natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘(1) (a) Does the primary law of the European Communities contain a prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age, protection under which must be guaranteed by the Member States even if the allegedly discriminatory treatment is unconnected to Community law?
„1. a) Ali primarno pravo Evropskih skupnosti vsebuje prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti, katere varstvo morajo države članice zagotavljati tudi, kadar domnevno diskriminatorno obravnavanje ni povezano s pravom Skupnosti?
(2) Is any prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age arising from the answer to question 1 also applicable between private employers on the one hand and their employees or pensioners and their survivors on the other hand?
Ali taka zveza s pravom Skupnosti izhaja iz člena 13 ES ali – tudi pred iztekom roka za prenos – iz Direktive […] 2000/78?
(b) If question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative, can such a provision be justified by the fact that the employer has an interest in limiting the risks arising from the occupational pension scheme?
Ali je tak sistem mogoče upravičiti z dejstvom, da ima delodajalec interes omejiti tveganja, ki izhajajo iz sistema poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja?
(c) If question 3(b) is answered in the negative, does the possible prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age have unlimited retroactive effect as regards the law relating to occupational pension schemes or is it limited as regards the past, and if so in what way?’
Ali ima morebitna prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti neomejen retroaktivni učinek glede zakonodaje v zvezi s sistemi poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja ali je omejena za nazaj, in če je tako, na kak�en način?“
In the two parts of its first question, which can be examined together, the referring court asks whether the application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age is mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law.
Predložitveno sodi�če z dvema deloma prvega vpra�anja, ki ju je treba presojati skupaj, spra�uje, ali pravo Skupnosti vsebuje prepoved vsakr�ne diskriminacije zaradi starosti, katere uporabo morajo zagotavljati sodi�ča držav članic celo, če morebitno diskriminatorno ravnanje z ničemer ni povezano s pravom Skupnosti.
If this is answered in the negative, that court wishes to ascertain whether, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, such a link to Community law arises from Article 13 EC or from Directive 2000/78, even before the timelimit allowed to the Member State concerned for transposition has expired.
Če je odgovor nikalen, želi navedeno sodi�če vedeti, ali v okoli�činah, kakr�ne so v zadevi v glavni stvari, taka zveza s pravom Skupnosti izhaja iz člena 13 ES ali Direktive 2000/78 �e pred iztekom roka za njen prenos, naloženega zadevni državi članici.
It is apparent from the caselaw of the Court that, where national rules fall within the scope of Community law and reference is made to the Court for a preliminary ruling, the Court must provide all the criteria of interpretation needed by the national court to determine whether those rules are compatible with the general principles of Community law (see to that effect, in particular, Case C-144/04 Mangold [2005] ECR I-9981, paragraph 75).
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da mora slednje, ko mu je predloženo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje – ko nacionalna ureditev preide na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti – predložitvenemu sodi�ču posredovati vse elemente razlage, ki jih to potrebuje za presojo združljivosti te ureditve s splo�nimi načeli prava Skupnosti (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo z dne 22. novembra 2005 v zadevi Mangold, C-144/04, ZOdl., str. I-9981, točka 75).
Neither Directive 2000/78 nor Article 13 EC, however, enable a situation such as that in issue in the main proceedings to be brought within the scope of Community law.
Niti Direktiva 2000/78 niti člen 13 ES pa ne omogočata, da bi se pravo Skupnosti uporabljalo za položaj, kakr�en je v glavni stvari.
On the one hand, the guidelines do not constitute a measure implementing Dir -ective 2000/78 and, on the other hand, the death of Mr Bartsch occurred before the timelimit allowed to the Member State concerned for transposing the directive had expired.
Na eni strani smernice niso ukrep za izvedbo Direktive 2000/78 in na drugi strani je g. Bartsch umrl, preden se je za zadevno državo članico iztekel rok za prenos te direktive.
Article 13 EC, which permits the Council of the European Union, within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the EC Treaty, to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on age, cannot, as such, bring within the scope of Community law, for the purposes of prohibiting discrimination based on age, situations which, like that in the main proceedings, do not fall within the framework of measures adopted on the basis of that article, specifically Directive 2000/78 before the timelimit provided therein for its transposition has expired.
Člen 13 ES, ki Svet Evropske unije poobla�ča, da v mejah pristojnosti, ki mu jih poverja Pogodba ES, sprejme ukrepe, ki so potrebni za boj proti vsakr�ni diskriminaciji zaradi starosti, kot tak ne dopu�ča, da bi se za položaje zaradi prepovedi diskriminacije zaradi starosti uporabljalo pravo Skupnosti, če za te položaje – kot v zadevi v glavni stvari – ne veljajo ukrepi, sprejeti na podlagi navedenega člena in zlasti Direktive 2000/78 pred iztekom roka, ki ga ta določa za prenos.
Contrary to the argument put forward by the Commission, the case which gave rise to the judgment in Case C-122/96 Saldana and MTS [1997] ECR I-5325 cannot support a conclusion contrary to that set out in the previous paragraph.
V nasprotju z mnenjem Komisije zadeva Saldanha in MTS, o kateri je bilo odločeno s sodbo z dne 2. oktobra 1997 (C-122/96, Recueil, str. I-5325), ne more utemeljiti zaključka, ki bi nasprotoval temu, navedenemu v prej�nji točki.
That judgment concerned the application of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC), which confers directly, within the scope of application of the Treaty, the right to nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-92/92 and C-326/92 Phil Collins and Others [1993] ECR I-5145, paragraph 34).
Navedena sodba se je nana�ala na uporabo člena 6 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 12 ES), ki na področju uporabe Pogodbe neposredno prepoveduje diskriminacijo glede na državljanstvo (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 20. oktobra 1993 v zadevi Phil Collins in drugi, C-92/92 in C-326/92, Recueil, str. I-5145, točka 34).
In that regard the Court noted, in paragraph 22 of Saldana and MTS, that the dispute in the main proceedings concerned the protection of interests relied on by a shareholder who was a national of one Member State against a company established in another Member State.
Glede tega je Sodi�če v točki 22 zgoraj navedene sodbe Saldanha in MTS ugotovilo, da se spor o glavni stvari nana�a na za�čito interesov, ki jih uveljavlja družbenik, državljan države članice, zoper družbo, ustanovljeno v drugi državi članici.
At paragraph 23 of the same judgment, the Court pointed out that Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC) empowered the Council and the Commission, for the purpose of giving effect to freedom of establishment, to coordinate to the necessary extent the safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 48 EC) with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community.
V točki 23 iste sodbe je Sodi�če navedlo, da člen 54(3)(g) Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 44(2)(g) ES) poverja pristojnost Svetu in Komisiji, da za izvedbo svobode ustanavljanja v potrebnem obsegu uskladita za�čitne določbe, ki jih morajo v državah članicah upo�tevati družbe v smislu člena 58, drugi odstavek, Pogodbe ES (postal člen 48, drugi odstavek, ES) za za�čito interesov tako družbenikov kot tretjih.
The Court concluded, in paragraph 23, that rules which, in the area of company law, seek to protect the interests of shareholders come ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty, and are accordingly subject to the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality.
Na podlagi tega je Sodi�če v točki 23 sklepalo, da pravila na področju prava družb, katerih namen je za�čita interesov družbenikov, spadajo na „področje uporabe Pogodbe“ v smislu njenega člena 6, prvi odstavek, in da zato zanje velja prepoved vsakr�ne diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo.
The applicability of Community law in that case did not, therefore, result solely from the fact that there was discrimination based on nationality, but depended on the finding that the national rules at issue fell within the scope of application of the Treaty.
Veljavnost prava Skupnosti v zadevi, o kateri je bilo odločeno z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Saldanha in MTS, naj torej ne bi izhajala samo iz okoli�čine, da gre za diskriminacijo glede na državljanstvo, temveč naj bi bila odvisna od ugotovitve, da se zadevna nacionalna ureditev uvr�ča na področje uporabe Pogodbe.
That latter aspect, moreover, distinguishes this case from that which gave rise to the judgment in Mangold.
Ta zadnji vidik poleg tega ločuje obravnavano zadevo v glavni stvari od zadeve, o kateri je bilo odločeno z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mangold.
In that case, the national rules in question were a measure implementing a Community directive, namely, Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p.
V slednji je namreč zadevna nacionalna ureditev bila ukrep za izvedbo direktive Skupnosti, in sicer Direktive 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), by means of which those rules were thus brought within the scope of Community law (see Mangold, paragraph 75).
43), na podlagi katere je navedena ureditev tako vstopila na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mangold, točka 75).
By contrast, the guidelines at issue in the main proceedings do not correspond to measures transposing Community provisions.
Nasprotno zadevne smernice v zadevi v glavni stvari ne ustrezajo ukrepom za prenos določb prava Skupnosti.
In view of the above considerations, the answer to the first question must be that the application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da pravo Skupnosti ne vsebuje prepovedi vsakr�ne diskriminacije zaradi starosti, katere varstvo bi države članice morale zagotavljati, kadar domnevno diskriminatorno obravnavanje ni povezano s pravom Skupnosti.
No such link arises either from Article 13 EC, or, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, from Directive 2000/78 before the timelimit allowed to the Member State concerned for its transposition has expired.
Taka zveza s pravom Skupnosti ne izhaja iz člena 13 ES niti – v okoli�činah, kot so te v zadevi v glavni stvari – iz Direktive 2000/78 pred iztekom roka za prenos, ki zavezuje zadevno državo članico.
Questions 2 and 3
Drugo in tretje vprašanje
The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law.
Pravo Skupnosti ne vsebuje prepovedi vsakršne diskriminacije zaradi starosti, katere varstvo bi države članice morale zagotavljati, kadar domnevno diskriminatorno obravnavanje ni povezano s pravom Skupnosti.
No such link arises either from Article 13 EC, or, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, from Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, before the timelimit allowed to the Member State concerned for its transposition has expired.
Taka zveza s pravom Skupnosti ne izhaja iz člena 13 ES niti – v okoliščinah, kot so te v zadevi v glavni stvari – iz Direktive Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splošnih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu pred iztekom roka za prenos, ki zavezuje zadevno državo članico.
Case C-453/07
Zadeva C-453/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Verwaltungsgericht Giessen)
(EEC–Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 7, first paragraph, second indent — Right of residence of the adult child of a Turkish worker — Absence of paid employment — Conditions governing the loss of acquired rights)
„Pridružitveni sporazum EGS-Turčija – Sklep Pridružitvenega sveta �t. 1/80 – Člen 7, prvi odstavek, druga alinea – Pravica polnoletnega otroka tur�kega delavca do bivanja – Nezaposlenost – Pogoji za izgubo pridobljenih pravic“
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 25 September 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 25. septembra 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
International agreements — EEC–Turkey Association Agreement — Association Council established by the EEC–Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Family reunification
Mednarodni sporazumi – Pridružitveni sporazum EGS-Turčija – Pridružitveni svet, ustanovljen s Pridružitvenim sporazumom EGS-Turčija – Sklep št. 1/80 – Združitev družine
(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC–Turkey Association Council, Art. 7, first para.)
(Sklep št. 1/80 Pridružitvenega sveta EGS-Turčija, člen 7, prvi odstavek)
SUMMARY — CASE C-453/07 though, at the age of 23, he has not been in paid employment since leaving school at the age of 16 and has taken part in government job-support schemes without, however, completing them.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-453/07
A Turkish national, who was authorised to enter the territory of a Member State as a child in the context of a family reunion, and who has acquired the right to take up freely any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC–Turkey Association Council does not lose the right of residence in that State, which is the corollary of that right of free access, even
Tur�ki državljan, ki je kot otrok zaradi združitve družine smel vstopiti v državo članico in je na podlagi člena 7, prvi odstavek, druga alinea, Sklepa �t. 1/80 Pridružitvenega sveta EGS-Turčija pridobil pravico do prostega dostopa do zaposlitve po svoji izbiri, ne sme izgubiti s to pravico povezane pravice do bivanja, tudi če v starosti 23 let od končanja
25 September 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 25. septembra 2008 *
JUDGMENT OF 25. 9.
SODBA Z DNE 25. 9.
2008 — CASE C-453/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-453/07 generalni pravobranilec: P. Mengozzi, sodni tajnik: R.
ER gives the following
ER izreka naslednjo
The Association Council was set up by the Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, which was signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other hand, and concluded, approved and confirmed on the part of the latter by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (JO 1964 217, p. 3685).
Pridružitveni svet je bil ustanovljen s sporazumom ki ustanavlja pridružitev, sklenjenim med Evropsko gospodarsko skupnostjo in Turčijo, ki so ga podpisale Republika Turčija na eni strani in države članice EGS in Skupnost na drugi strani in ki je bil v imenu slednje sprejet, odobren in potrjen s Sklepom Sveta 64/732/EGS z dne 23. decembra 1963 (UL 1964, 217, str. 3685).
This request has been made in the context of a dispute between Mr Er, a Turkish national, and the Wetteraukreis (district of Wetterau), concerning a procedure for deportation from German territory.
Ta predlog je bil predložen v okviru spora med H. Erom, tur�kim državljanom, in Wetteraukreisom (okrožje Wetteraukreis) v postopku izgona iz nem�kega ozemlja.
Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 is drafted as follows:
Člen 6(1) Sklepa �t. 1/80 določa:
2008 — CASE C-453/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-453/07
— shall be entitled in that Member State, after one year’s legal employment, to the renewal of his permit to work for the same employer, if a job is available;
– po enem letu, odkar je v tej državi članici zakonito zaposlen, pravico, da se mu podalj�a delovno dovoljenje pri istem delodajalcu, če je zanj na voljo zaposlitev;
— shall be entitled in that Member State, after three years of legal employment and subject to the priority to be given to workers of Member States of the Community, to respond to another offer of employment, with an employer of his choice, made under normal conditions and registered with the employment services of that State, for the same occupation;
– po preteku treh let, odkar je v tej državi članici zakonito zaposlen, in ob tem, da imajo delavci iz držav članic Skupnosti pri tem prednost, pravico, da pri delodajalcu, ki ga sam izbere, sprejme zaposlitev v enakovrstnem poklicu, ponujeno pod običajnimi pogoji in prijavljeno pri službah za zaposlovanje v tej državi članici;
— shall enjoy free access in that Member State to any paid employment of his choice, after four years of legal employment.’
– po preteku �tirih let, odkar je zakonito zaposlen, v tej državi članici pridobi pravico do prostega dostopa do katerekoli zaposlitve po svoji izbiri“.
Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 provides:
Člen 7 Sklepa �t. 1/80 določa:
‘The members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State, who have been authorised to join him:
„Družinski člani tur�kega delavca, ki je vključen v zakoniti trg dela države članice, ki so pridobili dovoljenje, da se mu pridružijo:
— shall be entitled — subject to the priority to be given to workers of Member States of the Community — to respond to any offer of employment after they have been legally resident for at least three years in that Member State;
– imajo – s pridržkom, da imajo državljani iz držav članic Skupnosti pri tem prednost – pravico sprejeti vsako ponujeno zaposlitev, če v tej državi članici zakonito prebivajo vsaj tri leta;
— shall enjoy free access to any paid employment of their choice provided they have been legally resident there for at least five years.
– pridobijo pravico do prostega dostopa do zaposlitve, ki jo sami izberejo, če v tej državi članici zakonito prebivajo vsaj pet let.
Children of Turkish workers who have completed a course of vocational training in the host country may respond to any offer of employment there, irrespective of the length of time they have been resident in that Member State, provided one of their parents has been legally employed in the Member State concerned for at least three years.’
Otroci tur�kih delavcev, ki so v državi gostiteljici pridobili poklicno izobrazbo, ne glede na čas njihovega bivanja v tej državi članici, pod pogojem, da je bil vsaj eden od njihovih star�ev najmanj tri leta zakonito zaposlen v zadevni državi članici, lahko v tej državi članici sprejmejo katerokoli ponujeno zaposlitev“.
In accordance with Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80:
Člen 14(1) Sklepa �t. 1/80 določa:
‘The provisions of this section shall be applied subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.’
„Določbe tega oddelka se uporabljajo ob upo�tevanju omejitev, utemeljenih z javnim redom, javno varnostjo in javnim zdravjem.“
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
Postopek v glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
It is apparent from the decision to refer that Mr Er was born in Turkey in April 1984.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je bil H. Er aprila 1984 rojen v Turčiji.
Two years later, in 1986, he travelled to Berlin to join his father, who was duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the Federal Republic of Germany, and lived with him in Germany for at least five years.
Dve leti pozneje, tj. leta 1986, se je v Berlinu pridružil svojemu očetu, ki je bil vključen v zakoniti trg dela v Republiki Nemčiji, in je z njim živel na območju Nemčije vsaj pet let. Oče H.
In 1998, Mr Er applied for his first residence permit, which was granted to him for a period of one and a half years.
Leta 1998 je H. Er prvič zaprosil za dovoljenje za bivanje, ki mu je bilo izdano za obdobje enega leta in pol.
This document included the comments ‘mother holder of a residence permit of unlimited duration’ and ‘father registered in Berlin’.
Dokument je vseboval zaznamek „mati imetnica dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje“ in „oče registriran v Berlinu“.
His residence permit was extended up to 21 March 2002.
Njegovo dovoljenje za prebivanje je bilo podalj�ano do 21. marca 2002.
In 2002, Mr Er applied for a second residence permit, which was granted to him up to April 2003, that being the date at which his mother ceased to be responsible for his maintenance.
Leta 2002 je H. Er zaprosil za drugo dovoljenje za prebivanje, ki mu je bilo izdano samo do meseca aprila 2003, kar ustreza datumu, ko ga je njegova mati prenehala preživljati. H.
The Aliens Authority for the district of Wetterau (‘the Aliens Authority’), however, required Mr Er to make a visible effort to find employment.
Služba za tujce, pristojna za okrožje Wetterau (v nadaljevanju: služba za tujce), je od H. Era vendarle zahtevala, naj si prizadeva pridobiti zaposlitev.
He received social security assistance for one month and registered as a job-seeker.
En mesec je prejemal socialno pomoč in se je prijavil kot iskalec zaposlitve.
Whilst processing this application, the Aliens Authority interviewed Mr Er on several occasions.
Pri obravnavi te pro�nje se je služba za tujce večkrat pogovarjala s H. Erom.
The latter declared that he was looking for work, that he ought to find work after submitting a certificate of good behaviour, and that he would contact the Aliens Authority again.
Ta je navedel, da i�če zaposlitev, da bo to pridobil na podlagi potrdila o nekaznovanosti in da bo �e naprej v stiku s službo za tujce.
He received unemployment benefits for 18 months.
Nadomestilo za brezposelnost je prejemal 18 mesecev.
By decision of 17 August 2005, the Aliens Authority rejected the application for extension presented by Mr Er in September 2004 and ordered him to leave the country by a specific deadline, failing which he would be deported to Turkey.
Z odločbo z dne 17. avgusta 2005 je služba za tujce zavrnila pro�njo za podalj�anje, ki jo je H. Er vložil septembra 2004, in ga z grožnjo izgona v Turčijo pozvala, naj v določenem roku zapusti državo.
According to this decision, the grant of the right of residence in the context of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 presupposes that the applicant is present on the employment market at the time of his application, and that he has a realistic prospect of obtaining employment in the foreseeable future.
V skladu s to odločbo pravica do prebivanja, zagotovljena v členu 7, prvi odstavek, Sklepa �t. 1/80, predpostavlja, da je zadevna oseba med predložitvijo pro�nje prisotna na trgu dela in da obstaja realna možnost, da se bo v predevidljivem času zaposlila.
The Aliens Authority took the view that limiting the duration of residence to six months in order to seek employment was not, in principle, open to criticism.
Služba za tujce je menila, da omejitev dovoljenja za prebivanje na �est mesecev s ciljem iskanja zaposlitve načeloma ni sporna.