natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See also the judgments in Case 68/88 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 2965, paragraph 24; Case C-326/88 Hansen [1990] ECR I-2911, paragraph 17; and Case C-177/95 Ebony Maritime and Loten Navigation [1997] ECR I-1111, paragraph 35.
I-2911, točka 17) in z dne 27. februarja 1997 v zadevi Ebony Maritime in Loten Navigation (C-177/95, Recueil, str. I-1111, točka 35).
However, I propose that the Court should leave the decision on that matter to the Landesgericht Bozen.
Glede tega vseeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj prepusti odločitev o zadevi Landesgericht Bozen.
The automatic nature of the penalty concerned must be analysed in the context of the Italian system of administrative penalties as a whole.
Samodejnost zadevne kazni je treba preučiti v okviru celotnega italijanskega sistema upravnih kazni.
Only if it is established that no corrective criteria are taken into account when determining the degree of culpability of the infringer will there be a contravention of Community law.
Kr�itev prava Skupnosti naj bi bila dokazana samo, če je potrjeno, da ne obstajajo olaj�evalne ali oteževalne okoli�čine za storilca kr�itve.
The referring court is in a better position than the Court of Justice to conduct a systematic appraisal of a specific field of Italian law.
Predložitveno sodi�če je primernej�e od Sodi�ča, da opravi sistemsko presojo posebnega dela italijanskega pravnega reda.
The solution which I suggest be provided to the Landesgericht Bozen is simple: if, under national law, there is no provision for any adjustment of the penalties set out in Legislative Decree 61/2000, there is an infringement of the Community principle of proportionality.
Druga možnost, ki jo predlagam Landesgericht Bozen, je preprosta: če v nacionalnem pravnem redu kazni, predvidene z zakonsko uredbo �t. 61/2000, ne bi dopu�čale nobenega stopnjevanja, bi �lo za kr�itev skupnostnega načela sorazmernosti.
C — The administrative obligations under Legislative Decree 61/2000 in the light of Directive 76/207
C – Upravne obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zakonske uredbe št. 61/2000, z vidika Direk­tive 76/207
Since Jenkins, 46it has been clear that in the sphere of social policy, and more particularly in the fight against different treatment on grounds of sex, Community law also precludes indirect discrimination.
Ker sem ugotovil nezdružljivost zadevnih ukrepov z Direktivo 97/81, se mi zdi odveč analizirati težave, ki jih zakonska uredba �t. 61/2000 predstavlja v zvezi z diskriminacijo na podlagi spola.
That case concerned a parttime female worker whose pay was substantially lower than that of her male colleagues.
Ta zadeva se je nana�ala na delavko, ki je bila zaposlena s kraj�im delovnim časom in katere plača je bila precej nižja od plače njenih mo�kih sodelavcev.
The defendant claimed that the difference in pay was not aimed at creating a distinct regime for men and women but rather at adjusting the wages to the specific characteristics of fulltime employees on the one hand and parttime employees on the other.
Tožena stranka je trdila, da namen razlike v plačah ni bil vzpostaviti različen sistem za mo�ke in ženske, ampak prilagoditi plače posebnostim zaposlenih s polnim delovnim časom na eni strani in zaposlenim s kraj�im delovnim časom na drugi strani.
The Court held that such a difference in treatment was compatible with the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of sex with regard to pay (Article 141 EC) provided that it was objectively justified, 47 but pointed out that if the number of women who carried on fulltime work was significantly lower than the number of men, there would be unlawful discrimination. 48
Sodi�če je odločilo, da je to različno obravnavanje lahko združljivo z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi spola na področju plač (člen 141 ES), če je objektivno utemeljeno, 47vendar je natančneje pojasnilo, da če bi bilo �tevilo žensk, ki opravljajo dejavnost s polnim delovnim časom, bistveno manj�e od �tevila mo�kih, bi obstajala nezakonita diskriminacija. 48
Although the Italian Government does not refer in its written observations to the conflict between Directive 76/207 and national law, the Commission has made assertions in that connection, to the effect that the provisions of that directive are not applicable to the present proceedings.
Čeprav italijanska vlada v stali�čih ni omenila težav, ki jih v nacionalnem pravnem redu povzroča Direktiva 76/207, je Komisija izrazila mnenje o tem vpra�anju, ko je navedla, da so določbe navedene direktive izključene iz predmeta tega spora.
The equality test introduced in Jenkins calls for a factual analysis which the Court is not always able to carry out.
To merilo presoje enakosti med spoloma, uvedeno s sodbo Jenkins, zahteva preučitev dejanskega stanja, ki je Sodi�če ne more vedno opraviti.
Accordingly, the Court stated that it is for the national court to evaluate the facts in order to determine whether there is discrimination between men and women, having regard to a number of factors, such as statistics drawn up by the
Zato je navedlo, da je za presojo podatkov, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ugotoviti diskriminacijo med mo�kimi in ženskami, pristojno nacionalno sodi�če, ki mora upo�tevati različne elemente, kot so statistični podatki, ki jih
47 — Judgment in Jenkins, cited in footnote 46, paragraphs 11 and 12.
47 – Sodba Jenkins, navedena v opombi 46, točki 11 in 12.
In the opinion in Voß, points 32 to 38, I discussed in detail the development in caselaw of the principle of indirect discrimination based on sex.
V zgoraj navedenih sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Voß, točke od 32 do 38, podrobno pojasnjujem razvoj sodne prakse o posredni diskriminaciji na podlagi spola. Glej tudi Craig, P., in Búrca, G., EU Law, 4. izdaja, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007, str. 886–896.
I do not share the Commission’s view.
46 – Sodba z dne 31. marca 1981 v zadevi Jenkins (96/80, Recueil, str. 911).
48 — Judgment in Jenkins, paragraphs 13 and 14.
48 – Sodba Jenkins, navedena v opombi 46, točki 13 in 14.
MICHAELER AND OTHERS appropriate and necessary and can be justified by objective factors unrelated to sex.’ 52 national employment authority or other equivalent data. 49
MICHAELER IN DRUGI pripravi in�pektorat za delo, ali druge enakovredne informacije.
Since Article 2(2) of Directive 97/80 governs discriminatory situations prohibited by Directive 76/207, the Jenkins caselaw must apply to the present case.
Ker člen 2(2) Direktive 97/80 ureja diskriminatorne položaje, prepovedane z Direktivo 76/207, je treba v tej zadevi uporabiti sodno prakso Jenkins.
Article 141 EC, whose provisions on equal pay have their own special characteristics.
člena 141 ES, v katerem ima načelo enakega plačila posebne značilnosti.
In short, indirect discrimination on grounds of sex is currently prohibited to the same extent as direct discrimination.
Nazadnje, posredne diskriminacije na podlagi spola so zdaj prav tako prepovedane kot neposredne diskriminacije.
A particularly revealing example is Article 2(2) of Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex, 51 which contains an expression of the Jenkins case-law:
Člen 2(2) Direktive Sveta 97/80/ES z dne 15. decembra 1997 o dokaznem bremenu v primerih diskriminacije zaradi spola, 51ki uzakonja sodno prakso Jenkins, ponuja zelo poučen primer:
‘For purposes of the principle of equal treatment … indirect discrimination shall exist where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice disadvantages a substantially higher proportion of the members of one sex unless that provision, criterion or practice is
„Za namene načela enakega obravnavanja […] obstaja posredna diskriminacija tam, kjer na videz nevtralni predpisi, merila ali postopki postavljajo v neugoden položaj bistveno vi�ji delež pripadnikov enega spola, razen če je ta predpis, merilo ali postopek ustrezen in potreben ter se lahko upraviči
In those circumstances, it is merely necessary to refer to the analysis of the Italian provisions I carried out above.
V teh okoli�činah je treba samo napotiti na zgoraj opravljeno preučitev italijanskih predpisov.
Following that assessment, I suggest that the Court should hold that the introduction of measures which impede the promotion of parttime work are liable to restrict access to employment.
Na podlagi te presoje pozivam Sodi�če, naj ugotovi, da lahko tudi uvedba ukrepov, ki odvračajo od uporabe pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom, omejuje dostop do zaposlitve.
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 36 to 60 of this Opinion, the disputed national measures discourage the recruitment of parttime workers.
Zaradi razlogov, predstavljenih v točkah od 36 do 60 teh sklepnih predlogov, zadevni nacionalni ukrepi odvračajo delodajalce od uporabe pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom.
Having made that statement of the law, it is for the Landesgericht Bozen to determine whether the facts constitute evidence of discrimination on grounds of sex.
Zato mora Landesgericht Bozen ugotoviti, ali obstajajo dejanske okoli�čine, ki dokazujejo diskriminacijo na podlagi spola.
If the result of that assessment shows that the measure affects a significantly higher percentage of women than men, the national court must find that there is an infringement of Directive 76/207, specifically Article 3 thereof.
Če bi rezultat te presoje pokazal, da sporni ukrep zadeva bistveno vi�ji delež žensk kot mo�kih, bi bilo treba ugotoviti kr�itev Direktive 76/207, zlasti člena 3 te direktive.
50 — The Court upheld the Jenkins caselaw shortly afterwards in the judgment in Case 170/84 Bilka [1986] ECR 1607, paragraph 29.
50 – Sodna praksa Jenkins je bila kmalu potrjena s sodbo z dne 13. maja 1986 v zadevi Bilka-Kaufhaus (170/84, Recueil, str. 1607, točka 29).
52 — That concept was refined in Directive 2006/54, which defines indirect discrimination as occurring ‘where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of one sex at a particular disadvantage compared with persons of the other sex, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary’.
52 – V Direktivi 2006/54 je bil ta koncept omiljen z naslednjo opredelitvijo posredne diskriminacije: „kadar bi bile zaradi navidezno nevtralnega predpisa, merila ali prakse osebe enega spola v posebej neugodnem položaju v primerjavi z osebami drugega spola, razen če ta predpis, merilo ali praksa objektivno temelji na zakonitem cilju in so sredstva za doseganje tega cilja ustrezna in potrebna“.
It is clear from the wording of the new provision that the quantitative factor — that is, that the discrimination must affect a greater number of women than men — is no longer decisive and must be taken in conjunction with other criteria.
Iz tega novega besedila izhaja, da količinski dejavnik – večji vpliv za ženske kot za mo�ke – ni več odločilen element in soobstaja z drugimi dejavniki.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should reply to the question referred by the Landesgericht Bozen, declaring that:
Ob upo�tevanju zgornjih pojasnil predlagam Sodi�ču, naj na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je predložilo Landesgericht Bozen, odgovori:
Clauses 4 and 5 of the Framework Agreement on parttime work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation requiring that a copy of all parttime contracts be sent to the administrative authorities within 30 days of their conclusion.
Določbi 4 in 5 okvirnega sporazuma o delu s kraj�im delovnim časom, sklenjenim med UNICE, CEEP in ETUC, priloženega Direktivi Sveta 97/81/ES z dne 15. decembra 1997, je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta nacionalnim predpisom, ki zahtevajo, da se kopije pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom po�ljejo upravnim organom v tridesetih dneh od sklenitve navedenih pogodb.
Article 3 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation requiring that a copy of all parttime contracts be sent to the administrative authorities within 30 days of their conclusion, where it is demonstrated that the measure affects a significantly higher percentage of women than men.
Člen 3 Direktive Sveta 76/207/EGS z dne 9. februarja 1976 o izvr�evanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalnim predpisom, ki zahtevajo, da se kopije pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom po�ljejo upravnim organom v tridesetih dneh od sklenitve navedenih pogodb, če se dokaže, da ta ukrep zadeva bistveno vi�ji delež žensk kot mo�kih.
It is for the national court to determine whether the facts constitute evidence of discrimination on grounds of sex.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora ugotoviti, ali obstajajo dejanske okoli�čine, ki dokazujejo diskriminacijo na podlagi spola.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 24. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht Bozen (Italy), made by decisions of 22 November 2006, received at the Court of Justice on 1 February 2007, in the proceedings
V združenih zadevah C-55/07 in C-56/07, katerih predmet sta predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ju je vložilo Landesgericht Bozen (Italija), z odločbama z dne 22. novembra 2006, ki sta na Sodi�če prispeli 1. februarja 2007, v postopkih
2008 — JOINED CASES C-55/07 AND C-56/07
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-55/07 IN C-56/07
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by M. van Beek and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 24 January 2008,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti M. van Beek in I. Kaufmann-Bühler, zastopnika, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 24. januarja 2008
MICHAELER AND OTHERS gives the following
MICHAELER IN DRUGI izreka naslednjo
The references for a preliminary ruling relate to the interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on parttime work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p.
Predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�ata na razlago Direktive Sveta 97/81/ES z dne 15. decembra 1997 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu s kraj�im delovnim časom, sklenjenim med UNICE, CEEP in ETUC (UL 1998, L 14, str.
9) and the principle of equal treatment of men and women.
9), ter na razlago načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk.
Those references were made in proceedings in which the parties are Subito GmbH (‘Subito’) and their legal representatives, Mr Michaeler and Ms Volgger, and the Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz (Labour Protection Office), formerly Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen, and the Autonome Provinz Bozen (Autonomous Province of Bolzano), and which relate to a contravention of the national legislation which imposes an obligation to give notice of parttime employment contracts.
Michaelerjem in R. Volgger in Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz, nekdanji Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen, ter Autonome Provinz Bozen zaradi kr�itve nacionalnih predpisov glede obveznosti po�iljanja kopij pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom.
The objective of Directive 97/81 is to implement the framework agreement on parttime work concluded on 6 June 1997 by the general crossindustry organisations, the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), annexed to that directive (the ‘framework agreement’).
Namen Direktive 97/81 je izvajanje okvirnega sporazuma o delu s kraj�im delovnim časom, sklenjenega 6. junija 1997 med splo�nimi industrijskimi organizacijami – Združenje evropskih industrijskih in delodajalskih konfederacij (UNICE), Evropski center za podjetja z javno udeležbo (CEEP) in Evropska konfederacija sindikatov (ETUC) –, ki je priložen tej direktivi (v nadaljevanju: okvirni sporazum).
The first and second paragraphs of the preamble to the framework agreement state:
Prva in druga uvodna izjava okvirnega sporazuma določata:
‘This Framework Agreement is a contribution to the overall European strategy on employment.
„Ta okvirni sporazum je prispevek k celoviti evropski strategiji zaposlovanja.
Parttime work has had an important impact on employment in recent years.
Delo s kraj�im delovnim časom je pomembno vplivalo na zaposlovanje v zadnjih letih.
For this reason, the parties to this agreement have given priority attention to this form of work.
Zato so podpisnice sporazuma namenile pozornost predvsem tej obliki dela.
It is the intention of the parties to consider the need for similar agreements relating to other forms of flexible work.
Podpisnice bodo proučile potrebo po podobnih sporazumih tudi za druge prilagodljive oblike dela.
Recognising the diversity of situations in Member States and acknowledging that parttime work is a feature of employment in certain sectors and activities, this Agreement sets out the general principles and minimum requirements relating to parttime work.
Ta sporazum določa splo�na načela in minimalne zahteve glede dela s kraj�im delovnim časom, pri čemer upo�teva, da je stanje v državah članicah različno in spoznanje, da je delo s kraj�im delovnim časom posebnost zaposlovanja v nekaterih sektorjih in dejavnostih.
It illustrates the willingness of the social partners to establish a general framework for the elimination of discrimination against parttime workers and to assist the development of opportunities for parttime working on a basis acceptable to employers and workers.’
Kaže pripravljenost socialnih partnerjev, da oblikujejo splo�ni okvir za odpravo diskriminacije delavcev, ki delajo s kraj�im delovnim časom, in da pomagajo pri razvoju možnosti za delo s kraj�im delovnim časom na podlagi, ki je sprejemljiva za delodajalce in delavce.“
The provisions of the framework agreement which are relevant to these proceedings are the following:
Določbe okvirnega sporazuma, ki se upo�tevajo v teh postopkih, so:
‘General considerations
„Splo�ni razlogi
MICHAELER AND OTHERS training opportunities to improve their skills and career opportunities for the mutual benefit of employers and workers and in a manner which would assist the development of enterprises;
MICHAELER IN DRUGI jih pripravili na upokojitev, uskladili delovno in družinsko življenje ter izkoristili možnosti za izobraževanje in usposabljanje, ki izbolj�ujejo posameznikovo strokovno usposobljenost in poklicne možnosti, kar naj koristi delodajalcem in delavcem ter pripomore k razvoju podjetij;
(a) to provide for the removal of discrimination against parttime workers and to improve the quality of parttime work;
Namen tega okvirnega sporazuma je: a) omogočiti odpravo diskriminacije delavcev, ki delajo s kraj�im delovnim časom, in izbolj�ati kakovost dela s kraj�im delovnim časom; b) olaj�ati razvoj dela s kraj�im delovnim časom na podlagi odločitve posameznika in prispevati k prožnej�i organizaciji delovnega časa ob upo�tevanju potreb delodajalcev in delavcev.
Clause 4: Principle of nondiscrimination
Določba 4: Načelo nediskriminacije
The arrangements for the application of this clause shall be defined by the Member States and/or social partners, having regard to European legislation, national law, collective agreements and practice.
Načine uporabe te določbe določijo države članice in/ali socialni partnerji, pri čemer upo�tevajo evropsko zakonodajo, domačo zakonodajo, kolektivne pogodbe in prakso.
Where justified by objective reasons, Member States after consultation of the social partners in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practice and/or social partners may, where appropriate, make access to particular conditions of employment subject to a period of service, time worked or earnings qualification.
Kadar je upravičeno s stvarnimi razlogi, lahko države članice – in/ali socialni partnerji – po posvetovanju s socialnimi partnerji in na podlagi nacionalnega prava, kolektivnih pogodb ali prakse, če je primerno, omejijo posebne pogoje za zaposlitev s trajanjem zaposlitve, delovno dobo ali zaslužkom.
(a) Member States, following consultations with the social partners in accordance with national law or practice, should identify and review obstacles of a legal or administrative nature which may limit the opportunities for parttime work and, where appropriate, eliminate them;
Po določbi 1 tega sporazuma in načelu nediskriminacije delavcev, zaposlenih s kraj�im delovnim časom in delavcev, zaposlenih s polnim delovnim časom: a) morajo države članice po posvetovanju s socialnimi partnerji, skladno z domačo zakonodajo ali prakso, opredeliti in presoditi zakonske ali administrativne ovire, ki lahko omejujejo možnosti za delo s kraj�im delovnim časom, in jih, kjer je primerno, odpraviti; b) morajo socialni partnerji glede na svoje pristojnosti in po postopku, določenem v kolektivnih pogodbah, opredeliti in presoditi ovire, ki lahko omejujejo možnosti za delo s kraj�im delovnim časom, in jih, kjer je primerno, odpraviti.
Article 2 of Decree-Law No 61 relating to the implementation of Directive 97/81/EC concerning the framework agreement on parttime work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (decreto legislativo n. 61 attuazione della direttiva 97/81/CE relativa all’accordo-quadro sul lavoro a tempo parziale concluso dall’UNICE, dal CEEP e dalla CES) of 25 February 2000 (GURI No 66, of 20 March 2000, p. 4)
Člen 2 zakonske uredbe �t. 61 z dne 25. februarja 2000 glede izvajanja Direktive 97/81/ES o okvirnem sporazumu o delu s kraj�im delovnim časom, sklenjenim med UNICE, CEEP in ETUC (decreto legislativo n.o 61, attuazione della direttiva 97/81/CE relativa all’accordo-quadro sul lavoro a tempo parziale concluso dall’UNICE, dal CEEP e dalla CES) (GURI �t. 66 z dne 20. marca 2000, str.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-55/07 AND C-56/07
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-55/07 IN C-56/07 uredba �t.
(‘Decree-Law No 61/2000’) imposes on the employer the obligation to send a copy of a parttime employment contract to the provincial office of the competent Labour and Social Security Inspectorate, within 30 days of signature of that contract.
61/2000) je določal, da morajo delodajalci poslati kopijo pogodbe o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom pokrajinski direkciji in�pektorata za delo in socialno varnost v tridesetih dneh od sklenitve te pogodbe.
Under Article 8 of Decree-Law No 61/2000, the penalty for failure to comply with that obligation was an administrative fine of EUR 15 for each worker concerned and for each day of delay.
Člen 8 zakonske uredbe �t. 61/2000 določa, da se neizpolnitev te obveznosti kaznuje z upravno kaznijo v vi�ini 15 EUR za vsakega zadevnega delavca in za vsak dan zamude.
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
Subito and its legal representatives brought appeals against those decisions to the Landesgericht Bozen (Bolzano Regional Court) (Italy).
Ti odločbi so družba Subito in njena pravna zastopnika izpodbijali pred Landesgericht Bozen.
In the orders for reference that court questions whether the obligation to give notice of parttime employment contracts is compatible with Directive 97/81.
To sodi�če v predložitvenem sklepu izraža dvome o združljivosti obveznosti po�iljanja pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom z Direktivo 97/81.