natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission stated that, in order to determine the correction coefficients to be applied to pensions, the statisticians compared average rents in the country in question with average rents in Belgium.
Komisija je pojasnila, da so za določitev korekcijskih koeficientov, ki se uporabijo za pokojnine, statistiki primerjali povprečne najemnine v obravnavani državi s povprečnimi najemninami v Belgiji.
On that basis, it could be concluded that ‘the difference between Brussels and the Belgian average is around 2%’.
Na tej podlagi lahko ocenimo, da „zna�a razlika med Brusljem in povprečjem Belgije 2 %“.
Nevertheless, a correction coefficient of 98% was not fixed for Belgium.
Kljub temu za Belgijo ni bil določen korekcijski koeficient 98 %.
At paragraph 124 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance pointed out that the explanations provided by the Commission related to the implementation
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem v točki 124 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da se pojasnila Komisije nana�ajo na izvedbo nove pokojninske ureditve, ki jo je opravil
2008 — CASE C-71/07 P of the new pension rules, as carried out by Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Communities) and finalised in the regulations adjusting correction coefficients applied to pensions, whereas the objection of illegality raised by the appellant refers only to Article 20 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations.
Statistični urad Evropskih skupnosti (Eurostat) in ki je bila dokončana v uredbah o prilagoditvi korekcijskih koeficientov, ki se uporabljajo za pokojnine, medtem ko se ugovor nedopustnosti, ki ga je vložil pritožnik, nana�a le na člen 20 priloge XIII k novim Kadrovskim predpisom.
However, the lawfulness of a Community legislative act cannot depend on the manner in which it is applied in practice.
Vendar zakonitost regulativnega akta Skupnosti ne more biti odvisna od načina njegovega izvajanja v praksi.
It added, at paragraph 125 of the judgment under appeal, that, in any event, in so far as the practice described by the Commission conferred an advantage upon pensioners residing in Belgium by departing from the new ‘country method’, it should be pointed out that respect for the principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with respect for the principle of legality, according to which a person may not rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 125 izpodbijane sodbe dodalo, da je v primeru, ko bi praksa, ki jo je opisala Komisija, dajala prednost upokojencem, ki prebivajo v Belgiji, s tem da bi se oddaljevala od nove metode „države“, treba poudariti, da je treba spo�tovanje načela enakega obravnavanja uskladiti s spo�tovanjem načela zakonitosti, v skladu s katerim nihče v svojo korist ne more uveljavljati nezakonitosti nekega ravnanja, ki je bilo storjeno v korist nekoga drugega.
Finally, at paragraphs 131 to 140 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance rejected the fourth argument, in which the appellant alleged discrimination in comparison with pensioners residing in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States, who had had a correction coefficient of less than 100% applied to them before 1 May 2004 and for whom the new pension rules introduced a minimum correction coefficient of 100%, with the result that those pensioners had the benefit of a correction coefficient manifestly greater than the actual cost of living in their place of residence.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nazadnje, v točkah od 131 do 140 izpodbijane sodbe, zavrnilo četrto trditev, s katero se je pritožnik skliceval na diskriminacijo v razmerju do upokojencev, ki prebivajo v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah, za katere se je pred 1. majem 2004 uporabljal korekcijski koeficient, ki je bil nižji od 100 %, in za katere je nova pokojninska ureditev uvedla najnižji korekcijski koeficient 100 %, kar ima za posledico, da se za te upokojence uporabi korekcijski koeficient, ki je očitno vi�ji od dejanskih življenjskih stro�kov kraja njihovega bivali�ča.
At paragraphs 132 to 135 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance therefore found that that argument was inadmissible since the appellant had not established that he could benefit financially from a judgment declaring the application of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% to pensions paid to pensioners residing in the ‘less expensive’ Member States illegal.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako v točkah od 132 do 135 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je ta trditev nedopustna, glede na to, da pritožnik ni dokazal, da bi lahko imel finančne ugodnosti zaradi sodbe, s katero je za nezakonito razgla�ena uporaba minimalnega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 % za pokojnine, izplačane osebam, ki prebivajo v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah.
In particular, he did not claim that the alleged ‘financial gift’ to pensioners residing in such a Member State necessarily entailed a corresponding loss for pensioners residing in an ‘expensive’ Member State.
Zlasti ni dokazal, da domnevno „finančno darilo“, dano upokojencem, ki prebivajo v taki državi članici, nujno pomeni ustrezno finančno izgubo za upokojence, ki prebivajo v „dragi“ državi članici.
Moreover, since the Community pension scheme does not operate as a pension fund but is based on the principle of solidarity, the rule introducing a minimum correction coefficient of 100% did not have the effect in law of enriching the pensioners concerned at the expense of the category of pensioners to which the appellant belongs.
Poleg tega, ker pokojninski sistem Skupnosti ni organiziran kot pokojninski sklad, temveč na podlagi načela solidarnosti, pravilo, ki uvaja minimalni korekcijski koeficient 100 %, pravno ne bi pomenilo obogatitve teh upokojencev na račun upokojencev, med katerimi je pritožnik.
At paragraph 136 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance stated that, in any event, the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% cannot be characterised as manifestly arbitrary or inappropriate, since that rule was adopted in order to bring, as far as possible, the transitional arrangements protecting
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 136 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da uvedbe najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 % v nobenem primeru ni mogoče �teti za očitno samovoljno ali neustrezno, saj je bilo to pravilo sprejeto zaradi največjega možnega zbliževanja prehodne ureditve, ob ohranitvi korekcijskih koeficientov, ki veljajo za
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION the correction coefficients applied to pensions into line with the definitive rules, which abolish them.
CAMPOLI PROTI KOMISIJI pokojnine, z dokončno ureditvijo, ki jih odpravlja.
To that extent, that rule merely anticipates, for a large number of Member States and the pensioners concerned, the abolition of correction coefficients applied to pensions.
V tem smislu so z navedenim pravilom le predčasno, za veliko �tevilo držav članic in glede zadevnih upokojencev, odpravljeni korekcijski koeficienti, ki se uporabljajo za pokojnine.
— grant the appellant the relief sought by him in the proceedings at first instance, modified in the light of the inadmissibility of his claims regarding the household allowance and the education allowance and, therefore, annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 13 December 2004 rejecting his complaint, along with, first, the decision of the Appointing Authority challenged in the complaint, which altered on 1 May 2004 the correction coefficient applicable to his pension, and, second, his pension statements, in so far as they apply that decision from May 2004; and
– ugodi njegovim predlogom, podanim v postopku na prvi stopnji, spremenjenim glede na nesprejemljivost njegovih zahtev v zvezi z gospodinjskim dodatkom in dodatkom za �olanje, in zato odločbo OPI z dne 13. decembra 2004, s katero je bila zavrnjena pritožba, razglasi za nično skupaj z, na eni strani, odločbo OPI, katero omenjena pritožba izpodbija in ki je s 1. majem 2004 spremenila korekcijski koeficient za njegovo pokojnino, in na drugi strani, s pokojninskimi odrezki, ker se zanje uporablja zadnjenavedena odločba od maja 2004, in
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
– naloži toženi stranki plačilo vseh stro�kov.
The Commission, which also lodged a cross-appeal, contends that the Court should:
Komisija, ki je vložila tudi nasprotno pritožbo, Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— dismiss the appeal as inadmissible;
– primarno, zavrže pritožbo kot nedopustno;
— in the alternative, dismiss the appeal in its entirety as unfounded; and
– podredno, kot neutemeljeno zavrne pritožbo v celoti, in
The Council contends that the Court should:
Svet Evropske unije Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— dismiss the appeal as unfounded; and
– zavrne pritožbo kot neutemeljeno, in
By his appeal, the appellant challenges the findings of the Court of First Instance concerning the first, third and fourth arguments put forward in support of that part of his plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
Pritožnik s pritožbo izpodbija presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi s prvo, tretjo in četrto trditvijo, ki so bile navedene v podporo tožbenega razloga, ki se je nana�al na kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja.
Relying on a single plea in law in his appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance failed to have proper regard to the principle of equal treatment, the principle of the rights of the defence, the principle of equal treatment of the parties before the Community judicature, the obligation to state reasons, which is binding on the institutions, the concept of legal interest in bringing proceedings in the context of an objection of illegality, and its own obligation to state reasons.
Glede sklicevanja v pritožbi na en sam tožbeni razlog pritožnik navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje kr�ilo načelo enakega obravnavanja, načelo pravic obrambe, načelo enakosti strank pred sodi�čem Skupnosti, obveznost obrazložitve, ki je naložena institucijam, pojem procesnega upravičenja v okviru ugovora nezakonitosti in lastno obrazložitev.
Before considering whether this plea is well founded, it is necessary to rule on the Commission’s cross-appeal, since it seeks a declaration that the appellant’s appeal is inadmissible.
Pred preučitvijo utemeljenosti tega pritožbenega razloga je treba odločiti o nasprotni pritožbi Komisije, saj je njen namen ugotovitev nedopustnosti pritožbe, ki jo je vložil pritožnik.
A — The cross-appeal
A – Nasprotna pritožba
The Commission maintains that the Court of First Instance should have declared inadmissible, of its own motion, the first, third and fourth arguments put forward in support of the part of the plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment since those arguments were not raised at the pre-litigation stage.
Komisija meni, da bi moralo Sodi�če prve stopnje po uradni dolžnosti ugotoviti nedopustnost prve, tretje in četrte trditve, navedene v podporo pritožbenega razloga v zvezi s kr�itvijo načela enakega obravnavanja, ker niso bile predlagane že v okviru predhodnega postopka.
It argues that, in his complaints submitted in the pre-litigation procedure, the appellant raised, in relation to the part of that plea, only the second argument, alleging discrimination between officials and pensioners, and that that argument is separate from the three other arguments put forward subsequently.
Komisija v zvezi s tem trdi, da je pritožnik v okviru pritožbe v upravnem postopku, v okviru tega dela navedel le drugo trditev, ki temelji na diskriminaciji med uradniki in upokojenci, in je bila druga trditev od preostalih treh navedenih trditev ločena �ele naknadno.
The Commission states in its rejoinder that the purpose of its cross-appeal is to have the appeal declared inadmissible, since it refers exclusively to the three inadmissible arguments.
Komisija v dupliki pojasnjuje, da je namen njene nasprotne pritožbe ugotovitev nedopustnosti pritožbe, saj se ta nana�a izključno na tri nedopustne trditve.
It acknowledges that, even formulated in that way, the purpose of its cross-appeal does not conform fully with the terms of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, but it considers that the Court is none the less required to consider of its own motion whether the Court of First Instance erred in law in not declaring the three arguments at issue inadmissible of its own motion.
Komisija priznava, da sicer predmet njene nasprotne pritožbe, oblikovan na tak način, ni popolnoma v skladu z besedilom člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, vendar pa meni, da je Sodi�če kljub temu dolžno po uradni dolžnosti ugotoviti, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da zadevnih trditev ni po uradni dolžnosti razglasilo za nedopustne.
In the appellant’s view, the cross-appeal is inadmissible since, contrary to the requirements of the aforementioned Article 56, the Commission was not unsuccessful in its submissions at first instance.
Pritožnik meni, da je nasprotna pritožba nedopustna, glede na to, da je bila v nasprotju s tem, kar zahteva navedeni člen 56, Komisija uspe�na s svojimi predlogi na prvi stopnji.
In particular, it did not plead that the action was inadmissible and the Court of First Instance fully accepted its pleas by dismissing the action as unfounded.
Predvsem naj Komisija ne bi uveljavljala nedopustnosti pritožbe, Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je v celoti ugodilo njenim predlogom, s tem da je pritožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.
Moreover, although it has brought a cross-appeal, the Commission does not seek to have the judgment under appeal set aside, in whole or in part.
Zato čeprav je vložila nasprotno tožbo, Komisija ni predlagala razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe v celoti ali deloma.
In the alternative, the appellant maintains that the cross-appeal is unfounded.
Podredno, pritožnik meni, da je nasprotna pritožba neutemeljena.
The first, third and fourth arguments in question are linked to the infringement of the principle of equal treatment relied on in his complaint.
Obravnavane prva, tretja in četrta trditev se namreč nana�ajo na kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja, na katero se je skliceval že v pritožbi v upravnem postopku. Komisija sama je
2008 — CASE C-71/07 P the Commission itself clearly identified his argument as a criticism of the fact that ‘the inhabitants of an “expensive” area were therefore deprived of purchasing power equal to that of the inhabitants who have taken up residence in “less expensive” areas’ and that ‘pensioners no longer enjoy the same purchasing power according to their residence’.
2008 – ZADEVA C-71/07 P v sporni odločbi jasno opredelila svojo argumentacijo kot tisto, ki pomeni dejansko kritiko dejstva, da „je prebivalcem ‚dragega‘ predela države odvzeta kupna moč, ki bi bila enakovredna kupni moči prebivalcev, ki imajo prebivali�če v ‚cenej�ih‘ predelih države“ in da „upokojenci nimajo več enake kupne moči glede na njihovo prebivali�če“.
The report for the hearing of the Court of First Instance clearly states the four arguments put forward by the appellant in support of the allegation of infringement of the principle of nondiscrimination and the Commission did not criticise the report or contest the admissibility of those arguments.
V poročilu za obravnavo Sodi�ča prve stopnje so bile jasno navedene �tiri trditve, ki jih je pritožnik navedel v utemeljitev svojih trditev glede kr�itve načela prepovedi diskriminacije, ne da bi Komisija kritizirala to poročilo ali dopustnost teh trditev.
Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions.
Na podlagi člena 56, drugi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča, lahko pritožbo vloži katera koli stranka, ki v celoti ali delno ni uspela s svojimi sklepnimi predlogi.
As the Commission itself states in its rejoinder, the judgment under appeal grants the form of order it sought before the Court of First Instance in its entirety.
Vendar, kot je Komisija sama potrdila v dupliki, je bilo s sodbo v celoti ugodeno njenim predlogom pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
It should be pointed out, in particular, that, although it pleaded that the appellant’s claims in regard to the household allowance and the education allowance were inadmissible on the ground that they had not been raised in the complaint, the Commission did not contend before the Court of First Instance that the part of the plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment was inadmissible.
Poudariti je treba zlasti, da je Komisija v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje sicer podala ugovor nedopustnosti glede tožbenih zahtevkov v zvezi z gospodinjskim dodatkom in dodatkom za �olanje, ker jih pritožnik ni navedel že v pritožbi v upravnem postopku, medtem ko glede dopustnosti dela tožbenega razloga v zvezi s kr�itvijo načela enakega obravnavanja nikakor ni ugovarjala.
Moreover, as is clear from Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, inter alia, all appeals must seek the setting-aside in whole or in part of a judgment of the Court of First Instance, since the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits, or refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment.
Poleg tega, kot to izhaja zlasti iz člena 61 Statuta Sodi�ča, mora biti namen vsake pritožbe razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje deloma ali v celoti, pri čemer lahko Sodi�če v primeru razveljavitve tako samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje, ali pa jo vrne v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da o njej odloči.
In fact, the judgment under appeal places the legislature’s broad discretion above that principle.
Pritožnik trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje z zavrnitvijo te prve trditve kr�ilo načelo enakega obravnavanja in obveznost obrazložitve, ki je naložena sodi�ču Skupnosti.
Paragraph 105 of that judgment is decisive in that regard.
Točka 105 te sodbe naj bi bila odločilna v zvezi s tem.
The existence of a sufficiently long transitional period, referred to by the Court of First Instance, is an important factor to be taken into account when considering whether the principles of legal certainty, non-retroactivity and acquired rights have been adhered to but is irrelevant to the consideration of whether a measure is lawful in the light of the principle of equal treatment.
Obstoj dovolj dolgega prehodnega obdobja, ki ga je izpostavilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, bi bil element, ki bi pripomogel k preizkusu spo�tovanja načel pravne varnosti, prepovedi retroaktivnosti in pridobljenih pravic, vendar bi bil tuj preizkusu zakonitosti ukrepa v zvezi z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
The appellant also points out that a correction coefficient determined in accordance with the ‘country method’ disregards the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as it does not make it possible to reflect, even approximately, the cost of living in
Pritožnik poleg tega poudarja, da korekcijski koeficient, določen po metodi „države“, kr�i načelo enakega obravnavanja, saj le približno izraža življenjske stro�ke v državi članici in tako le približno služi cilju zagotovitve enake kupne moči nekdanjih
2008 — CASE C-71/07 P a particular country and thus serve the purpose of ensuring among former officials equal purchasing power.
2008 – ZADEVA C-71/07 P uradnikov.
The new method, in fact, penalises pensioners living in the capital or other ‘expensive’ cities or regions who find it impossible to meet the costs connected with their place of residence.
Nova metoda naj bi namreč kaznovala upokojence, ki prebivajo v glavnem mestu ali drugem „dragem“ predelu države in ne morejo kriti stro�kov, povezanih s krajem njihovega prebivali�ča.
In the Commission’s view, paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal simply gives due effect to the legislature’s discretion in the matter in question.
Po mnenju Komisije točka 105 izpodbijane sodbe zgolj kaže posledice diskrecijske pravice zakonodajalca na zadevnem področju.
In that paragraph, the Court of First Instance held, in particular, that equality of purchasing power, as a specific expression of the principle of equal treatment, is not infringed by the change in method in question, since no arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate distinction is made which goes beyond the legislature’s discretion, all the more so as the transitional arrangements guarantee that the nominal amount of the net pension is to be maintained.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v tej točki zlasti presodilo, da enakost kupne moči kot posebne oblike načela enakosti z zamenjavo obravnavanih metod ni bila kr�ena s spremembo zadevne metode, ker ni �lo za samovoljno in očitno neprimerno razlikovanje, ki bi prekoračilo diskrecijsko pravico zakonodajalca, toliko bolj zato, ker prehodna ureditev zagotavlja ohranitev nominalnega zneska neto pokojnine.
The Council contends that the appellant is confusing the principle of equal treatment with the ‘principle of equality of purchasing power’.
Svet trdi, da pritožnik zamenjuje načelo enakega obravnavanja in „načelo enake kupne moči“.
Paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal refers not to the principle of equal treatment in general but simply to the ‘principle of equality of purchasing power’, which is simply one possible way of ensuring equal treatment.
Točka 105 izpodbijane sodbe se namreč ne nana�a na načelo enakega obravnavanja na splo�no, temveč na „načelo enake kupne moči“, ki je le eno izmed možnih sredstev za zagotovitev enakega obravnavanja.
Moreover, the ‘country method’ complies with the principle of equal treatment in exactly the same way as the ‘capital method’ and does not undermine the freedom of movement of pensioners.
Poleg tega – prav tako kot metoda „glavnega mesta“ – metoda „države“ spo�tuje načelo enakega obravnavanja in poleg tega ne �koduje prostemu gibanju upokojencev.
The former system favoured the choice of places within a State where the cost of living was less expensive to the same extent as the present system and thereby affected the choice of place of residence.
Stari sistem je namreč privilegiral, v isti meri kot trenutni sistem, izbor krajev, kjer je znotraj ene države življenje cenej�e, ter tako pogojeval izbor kraja prebivali�ča.
In criticising the findings made by the Court of First Instance concerning the argument alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment on the basis that the new ‘country method’ does not guarantee equality of purchasing power for all pensioners, the appellant is essentially seeking a declaration that the Court of First Instance erred in holding that the Community legislature did not exceed its discretion in this domain by substituting the ‘country method’ for the ‘capital method’ for the purpose of determining the correction coefficients in the transitional pension arrangements.
Pritožnik je s kritiko presoje Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi s trditvijo glede kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja, ker nova metoda „države“ ni zagotavljala enakovredne kupne moči za vse upokojence, v bistvu želel navesti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno presodilo, da zakonodajalec Skupnosti s tem, da je za določitev korekcijskih koeficientov v okviru prehodne pokojninske ureditve metodo „države“ zamenjal z metodo „glavnega mesta“, ni prekoračil omejitev, določenih za izvajanje njegove diskrecijske pravice na tem področju.
In order to determine whether that argument is well founded, it must first be established whether it is compatible with the principle of equal treatment to apply to pensions a single correction coefficient per country, calculated in accordance with the ‘country method’.
Za presojo utemeljenosti teh trditev je treba najprej ugotoviti, ali je uporaba, za pokojnine, enega samega korekcijskega koeficienta za državo, izračunanega po metodi „države“, v skladu z načelom enakega obravnavanja.