivni pogodbi v kraju, kjer se te storitve izvajajo, pomeni neupravičeno omejitev svobode opravljanja storitev glede na Pogodbo ES?“
By its question, the national court asks essentially whether, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, Article 49 EC precludes an authority of a Member State from adopting a measure of a legislative nature requiring the contracting authority to designate as contractors for public works contracts only contractors which, when submitting their tenders, agree in writing to pay their employees, in return for performance of the services concerned, at least the wage provided for in the collective agreement in force at the place where those services are performed.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tem vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali člen 49 ES v primeru, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, nasprotuje zakonskemu ukrepu, s katerim organ države članice naročniku predpi�e, da lahko za izvedbo javnih naročil za gradnje izbere le podjetja, ki se ob oddaji ponudbe pisno zavežejo, da bodo svojim delavcem za izvajanje zadevnih storitev izplačevala najmanj tak�no plačo, kot je določena v veljavni kolektivni pogodbi v kraju, kjer se te storitve izvajajo.
As suggested also by a number of the Governments which have submitted observations to the Court, as well as by the Commission of the European Communities, in order to give a useful answer to the national court, it is necessary to take into consideration the provisions of Directive 96/71 when examining the question
Kot je predlagalo več vlad, ki so Sodi�ču predložile svoja stali�ča, in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, je treba za koristen odgovor predložitvenemu sodi�ču pri preučitvi vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje upo�tevati določbe Direktive 96/71 (v tem smislu glej sodbi z dne 12. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Wolff & Müller, C-60/03, ZOdl., str. I-9553, I - 2036
RÜFFERT referred for a preliminary ruling (see, to that effect, Case C-60/03 Wolff & Müller [2004] ECR I-9553, paragraph 27, and Case C-275/06 Promusicae [2008] ECR I-271, paragraph 42). 19
RÜFFERT točka 27, in z dne 29. januarja 2008 v zadevi Promusicae, C-275/06, ZOdl., str. I-271, točka 42).
As follows from Article 1(3)(a) thereof, Directive 96/71 applies, inter alia, to a situation in which an undertaking established in a Member State posts, in the framework of the transnational provision of services, workers on its account and under its direction to the territory of another Member State, under a contract concluded between the undertaking making the posting and the party for whom the services are intended, operating in the latter Member State, provided that an employment relationship exists between that undertaking and the employee during the period of the posting.
Kot izhaja iz člena 1(3)(a), se ta direktiva med drugim uporablja za primere, v katerih podjetje s sedežem v kateri od držav članic v okviru čezmejnega opravljanja storitev napoti delavce na ozemlje katere od držav članic na lasten račun in pod lastnim vodstvom na podlagi pogodbe, sklenjene med podjetjem, ki je delavce napotilo, in pogodbenico, ki so ji storitve namenjene, pod pogojem, da v času napotitve obstaja delovno razmerje med podjetjem, ki delavca napoti, in delavcem.
Such appears essentially to be the situation in the main proceedings.
V postopku v glavni stvari gre za tak primer.
In addition, as the Advocate General stated at point 64 of his Opinion, the mere fact that the objective of the legislation of a Member State, in this case the Landesvergabegesetz, is not to govern the posting of workers does not have the effect of precluding a situation such as that in the main proceedings from coming within the scope of Directive 96/71.
Poleg tega, kot opozarja generalni pravobranilec v točki 64 sklepnih predlogov, zgolj dejstvo, da zakonodaja države članice, kot je deželni zakon, ni namenjena urejanju napotitve delavcev, ne pomeni, da za primer, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ni mogoče uporabiti Direktive 96/71.
Pursuant to the first and second indents of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, with regard to the provision of transnational services in the construction sector, posted workers are to be guaranteed terms and conditions of employment concerning the matters referred to under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of that provision, which include, under subparagraph (c), minimum rates of pay.
Na podlagi člena 3(1), prvi pododstavek, prva in druga alinea, Direktive 96/71 je treba napotenim delavcem v okviru čezmejnega opravljanja storitev na področju gradbeni�tva zagotoviti tak�ne pogoje za delo in zaposlitev, kot izhajajo iz točk od (a) do (g) te določbe, med katerimi so tudi minimalne urne postavke iz točke (c).
Those terms and conditions of employment are fixed by laws, regulations or administrative provisions and/or by collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable.
Ti pogoji za delo in zaposlitev so določeni z zakoni ali drugimi predpisi in/ali kolektivnimi pogodbami ali arbitražnimi odločbami, razgla�enimi za splo�no veljavne.
According to the first subparagraph of Article 3(8) of that directive, the collective agreements or arbitration awards within the meaning of that provision are those which must be observed by all undertakings in the geographical area and in the profession or industry concerned.
V skladu z odstavkom 8, prvi pododstavek, istega člena so kolektivne pogodbe in arbitražne odločbe, razgla�ene za splo�no veljavne, tiste, ki jih morajo spo�tovati vsa podjetja na zadevnem geografskem območju in poklicu ali panogi.
The second subparagraph of Article 3(8) of Directive 96/71 gives Member States in addition the possibility, in the absence of a system for declaring collective agreements or arbitration awards to be of universal application, of basing themselves on collective agreements or arbitration awards which are generally applicable to all similar undertakings in the profession or industry concerned or agreements which have been concluded by the most representative employers’ and labour organisations at national level and which are applied throughout national territory.
Člen 3(8), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 96/71 državam članicam tudi omogoča, da se, če ni sistema za razglasitev kolektivnih pogodb ali arbitražnih odločb za splo�no veljavne, odločijo, da bodo izhajale iz pogodb ali odločb, ki imajo splo�en učinek za vsa podobna podjetja v zadevnem sektorju, ali iz pogodb, sklenjenih med najbolj reprezentativnimi organizacijami delodajalcev in delavcev na nacionalni ravni, ki se jih uporablja na ozemlju celotne države.
It is necessary to examine whether the rate of pay laid down by a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings — consisting of a legislative measure adopted by Land Niedersachsen concerning public contracts and seeking to make a collective agreement providing for the rate of pay in question binding, in particular on an undertaking such as the subcontractor Objekt und Bauregie — was fixed in accordance with one of the procedures described in paragraphs 21 and 22 of this judgment.
Preučiti je treba, ali je bila urna postavka, predpisana z ukrepom, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki izhaja iz zakonske določbe Land Niedersachsen na področju javnih naročil in ki podjetja, kot je podizvajalsko podjetje družbe Objekt und Bauregie, obvezuje k spo�tovanju kolektivne pogodbe, ki določa zadevno urno postavko, določena v skladu z eno od možnosti, opredeljenih v točkah 21 in 22 te sodbe.
First, a legislative measure such as the Landesvergabegesetz, which does not itself fix any minimum rates of pay, cannot be considered to be a law, within the meaning of the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, which fixed a minimum rate of pay, as provided in Article 3(1)(c) of that directive.
Prvič, zakona, kot je deželni zakon, v katerem minimalna urna postavka ni določena, ni mogoče �teti za zakon v smislu člena 3(1), prvi pododstavek, prva alinea, Direktive 96/71, ki v točki (c) tega pododstavka določa minimalno urno postavko.
Second, as to whether a collective agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a collective agreement which has been declared universally applicable within the meaning of the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(8) of that directive, it is apparent from the case-file submitted to the Court that the AEntG, which seeks to transpose Directive 96/71, extends the application of provisions on minimum wages in collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable in Germany to employers established in another Member State which post their workers to Germany.
Drugič, glede vpra�anja, ali je kolektivna pogodba, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, splo�no veljavna kolektivna pogodba v smislu člena 3(1), prvi pododstavek, druga alinea, v zvezi z odstavkom 8, prvi pododstavek, istega člena Direktive 96/71, iz Sodi�ču predloženega spisa izhaja, da se je z AEntG, katerega namen je prenos Direktive 96/71, uporaba določb o minimalnih plačah iz kolektivnih pogodb, ki so v Nemčiji razgla�ene za splo�no veljavne, raz�irila na delodajalce s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ki svoje delavce napotijo v Nemčijo.
In answer to a written question from the Court, Land Niedersachsen confirmed that the ‘Buildings and public works’ collective agreement is not a collective agreement which has been declared universally applicable within the meaning of the AEntG.
Land Niedersachsen je v odgovoru na pisno vpra�anje Sodi�ča potrdila, da kolektivna pogodba za gradnjo in javna dela ni kolektivna pogodba, ki bi bila v smislu AEntG razgla�ena za splo�no veljavno.
In addition, the case-file submitted to the Court does not contain any evidence to support the conclusion that that agreement is nevertheless capable of being treated as universally applicable within the meaning of the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(8) of that directive.
Spis, ki je bil predložen Sodi�ču, poleg tega ne vsebuje nobenih navedb, iz katerih bi lahko sklepali, da je treba to pogodbo kljub vsemu �teti za splo�no veljavno v smislu člena 3(1), prvi pododstavek, druga alinea, v zvezi z odstavkom 8, prvi pododstavek, istega člena Direktive 96/71.
Third, regarding the second subparagraph of Article 3(8) of Directive 96/71, it is clear from the actual wording of that provision that it is applicable only where there is no system for declaring collective agreements to be of universal application, which is not the case in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Tretjič, v zvezi s členom 3(8), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 96/71 že iz besedila te določbe izhaja, da jo je mogoče uporabiti le, če ni sistema za razglasitev kolektivnih pogodb za splo�no veljavne, kar pa za Zvezno republiko Nemčijo ne drži.
In addition, a collective agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings cannot, in any event, be considered to constitute a collective agreement within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(8) and, more specifically, to be a collective agreement, as mentioned in the first indent to that provision, ‘generally applicable to all similar undertakings in the geographical area and in the profession or industry concerned’.
Poleg tega kolektivne pogodbe, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, nikakor ni mogoče �teti za kolektivno pogodbo v smislu navedene določbe oziroma, natančneje, za kolektivno pogodbo iz prve alinee te določbe, ki ima „splo�en učinek za vsa podobna podjetja na zadevnem geografskem območju in poklicu ali panogi.“
In a context such as that in the main proceedings, the binding effect of a collective agreement such as that at issue here covers only a part of the construction sector falling within the geographical area of that agreement, since, first, the law which gives it such an effect applies only to public contracts and not to private contracts and, second, the collective agreement has not been declared universally applicable.
Zavezujoč učinek kolektivne pogodbe, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, v takih okoli�činah, kot so v sporu o glavni stvari, zajema le del gradbenega sektorja na zadevnem geografskem območju, ker se zakonodaja, s katero se vzpostavlja tak učinek, uporablja le za javna in ne tudi za zasebna naročila in ker navedena kolektivna pogodba ni bila razgla�ena za splo�no veljavno.
It follows that a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not fix a rate of pay according to one of the procedures laid down in the first and second indents of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and in the second subparagraph of Article 3(8) of Directive 96/71.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da ukrep, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, urne postavke ne določa v skladu z eno od možnosti, opredeljenih v členu 3(1), prvi pododstavek, prva in druga alinea, in (8), druga alinea, Direktive 96/71.
Therefore, such a rate of pay cannot be considered to constitute a minimum rate of pay within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71 which Member States are entitled to impose, pursuant to that directive, on undertakings established in other Member States, in the framework of the transnational provision of services (see, to that effect, Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri [2007] ECR I-11767, paragraphs 70 and 71).
Take urne postavke zato ni mogoče �teti za minimalno urno postavko v smislu člena 3(1), prvi pododstavek, točka (c), iste direktive, ki jo lahko države članice na podlagi te direktive v okviru čezmejnega opravljanja storitev naložijo podjetjem s sedežem v drugih državah članicah (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 18. decembra 2007 v zadevi Laval un Partneri, C-341/05, ZOdl., str. I-11767, točki 70 in 71).
Likewise, such a rate of pay 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.
Take urne postavke tudi ni mogoče �teti za za delavce ugodnej�i pogoj za delo in zaposlitev v smislu člena 3(7) Direktive 96/71.
More specifically, that provision 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.
Natančneje, navedene določbe ni mogoče razlagati tako, da državi članici gostiteljici omogoča, da izvajanje storitev na svojem ozemlju pogojuje z upo�tevanjem pogojev za delo in zaposlitev, ki presegajo prisilne predpise glede minimalne za�čite.
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.
Direktiva 96/71 glede zadev iz člena 3(1), prvi pododstavek, točke od (a) do (g), namreč izrecno določa stopnjo za�čite, ki jo lahko država članica gostiteljica naloži podjetjem s sedežem v drugi državi članici v korist njihovim delavcem, napotenim na ozemlje te države članice gostiteljice.
Moreover, such an interpretation would amount to depriving the directive of its effectiveness (see Laval un Partneri, paragraph 80).
Poleg tega bi taka razlaga navedeni direktivi odvzela polni učinek (zgoraj navedena sodba Laval un Partneri, točka 80).
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
Zato je s pridržkom možnosti, ki jo imajo podjetja s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, da v državi članici gostiteljici, predvsem v okviru obveznosti, ki jo imajo
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 (Laval un Partneri, paragraph 81).
RÜFFERT do svojega napotenega osebja, prostovoljno pristopijo h kolektivni pogodbi, ki je morebiti ugodnej�a, raven za�čite, ki jo je treba zagotoviti napotenim delavcem na ozemlju države članice gostiteljice, načeloma omejena z ravnijo za�čite, predvidene v členu 3(1), prvi pododstavek, točke od (a) do (g), Direktive 96/71, če navedeni delavci ne uživajo ugodnej�ih pogojev za delo in zaposlitev v zvezi z zadevami, določenimi v navedeni določbi, že na podlagi zakona ali kolektivnih pogodb v matični državi članici (zgoraj navedena sodba Laval un Partneri, točka 81).
However, such does not appear to be the case in the main proceedings.
Vendar v postopku v glavni stvari ne gre za tak primer.
It follows that a Member State is not entitled to impose, pursuant to Directive 96/71, on undertakings established in other Member States, by a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a rate of pay such as that provided for by the ‘Buildings and public works’ collective agreement.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da država članica na podlagi Direktive 96/71 nima pravice, da bi z ukrepom, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, podjetjem s sedežem v drugih državah članicah nalagala urno postavko, kot je ta iz kolektivne pogodbe za gradnjo in javna dela.
That interpretation of Directive 96/71 is confirmed by reading it in the light of Article 49 EC, since that directive seeks in particular to bring about the freedom to provide services, which is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
Tako razlago Direktive 96/71 potrjuje tudi njena presoja z vidika člena 49 ES, saj je ta direktiva namenjena zlasti uresničevanju svobode opravljanja storitev, ki je ena od temeljnih svobo�čin, zagotovljenih s Pogodbo.