natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF 15. 4.
SODBA Z DNE 15. 4.
2008 — CASE C-268/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-268/06
Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: K. Sztranc-Sławiczek, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 December 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Sztranc-Sławiczek, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 5. decembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, 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 9 January 2008, gives the following
— za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti M. van Beek in J. Enegren, zastopnika, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 9. januarja 2008 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded on 18 March 1999 (‘the framework agreement’), which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago določb 4 in 5 okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas, ki je bil sklenjen 18. marca 1999 (v nadaljevanju: okvirni sporazum) in ki je priloga k Direktivi Sveta 1999/70/ES z dne 28. junija 1999 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP (UL L 175, str.
43), and the scope of the Member States’ procedural autonomy and extent of the obligation on the courts of the Member States to interpret national law in conformity with Community law.
43), ter na obseg procesne avtonomije držav članic in obseg obveznosti skladne razlage, ki velja za njihova sodi�ča.
The reference was made in proceedings brought by the Irish trade union Impact, acting on behalf of Irish civil servants, against the government departments which employ them concerning, first, the pay and pension conditions applied to those civil servants on the basis of their status as fixedterm workers and, second, the conditions for the renewal of certain fixedterm contracts by one of those government departments.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med irskim sindikatom Impact, ki deluje v imenu irskih javnih uslužbencev, in ministrstvi, na katerih so ti uslužbenci zaposleni, zaradi pogojev plačila in pokojnin, ki veljajo zanje na podlagi njihovega statusa delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas, na eni strani in zaradi pogojev obnovitve določenih pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas s strani enega izmed teh ministrstev na drugi strani.
Directive 1999/70 is founded on Article 139(2) EC and its purpose, as provided in Article 1, is ‘to put into effect the framework agreement … concluded … between the general crossindustry organisations (ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) annexed hereto’.
Direktiva 1999/70 temelji na členu 139(2) ES in ima na podlagi člena 1 namen „uveljaviti okvirni sporazum […], sklenjen […] med splo�nimi medpanožnimi organizacijami (ETUC, UNICE in CEEP), ki je priloga [k] tej direktivi“.
According to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the directive:
V členu 2, prvi odstavek, te direktive je določeno:
‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 10 July 2001, or shall ensure that, by that date at the latest, management and labour have introduced the necessary measures by agreement, the Member States being required to take any necessary measures to enable them at any time to be in a position to guarantee the results imposed by this Directive.
„Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo, najpozneje do 10. julija 2001 ali zagotovijo, da najpozneje do omenjenega datuma delodajalci in delojemalci po dogovoru uvedejo potrebne ukrepe, pri čemer jih morajo države članice uvesti tako, da bodo vedno lahko zagotavljale rezultate, ki jih nalaga ta direktiva.
They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.’
O tem takoj obvestijo Komisijo.“
In accordance with Article 3, the directive entered into force on 10 July 1999, the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Na podlagi člena 3 je navedena direktiva začela veljati 10. julija 1999, to je na dan objave v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti.
As provided in Clause 1, the purpose of the framework agreement ‘is to:
V skladu z določbo 1 okvirnega sporazuma je njegov namen:
(a) improve the quality of fixedterm work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination;
„(a) izbolj�ati kakovost dela za določen čas z zagotavljanjem uporabe načela nediskriminacije [prepovedi diskriminacije];
(b) establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixedterm employment contracts or relationships’.
(b) vzpostaviti okvir za preprečevanje zlorab, ki izhajajo iz veriženja pogodb o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerij za določen čas“.
Clause 4 of the framework agreement, entitled ‘Principle of non-discrimination’, provides:
V določbi 4 okvirnega sporazuma z naslovom „Načelo nediskriminacije [prepovedi diskriminacije]“ je določeno:
In respect of employment conditions, fixedterm workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixedterm contract or relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds.
Delavce, zaposlene za določen čas, se glede pogojev zaposlitve ne sme obravnavati manj ugodno kakor primerljive delavce, zaposlene za nedoločen čas, [zgolj zato, ker so zaposleni za določen čas,] razen kjer je različno obravnavanje upravičljivo iz objektivnih razlogov.
Where appropriate, the principle of pro rata temporis shall apply.
Kjer je primerno, se uporabi načelo pro rata temporis.
Period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixedterm workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds.’
Obdobje pridobivanja kvalifikacij z opravljanjem dela, ki se nana�ajo na posebne pogoje zaposlovanja, so enake za delavce, zaposlene za določen čas in tudi za nedoločen čas, razen kjer so različne kvalifikacije, pridobljene z opravljanjem dela določeno obdobje, upravičljive iz objektivnih razlogov.“
Clause 5 of the framework agreement, relating to ‘[m]easures to prevent abuse’, states:
V določbi 5 okvirnega sporazuma je glede „[u]krep[ov] za preprečevanje zlorab“ določeno:
To prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixedterm employment contracts or relationships, Member States, after consultation with social partners in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practice, and/or the social partners, shall, where there are no equivalent legal measures to prevent abuse, introduce in a manner which takes account of the needs of specific sectors and/or categories of workers, one or more of the following measures:
Za preprečevanje zlorab, ki izhajajo iz veriženja pogodb o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerjih za določen čas, države članice po posvetovanju s socialnimi partnerji skladno z nacionalno zakonodajo, kolektivnimi pogodbami ali običaji in/ali socialni partnerji, kadar ni ustreznih pravnih ukrepov, ki bi preprečevali zlorabo, uvedejo enega ali več naslednjih ukrepov tako, da upo�tevajo potrebe posameznih sektorjev in/ali kategorij delavcev:
(a) objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts or relationships;
(a) objektivne razloge, ki upravičujejo obnovitev tak�nih pogodb ali razmerij;
(c) the number of renewals of such contracts or relationships.
(c) �tevilo obnovitev tak�nih pogodb ali razmerij.
Member States after consultation with the social partners and/or the social partners shall, where appropriate, determine under what conditions fixedterm employment contracts or relationships:
Države članice po posvetovanju s socialnimi partnerji in/ali socialni partnerji po potrebi določijo, pod kak�nimi pogoji se pogodbe o zaposlitvi ali delovna razmerja:
(b) shall be deemed to be contracts or relationships of indefinite duration.’
(b) �tejejo za pogodbe ali razmerja za nedoločen čas.“
The framework agreement also contains a clause relating to ‘[p]rovisions on implementation’, which provides, in Clause 8(5):
V določbi 8, točka 5, okvirnega sporazuma je glede „[d]oločb[…] o izvajanju“ določeno:
Directive 1999/70 was transposed into Irish law by the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’).
Direktiva 1999/70 je bila v irski pravni red prenesena z zakonom iz leta 2003 o varstvu delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas (Protection of Employees (Fixed – Term Work) Act 2003; v nadaljevanju: zakon iz leta 2003). Ta zakon je začel veljati 14. julija 2003.
Section 6 of the 2003 Act transposes Clause 4 of the framework agreement.
S členom 6 zakona iz leta 2003 je prenesena določba 4 okvirnega sporazuma.
The combined provisions of sections 2(1) and 6(1) of the 2003 Act secure pay and pension rights for fixedterm employees that are equal to those of comparable permanent employees.
S členom 2(1) v povezavi s členom 6(1) navedenega zakona sta delavcem, zaposlenim za določen čas, zagotovljeni enaki pravici do plačila in pokojnine, kot ju imajo primerljivi delavci, zaposleni za nedoločen čas.
Section 9 of the 2003 Act transposes Clause 5 of the framework agreement.
S členom 9 zakona iz leta 2003 je prenesena določba 5 okvirnega sporazuma.
Section 9(1) provides that the fixedterm contract of an employee who, on or after the passing of the 2003 Act, has completed his or her third year of continuous employment with
V prvem odstavku tega člena je predvideno, da se lahko pogodba o zaposlitvi za določen čas delavca, ki je v trenutku sprejetja tega zakona ali kasneje dopolnil svoje tretje
2008 — CASE C-268/06 his or her employer or associated employer, may be renewed by that employer on only one occasion for a fixed term of no longer than one year.
2008 – ZADEVA C-268/06 leto neprekinjene zaposlitve pri svojem delodajalcu ali delodajalcu, ki je s slednjim povezan, obnovi le enkrat in največ za eno leto.
Under section 9(3) of the 2003 Act, any term of a fixedterm employment contract which purports to contravene section 9(1) is to have no effect and the contract in question is to be deemed to be a contract of indefinite duration.
Na podlagi člena 9(3) tega zakona je neveljaven vsak pogoj iz pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki je v nasprotju z odstavkom 1 tega člena, in �teje se, da je zadevna pogodba sklenjena za nedoločen čas.
An employer may nevertheless derogate from the requirements of sections 6 and 9 of the 2003 Act if there are objective grounds for doing so.
Vendar lahko delodajalec iz objektivnih razlogov odstopi od obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz členov 6 in 9 zakona iz leta 2003.
The meaning of ‘objective grounds’ is amplified in section 7 of the 2003 Act.
Pojem objektivnih razlogov je pojasnjen v členu 7 tega zakona.
Section 14(1) of the 2003 Act provides that an employee or the trade union of which the employee is a member may present a complaint alleging a breach of the 2003 Act to a Rights Commissioner, who is required to investigate the complaint and give a decision in writing.
V členu 14(1) zakona iz leta 2003 je določeno, da lahko delavec ali sindikat, katerega član je ta delavec, naslovi zahtevo zaradi kr�itve navedenega zakona na Rights Commissioner, ki jo preuči in izda pisno odločbo.
Where the complaint is upheld, the Rights Commissioner may order redress in the terms provided for by section 14(2) of the 2003 Act, namely, inter alia, compensation of up to two years’ remuneration.
Če se zahtevi ugodi, lahko slednje določi odpravo kr�itve v skladu z določbami iz člena 14(2) navedenega zakona, in sicer lahko zlasti določi od�kodnino v vi�ini največ dveletnega plačila.
Section 15 of the 2003 Act provides that the parties may bring an appeal before the Labour Court against the decision of a Rights Commissioner.
V členu 15 zakona iz leta 2003 je določena možnost vložitve pritožbe zoper odločbo Rights Commissioner pri Labour Court.
An appeal against the decision of the Labour Court may be brought before the High Court.
Zoper odločbo, izdano v pritožbenem postopku, se lahko vloži pravno sredstvo pri High Court.
The office of Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court were established by the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the Industrial Relations Act 1946 respectively.
Rights Commissioners in Labour Court so bila uvedena z zakonoma iz leta 1969 oziroma 1946 na področju delovnih razmerij (Industrial Relations Act 1969 in Industrial Relations Act 1946).
Various Irish statutes, including the 2003 Act, confer jurisdiction upon them to hear and determine disputes between employers and employees.
Z različnimi irskimi zakoni, med katerimi je tudi zakon iz leta 2003, so jim bile podeljene pristojnosti za odločanje v sporih med delodajalci in delavci.
However, according to the order for reference, neither the Rights Commissioners nor the Labour Court
Vendar glede na navedbe v predložitveni odločbi niso niti Rights Commissioners niti Labour Court izrecno pristojna za odločanje o zahtevi, ki temelji na določbi
IMPACT have express jurisdiction to determine a claim based on a directly effective provision of Community law unless that provision comes within the scope of the legislation conferring jurisdiction upon them.
IMPACT prava Skupnosti z neposrednim učinkom, razen če spada ta določba na področje uporabe zakonodaje, na kateri temelji njihova pristojnost.
The facts of the case in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Dejansko stanje spora o glavni stvari in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
In the main proceedings, Impact is acting on behalf of 91 of its members (‘the complainants in the main proceedings’) employed in various Irish government departments (‘the respondents in the main proceedings’) on the basis of successive fixedterm employment contracts for periods which commenced before 14 July 2003, the date on which the 2003 Act entered into force, and which continued beyond that date.
V postopku v glavni stvari deluje Impact v imenu 91 izmed svojih članov (v nadaljevanju: pritožniki iz postopka v glavni stvari), ki so bili zaposleni na različnih irskih ministrstvih (v nadaljevanju: nasprotne stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari) na podlagi zaporednih pogodb za določen čas v obdobjih, ki so se začela pred 14. julijem 2003, to je datumom začetka veljavnosti zakona iz leta 2003, in se nadaljevala po tem datumu.
The complainants in the main proceedings are all unestablished civil servants and, under Irish regulations governing employment in the civil service, are subject to a different scheme to that which is applicable to established civil servants.
Vsi pritožniki iz postopka v glavni stvari so začasni uslužbenci, za katere velja na podlagi irske ureditve zaposlovanja javnih uslužbencev drugačen sistem od tistega, ki velja za uradnike.
The order for reference states that the complainants in the main proceedings consider the latter scheme to be more favourable than that which is applicable to them.
V predložitveni odločbi je pojasnjeno, da je po mnenju navedenih pritožnikov slednji ugodnej�i od sistema, ki velja za njih.
Some of the complainants in the main proceedings had less than three continuous years’ service as fixedterm employees and are claiming employment conditions equal to those of comparable permanent employees; the others had more than three continuous years’ service and are claiming, in addition to equality of employment conditions, a contract of indefinite duration.
Nekateri izmed pritožnikov iz postopka v glavni stvari so bili zaposleni neprekinjeno manj kot tri leta kot delavci, zaposleni za določen čas, in zahtevajo enake pogoje zaposlitve, kot veljajo za primerljive delavce, zaposlene za nedoločen čas; drugi pritožniki pa so bili zaposleni neprekinjeno več kot tri leta in zahtevajo poleg enakih pogojev zaposlitve tudi pogodbe za nedoločen čas.
According to the order for reference, the purpose of the fixedterm contracts at issue was to meet the temporary needs of the respondents in the main proceedings and to cover situations in which permanent funding for the posts involved could not be
V skladu s predložitveno odločbo je bil namen spornih pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas soočanje z začasnimi potrebami nasprotnih strank iz postopka v glavni stvari in z razmerami, v katerih ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti stalnega financiranja teh delovnih
2008 — CASE C-268/06 guaranteed.
2008 – ZADEVA C-268/06 mest.
The general practice of the respondents in the main proceedings was to renew those contracts for periods of between one and two years.
Splo�na praksa navedenih nasprotnih strank je bila obnovitev teh pogodb za obdobje od enega do dveh let.
However, in the period immediately before the 2003 Act entered into force, one of the respondents in the main proceedings renewed the contracts of a certain number of the complainants in the main proceedings for a fixed term of up to eight years.
Vendar je neposredno pred začetkom veljavnosti zakona iz leta 2003 ena izmed nasprotnih strank iz postopka v glavni stvari obnovila pogodbe določenemu �tevilu pritožnikov iz postopka v glavni stvari za določen čas do osmih let.
Taking the view that the respondents in the main proceedings, in their capacity as employers, had contravened the provisions of the 2003 Act and Directive 1999/70 to the detriment of the complainants in the main proceedings, Impact initiated proceedings before a Rights Commissioner on behalf of those complainants.
Impact je v imenu pritožnikov iz postopka v glavni stvari vložil zahtevo pri Rights Commissioner, ker je menil, da so nasprotne stranke kot delodajalci kr�ili določbe zakona iz leta 2003 in Direktive 1999/70 v �kodo pritožnikov iz postopka v glavni stvari.
In those proceedings, it alleged, first, infringement of the entitlement of the complainants in the main proceedings to equal treatment in respect of pay and pension rights with established civil servants — the latter being regarded, according to the complainants in the main proceedings, as comparable permanent workers — and, second, that the successive renewals of fixedterm contracts constituted an abuse.
V okviru te zahteve je zatrjeval, na eni strani, kr�itev pravice pritožnikov, da so v zvezi s plačilom in pravicami do pokojnine obravnavani enako kot uradniki, ki so po mnenju pritožnikov iz postopka v glavni stvari primerljivi delavci, zaposleni za nedoločen čas, in na drugi strani zlorabo, ki naj bi izhajala iz veriženja pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas.
The complaints thus presented were based on Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement as regards the period between 10 July 2001, the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70, and 14 July 2003, the date on which the provisions transposing the directive into Irish law entered into force.
Te zahteve so temeljile na določbah 4 in 5 okvirnega sporazuma v zvezi z obdobjem med 10. julijem 2001, to je datumom izteka roka za prenos Direktive 1999/70, in 14. julijem 2003, to je datumom začetka veljavnosti določb, s katerimi je bila Direktiva prenesena v irski pravni red.
As regards the period after 14 July 2003, the complaints were based on section 6 of the 2003 Act.
V zvezi z obdobjem po zadnjenavedenem datumu so zahteve temeljile na členu 6 zakona iz leta 2003.
The respondents in the main proceedings challenged the jurisdiction of the Rights Commissioner to entertain the complaints in question in so far as they were based on Directive 1999/70.
Nasprotne stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari so ugovarjale pristojnosti Rights Commissioner za odločanje o teh zahtevah v delu, v katerem so bile utemeljene z Direktivo 1999/70.
They contended that the Rights Commissioner’s jurisdiction was confined to adjudicating on complaints based on domestic law.
V zvezi s tem so trdile, da je navedeno Rights Commissioner pristojno samo za odločanje o zahtevah, ki temeljijo na nacionalnem pravu.
They also claimed that Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement — which are neither unconditional nor sufficiently precise — could not be relied upon by individuals before national courts.
Prav tako so zatrjevale, da se posamezniki pred nacionalnimi sodi�či ne morejo sklicevati na določbi 4 in 5 okvirnega sporazuma, ki nista niti brezpogojni niti dovolj natančni.
They contended further that a fixedterm worker was not entitled under the terms of Clause 4 of the framework agreement to the same pay and pension conditions as a comparable permanent worker.
Poleg tega so poudarile, da delavec, zaposlen za določen čas, ne more na podlagi določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma zahtevati enakih pogojev glede plačila in pokojnine, kot veljajo za primerljive delavce, zaposlene za nedoločen čas.
The Rights Commissioner took the view that she had jurisdiction to entertain all of the complaints, including those relating to the period between 10 July 2001 and 14 July 2003.
Rights Commissioner je menilo, da je pristojno za odločanje o vseh zahtevah, vključno s tistimi, ki se nana�ajo na obdobje med 10. julijem 2001 in 14. julijem 2003.
She held that the principle of nondiscrimination referred to in Clause 4 of the framework agreement encompassed both pay and pension rights and that that clause was directly effective, unlike Clause 5.
Presodilo je, da se načelo prepovedi diskriminacije iz določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma nana�a tudi na plačilo in pravice do pokojnine ter da ima ta določba neposredni učinek, določba 5 pa ne.
Taking the view that the complaints, other than those based on Clause 5 of the framework agreement, were well founded, and that the respondents in the main proceedings had infringed the rights of the complainants in the main proceedings under both national law and Directive 1999/70 by affording them less favourable employment conditions than those afforded to comparable permanent workers, the Rights Commissioner awarded the complainants monetary compensation ranging from EUR 2 000 to EUR 40 000, pursuant to section 14(2) of the 2003 Act.
Ker je Rights Commissioner menilo, da so utemeljene vse zahteve razen tistih, ki temeljijo na določbi 5 okvirnega sporazuma, in da so nasprotne stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari kr�ile pravice pritožnikov iz postopka v glavni stvari, ki jih imajo na podlagi nacionalnega prava in Direktive 1999/70, s tem da so jim zagotovile manj ugodne pogoje zaposlitve od tistih, ki so določeni za primerljive delavce, zaposlene za nedoločen čas, je na podlagi člena 14(2) zakona iz leta 2003 prisodilo navedenim pritožnikom denarno nadomestilo v vi�ini od 2000 do 40.000 EUR.
In addition she ordered the respondents in the main proceedings to apply to the complainants in the main proceedings terms and conditions of employment equivalent to those applicable to comparable permanent workers.
Poleg tega je nasprotnim strankam iz postopka v glavni stvari naložilo, naj pritožnikom iz postopka v glavni stvari zagotovijo enake pogoje zaposlitve, kot veljajo za delavce, zaposlene za nedoločen čas.
She also ordered them to grant certain complainants in the main proceedings a contract of indefinite duration on terms no less favourable than those enjoyed by comparable permanent workers.
Naložilo jim je tudi, da morajo nekaterim pritožnikom iz postopka v glavni stvari zagotoviti pogodbo o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas pod pogoji, ki niso manj ugodni od tistih, ki veljajo za navedene delavce.
The respondents in the main proceedings appealed to the Labour Court against the Rights Commissioner’s decision.
Nasprotne stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari so vložile pritožbo zoper odločbo Rights Commissioner pri Labour Court.
Impact crossappealed against the decision in so far as it held Clause 5 of the framework agreement not to be directly effective.
Impact je vložil nasprotno pritožbo zoper to odločbo v delu, v katerem je bilo odločeno, da določba 5 okvirnega sporazuma nima neposrednega učinka.