natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I therefore suggest that the Court give the following answer to the first and second questions referred by the national court: a public statement made by an employer in the context of a recruitment drive, to the effect that applications from persons of a certain ethnic origin will be turned down, constitutes direct discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of the Directive.
Zato predlagam, da Sodi�če na prvo in drugo vpra�anje nacionalnega sodi�ča odgovori, da javna izjava delodajalca v okviru postopka zaposlovanja, ki povzroči izločitev kandidatur oseb določene narodnosti, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo v smislu člena 2(2)(a) Direktive.
The burden of proof fact discriminatory.’ 16In this respect, what is true for cases of discrimination based on sex is true for cases of discrimination based on ethnic origin.
Dokazno breme dejansko ni diskriminatorna“. 16 Glede na to, kar velja za primere diskriminacije na podlagi spola, velja tudi za primere diskriminacije na podlagi narodnosti.
Indeed, Article 8 of the Directive echoes word for word the text of Article 4 of Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex. 17
Člen 8 Direktive namreč dobesedno povzema člen 4 Direktive Sveta 97/80/ES z dne 15. decembra 1997 o dokaznem bremenu v primerih diskriminacije zaradi spola. 17
The referring court also seeks guidance as regards the burden of proof.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi pojasnila tudi glede dokaznega bremena.
These questions are relevant to the CGKR’s allegation before the national court that Feryn continues to apply discriminatory recruitment practices.
Ta vpra�anja so pomembna v okviru navedb CGKR pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, in sicer, da družba Feryn �e naprej uporablja diskriminatorne zaposlitvene postopke.
It follows from this provision that, when facts have been established from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it is for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Vendar, kot je Komisija pravilno poudarila, če je dokazano, da se je delodajalec javno izjavil o svoji zaposlovalni politiki, kot je zaposlovalna politika v postopku v glavni stvari, in da poleg tega praksa zaposlovanja, ki jo je delodajalec dejansko uporabil, ostaja nejasna in da noben delavec zadevne narodnosti ni bil zaposlen, obstaja domneva diskriminacije v smislu člena 8 Direktive.
None the less, as the Commission correctly points out, in circumstances where it is established that an employer has made the kind of public statements about its own recruitment policy that are at issue in the main proceedings, and where, moreover, the actual recruitment practice applied by the employer remains opaque and no persons with the ethnic background in question have been recruited, there will be a presumption of discrimination within the meaning of Article 8 of the Directive.
Iz te določbe izhaja, da mora tožena stranka, če so bila dokazana dejstva, iz katerih se lahko sklepa o neposredni ali posredni diskriminaciji, dokazati, da ni bilo kr�eno načelo enakega obravnavanja.
It falls to the employer to rebut that presumption.
Zato mora v primeru očitne diskriminacije delodajalec dokazati, da to načelo ni bilo kr�eno.
As regards the matter of how the national court should appraise the evidence in rebuttal submitted by the employer, it must be held that the national court should apply the relevant national procedural rules, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar
Glede tega, kako bi nacionalno sodi�če moralo presoditi dokaze, ki jih je delodajalec predložil, da bi ovrgel navedeno domnevo, je treba ugotoviti, da mora nacionalno sodi�če uporabiti nacionalna procesna pravila, če, prvič, taka pravila niso manj ugodna od tistih,
16 — Case C-236/98 JämO [2000] ECR I-2189, paragraph 53.
16 – Sodba z dne 30. marca 2000 v zadevi JämO (C-236/98, Recueil, str.
See also Case C-196/02 Nikoloudi [2005] ECR I-1789, paragraph 74.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 10. marca 2005 v zadevi Nikoloudi (C-196/02, ZOdl., str.
6, amended by Council Directive 98/52/EC of 13 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 205, p. 66).
6, spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 98/52/EC z dne 13. julija 1998 (UL L 205, str. 66).
See also Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78.
Glej tudi člen 10(1) Direktive 2000/78.
This reversal of the burden of proof is consistent with Community legislation and with the Court’s caselaw in the field of discrimination based on sex.
To obrnjeno dokazno breme je skladno z zakonodajo Skupnosti in s sodno prakso Sodi�ča na področju diskriminacije na podlagi spola.
As the Court has stated: ‘[w]here there is a prima facie case of discrimination, it is for the employer to show that there are objective reasons for the difference in pay [as between male and female workers].
Kot se je izreklo Sodi�če: „[k]adar gre za očiten primer diskriminacije, mora delodajalec dokazati, da obstajajo objektivni razlogi, ki upravičujejo ugotovljeno razliko v plači [med delavcem in delavko].
Workers would be deprived of the means of securing compliance with the principle of equal pay before national courts if evidence establishing a prima facie case of discrimination did not have the effect of imposing on the employer the onus of proving that the difference in pay is not in
Delavci namreč pred nacionalnim sodi�čem ne bi imeli pravnega sredstva za uveljavljanje spo�tovanja načela enakega plačila, če predložitev dokaza o očitni diskriminaciji ne bi imela učinka, naj delodajalec dokaže, da razlika v plačilu
On the issue of sanctions, Article 15 of the Directive provides that ‘Member States shall lay down the rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are applied.
Glede sankcij člen 15 Direktive določa, da „države članice določijo pravila o sankcijah, ki se uporabljajo pri kr�itvah nacionalnih določb, sprejetih v skladu s to direktivo, in sprejmejo vse ukrepe, ki so potrebni za zagotovitev njihove uporabe.
The sanctions, which may comprise the payment of compensation to the victim, must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive …’ Moreover, as the Court held in Von Colson and Kamann, national courts have a duty to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the Member States’ obligation to achieve the result envisaged by the Directive. 19
Sankcije, ki lahko zajemajo tudi plačilo nadomestila žrtvi, morajo biti učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne […]“. Poleg tega, kot se je izreklo Sodi�če v zadevi Von Colson in Kamann, morajo nacionalna sodi�ča sprejeti vse ustrezne ukrepe, da zagotovijo izpolnitev obveznosti držav članic za dosego rezultata, določenega z Direktivo. 19
I accordingly propose that the Court give the following answer to the third, fourth and fifth questions referred by the national court: once a prima facie case of discrimin ation based on racial or ethnic origin has been established, it is for the respondent to prove that the principle of equal treatment has not been infringed.
Zato Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na tretje, četrto in peto vpra�anje, ki jih je predložilo nacionalno sodi�če, odgovori, da mora tožena stranka, ko je enkrat ugotovljena očitna diskriminacija na podlagi rase oziroma narodnosti, dokazati, da ni bilo kr�eno načelo enakega obravnavanja.
Appropriate remedies
Ustrezni ukrepi
It is for the referring court to determine, in accordance with the relevant rules of domestic law, which remedy would be appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora v skladu z upo�tevnimi pravili nacionalnega prava določiti, kateri popravni ukrepi bi bili ustrezni v okoli�činah te zadeve.
However, in the main, purely token sanctions are not sufficiently dissuasive to enforce the prohibition of discrimination.
Vendar povsem simbolične sankcije običajno ne bodo dovolj odvračilne, da bi uveljavile prepoved diskriminacije.
20Therefore, it would seem that a court order prohibiting such behaviour would constitute a more appropriate remedy.
20Zato se zdi, da bi bila odredba sodi�ča o prepovedi takega ravnanja ustreznej�i ukrep.
Finally, the national court asks about appropriate remedies in cases where discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin has been established.
Skratka, če nacionalno sodi�če ugotovi, da je bilo kr�eno načelo enakega obravnavanja, mora odrediti učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne popravne ukrepe.
In sum, if the national court finds that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment, it must grant remedies that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Natančneje, nacionalno sodi�če spra�uje, ali bi sodba, s katero se ugotovi obstoj diskriminacije, pomenila ustrezen popravni ukrep oziroma ali bi v okoli�činah, kot so okoli�čine v postopku v glavni stvari, nacionalno sodi�če moralo odrediti, da delodajalec preneha s svojo zaposlovalno politiko.
See also Case 79/83 Harz [1984] ECR 1921, paragraph 26.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 10. aprila 1984 v zadevi Harz proti Deutsche Tradax (C-79/83, Reueil, str. 1921, točka 26).
20 — See, by analogy, Von Colson and Kamann, paragraphs 23 and 24.
20 – Glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Von Colson in Kamann, točki 23 in 24.
2008 — CASE C-54/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-54/07
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 10. julija 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 24 January 2007, received at the Court on 6 February 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-54/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgija) z odločbo z dne 24. januarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 6. februarja 2007, v postopku
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 28 November 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 28. novembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by M. van Beek and J. Enegren, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 March 2008,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti M. van Beek in J. Enegren, zastopnika, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 12. marca 2008
2008 — CASE C-54/07 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-54/07 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Direktive Sveta 2000/43/ES z dne 29. junija 2000 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost (UL L 180, str. 22).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding (Centre for equal opportunities and combating racism), applicant in the main proceedings, and Firma Feryn NV (‘Feryn’), defendant in the main proceedings, following the remarks of one of its directors publicly confirming that his company did not wish to recruit ‘immigrants’.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding (center za enake možnosti in boj proti rasizmu), tožečo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari, in družbo Firma Feryn NV (v nadaljevanju: Feryn), toženo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari, zaradi besed enega od njenih direktorjev, ki je javno potrdil, da njegova družba ne namerava zaposlovati oseb, imenovanih „priseljenci“.
According to Article 1 of Directive 2000/43, ‘the purpose of this Directive is to lay down a framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment’.
V skladu s členom 1 Direktive 2000/43 je namen te direktive „določiti okvir za boj proti diskriminaciji na podlagi rase ali narodnosti, da bi v državah članicah uveljavili načelo enakega obravnavanja“.
Under Article 2(2)(a) of that directive:
Člen 2(2)(a) te direktive določa, da:
‘direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on grounds of racial or ethnic origin.’
„se za neposredno diskriminacijo �teje, če se ena oseba obravnava manj ugodno, kakor se obravnava, se je obravnavala ali pa bi se obravnavala druga oseba v primerljivem položaju na podlagi rase ali narodnosti“.
Article 3(1)(a) of the Directive states that it covers ‘conditions for access to employment, to self-employment and to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotion’.
Člen 3(1)(a) navedene direktive določa, da se ta direktiva nana�a na „pogoje za dostop do zaposlitve, samozaposlitve in poklica, vključno z izbirnimi merili in pogoji zaposlovanja ne glede na vrsto dejavnosti in na vseh ravneh poklicne hierarhije, vključno z napredovanjem“.
By contrast, according to Article 3(2) thereof, that directive does not cover ‘difference of treatment based on nationality’.
Na podlagi njenega člena 3(2) pa ta ista direktiva ne zajema „različnega obravnavanja, ki temelji na državljanstvu“.
Under Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/43:
Člen 6(1) Direktive 2000/43 določa:
‘Member States may introduce or maintain provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment than those laid down in this Directive.’
„Države članice lahko uvedejo ali ohranijo določbe, ki so ugodnej�e za za�čito načela enakega obravnavanja kakor tiste, ki jih določa ta direktiva.“
Article 7 of that directive states that:
Člen 7 te direktive določa:
Member States shall ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures, including where they deem it appropriate conciliation procedures, for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive are available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them, even after the relationship in which the discrimination is alleged to have occurred has ended.
Države članice zagotovijo, da so sodni in/ali upravni postopki za izpolnitev obveznosti po tej direktivi, vključno s postopki poravnave, če jih države članice �tejejo za primerne, na voljo vsem osebam, ki menijo, da jim je bila storjena krivica, ker ni bilo uporabljeno načelo enakega obravnavanja, in sicer celo potem, ko se je odnos, v katerem naj bi pri�lo do diskriminacije, že končal.
Member States shall ensure that associations, organisations or other legal entities, which have, in accordance with the criteria laid down by their national law, a legit -imate interest in ensuring that the provisions of this Directive are complied with, may engage, either on behalf or in support of the complainant, with his or her approval, in any judicial and/or administrative procedure provided for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive.
Države članice zagotovijo, da združenja, organizacije ali drugi pravni subjekti, ki imajo zakonit interes pri zagotavljanju izpolnjevanja določb te direktive skladno z merili, predpisanimi z njihovo nacionalno zakonodajo, lahko sodelujejo v vsakem sodnem in/ali upravnem postopku, ki je določen za izpolnitev obveznosti po tej direktivi.
Article 8(1) of the Directive lays down, in addition, that:
Člen 8(1) te direktive poleg tega določa:
‘Member States shall take such measures as are necessary, in accordance with their national judicial systems, to ensure that, when persons who consider themselves wronged because the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.’
„Države članice skladno s svojimi nacionalnimi pravosodnimi sistemi sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, s katerimi zagotovijo, da mora toženec dokazati, da ni bilo kr�eno načelo enakega obravnavanja, če osebe, ki menijo, da jim je bila storjena krivica, ker ni bilo uporabljeno načelo enakega obravnavanja, na sodi�ču ali pri drugem pristojnem organu predstavijo dejstva, na podlagi katerih se lahko domneva, da je pri�lo do neposredne ali posredne diskriminacije.“
Article 13(1) of Directive 2000/43 requires Member States to designate a body or bodies for the promotion of equal treatment.
Člen 13(1) Direktive 2000/43 določa, da države članice določijo organ ali organe za spodbujanje enakega obravnavanja.
Under Article 13(2) of that directive:
Člen 13(2) te direktive določa:
‘Member States shall ensure that the competences of these bodies include:
„Države članice zagotovijo, da pristojnosti teh organov vključujejo:
— without prejudice to the right of victims and of associations, organisations or other legal entities referred to in Article 7(2), providing independent assistance to victims of discrimination in pursuing their complaints about discrimination,
– dajanje neodvisne pomoči žrtvam diskriminacije pri uveljavljanju njihovih tožb zaradi diskriminacije, ne da bi s tem posegali v pravico žrtev in združenj, organizacij ali drugih pravnih subjektov iz člena 7(2),
Lastly, Article 15 of the Directive confers on Member States responsibility for determining the rules on sanctions applicable and specifies that those sanctions may comprise the payment of compensation to the victim and that they must be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’.
Nazadnje člen 15 navedene direktive nalaga državam članicam, da določijo pravila o sankcijah, ki se uporabljajo, in določa, da te sankcije lahko zajemajo plačilo nadome -stila žrtvi ter da morajo biti „učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne“.
The Law of 25 February 2003 on combating discrimination and amending the Law of 15 February 1993 establishing a Centre for Equal Opportunities and Combating Racism (Moniteur belge of 17 March 2003, p.
Cilj zakona z dne 25. februarja 2003 za boj proti diskriminaciji, s katerim je bil spremenjen zakon z dne 15. februarja 1993 in s katerim je bil ustanovljen Center za enake možnosti in boj proti rasizmu (Moniteur belge z dne 17. marca 2003, str.
12844), as amended by the Law of 20 July 2006 on various provisions (Moniteur belge of 28 July 2006, p.
12844), kot je bil spremenjen z zakonom z dne 20. julija 2006, ki se nana�a na različne določbe (Moniteur belge z dne 28. julija 2006, str.
36940, ‘the Law of 25 February 2003’), seeks to transpose Directive 2000/43 into Belgian law.
36940, v nadaljevanju: zakon z dne 25. februarja 2003), je prenos Direktive 2000/43 v belgijsko pravo.
Article 2 of the Law of 25 February 2003 prohibits any direct or indirect discrimin -ation concerning the conditions of access to employed activity.
Člen 2 zakona z dne 25. februarja 2003 prepoveduje vsako neposredno ali posredno diskriminacijo v zvezi s pogoji za dostop do zaposlitve.
Article 19 of that law is intended to transpose Article 8 of Directive 2000/43 relating to the burden of proof.
Namen člena 19 tega zakona je prenos člena 8 Direktive 2000/43 glede dokaznega bremena.
The Law of 25 February 2003 also authorises criminal or civil proceedings against discrimination.
Zakon z dne 25. februarja 2003 omogoča tudi kazensko ali civilno preganjanje diskriminacije.
The court may, pursuant to Article 19 of that Law, order cessation of the act of discrimination (Article 19(1)) and publication of its decision (Article 19(2)) or, pursuant to Article 20 of the Law, it may impose a fine.
Sodnik lahko na podlagi člena 19 tega zakona odredi ukinitev diskriminatornega akta (odstavek 1) in objavo svoje odločitve (odstavek 2) oziroma lahko na podlagi člena 20 navedenega zakona naloži denarno kazen.
The Belgian legislature granted Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding the possibility of being a party to judicial proceedings where discrimination exists or could exist, without a prior complaint being necessary in that regard.
Belgijski zakonodajalec je dal Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding možnost biti stranka v sodnem postopku, ne da bi bila potrebna predhodna tožba v zvezi s tem, ker obstaja oziroma bi lahko obstajala diskriminacija.
Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding, which is a Belgian body designated, pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2000/43, to promote equal treatment, applied to the Belgian labour courts for a finding that Feryn, which specialises in the sale and installation of up-and-over and sectional doors, applied a discriminatory recruitment policy.
Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding, ki je belgijski organ, ustanovljen na podlagi člena 13 Direktive 2000/43 za pospe�evanje enakega obravnavanja, je belgijskim delovnim sodi�čem predlagal, naj ugotovijo, da je družba Feryn, specializirana za prodajo in vgradnjo dvižnih in pregradnih vrat, uporabljala diskriminatorno zaposlovalno politiko.
Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding is acting on the basis of the public statements of the director of Feryn to the effect that his undertaking was looking to recruit fitters, but that it could not employ ‘immigrants’ because its customers were reluctant to give them access to their private residences for the period of the works.
Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding se sklicuje na javne izjave direktorja tega podjetja, v skladu s katerimi je njegovo podjetje v bistvu želelo zaposliti monterje, vendar ni moglo zaposliti „priseljencev“ zaradi zadržanosti njihovih strank, da bi tem delavcem v času del dovolili vstop v njihova zasebna bivali�ča.
By order of 26 June 2006, the Voorzitter van de arbeidsrechtbank te Brussel (the President of the Labour Court, Brussels) dismissed Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding’s application, stating, in particular, that there was no proof nor was there a presumption that a person had applied for a job and had not been employed as a result of his ethnic origin.
Voorzitter van de arbeidsrechtbank te Brussel (predsednik delovnega sodi�ča v Bruslju) je s sklepom z dne 26. junija 2006 zavrnil tožbo Centruma voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding, zlasti s poudarkom, da ni niti dokaza niti domneve o tem, da je kaka oseba kandidirala za delovno mesto in da ne bi bila zaposlena zaradi svoje narodnosti.
Against that background, the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Labour Court, Brussels), to which Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding had appealed, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V tem okviru je arbeidshof te Brussel (delovno sodi�če v Bruslju), pri katerem je Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding vložil tožbo, prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
‘I must comply with my customers’ requirements.
‚Moram izpolniti zahteve svojih strank.
If you say “I want that par -ticular product or I want it like this and like that”, and I say “I’m not doing it,
Če mi rečete: ‚hočem tak proizvod oziroma hočem to ali ono‘ in vam jaz rečem: ‚jaz tega ne delam, pripeljal vam
Then I’m putting myself out of business.
Tako lahko zaključim posel z vrati.
I want the firm to do well and I want us to achieve our turnover at the end of the year, and how do I do that? — I must do it the way the customer wants it done!’[?]
Jaz hočem, da moja družba posluje dobro in da je na koncu leta promet realiziran, in kako to dosežem… To moram doseči tako, da se ravnam po željah stranke!‘ [?]
How strict must a national court be in assessing facts which give rise to a presumption of discrimination?
Kako strogo mora biti nacionalno sodi�če pri presoji dejstev, ki lahko kažejo na domnevo, da je �lo za diskriminacijo?