natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, she proceeded on the assumption that, in relation to employment conditions, the principle of nondiscrimination referred to in Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement
Poleg tega je izhajala iz tega, da načelo nediskriminacije, ki ga vsebuje določba 4 okvirnega
The Rights Commissioner awarded the complainants monetary compensation pursuant to section 14(2) of the 2003 Act, ranging from EUR 2 000 to EUR 40 000, depending on the individual case.
Komisarka za pravice je na podlagi člena 14(2) zakona iz leta 2003 pritožnikom priznala denarne od�kodnine, ki so glede na posamični primer zna�ale od 2000 do 40.000 evrov.
She also ordered the respondents to apply to the complainants terms and conditions of employment equivalent to those enjoyed by comparable permanent workers.
Poleg tega je zadevnim ministrstvom naložila, naj v primeru pritožnikov uporabijo pogoje zaposlitve, ki ustrezajo tistim, uporabljenim pri delavcih, zaposlenih za nedoločen čas.
Finally, the Rights Commissioner granted some of the complainants the right to an employment contract of indefinite duration on terms no less favourable than those enjoyed by com -parable permanent workers.
Komisarka za pravice je končno nekaterim pritožnikom priznala pravico do delovnega razmerja za nedoločen čas ob pogojih, ki ne smejo biti manj ugodni od tistih, ki veljajo za primerljive delavce, zaposlene za nedoločen čas.
The Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court have not been given express jurisdiction to do so under the domestic law of the Member State including the provisions of domestic law transposing the Directive,
Rights Commissioner in Labour Court v skladu z nacionalnim pravom države članice, skupaj z nacionalnimi predpisi o prenosu Direktive, nista bila izrecno za to poobla�čena,
The respondents appealed against the Rights Commissioner’s decision to the Labour Court in Dublin.
Zadevna ministrstva so zoper odločbo komisarke za pravice vložila tožbo pri Labour Court Dublin.
IMPACT crossappealed against the Rights Commissioner’s decision in so far as it held that Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement was not directly effective.
IMPACT je vložil nasprotno tožbo zoper odločbo komisarke za pravice, kolikor je bilo v njej ugotovljeno, da določba 5 okvirnega sporazuma ni neposredno uporabljiva.
Individuals can pursue alternative claims arising out of a failure by their employer to apply the Dir -ective to their individual circumstances before the High Court and
– posamezniki lahko High Court predložijo druge zahtevke, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da njihov delodajalec v njihovem konkretnem primeru ni uporabil Direktive, in
IV — Reference for a preliminary ruling and the proceedings before the Court of Justice
IV – Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe in postopek pred Sodiščem
By order of 12 June 2006, received at the Court of Justice on 19 June 2006, the Labour Court in Dublin decided to stay the proceedings before it and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Labour Court Dublin je s sklepom z dne 12. junija 2006, ki je prispel na Sodi�če 19. junija 2006, prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja: posamezniki lahko pred pristojnimi rednimi sodi�či zoper državo članico uveljavljajo druge zahtevke za povračilo �kode, ki so jo utrpeli, ker država članica ni pravočasno prenesla Direktive?
(2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje pritrdilen:
‘(1) In deciding a case at first instance under a provision of domestic law or in determining an appeal against such a decision, are the Rights Commissioners and the Labour Court required by any principle of Community law (in particular the principle of equivalence and effectiveness) to apply a directly effective provision of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP in circumstances where:
a) ali je določba 4(1) okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas, ki je priložen Direktivi 1999/70, brezpo-
Is Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP annexed to
Ali morajo Rights Commissioners in Labour Court pri odločanju o sporu na prvi stopnji na podlagi nacionalnega predpisa ali pri odločanju o pritožbi zoper tako odločbo, ob upo�tevanju načela prava Skupnosti (zlasti načela enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti), uporabiti neposredno veljavno določbo Direktive Sveta 1999/70/ES z dne 28. junija 1999 v okoli�činah, ko:
Directive 1999/70/EC unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before their national courts?
– gojna in dovolj natančna, da se lahko nanjo sklicujejo posamezniki pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodi�či?
on all previous occasions the contract had been renewed for shorter periods, and the employer requires the services of the employee for the extended period,
je bila pogodba do tedaj vedno obnovljena za kraj�a obdobja in če delodajalec potrebuje storitve delavca v tem dalj�em obdobju,
(b) the renewal for the extended period has the effect of circumventing the application to an individual of the full benefit of Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement when transposed into domestic law, and
– obnovitev pogodbe za to dalj�e obdobje povzroči, da posameznik ne more pridobiti koristi iz uporabe določbe 5 okvirnega sporazuma po njenem prenosu v nacionalno pravo, in b) ali je določba 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas, ki je priložen k Direktivi 1999/70, brezpogojna in dovolj natančna, da se lahko nanjo sklicujejo posamezniki pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodi�či?
Is Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP annexed to Direct- ive 1999/70/EC unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before their national courts?
– ni nobenih objektivnih razlogov, ki niso povezani s položajem delavca kot delavca, zaposlenega za določen čas, ki bi upravičili tako obnovitev?
(3) Having regard to the Court’s answers to Question 1 and Question 2(b),
Glede na odgovore Sodi�ča na prvo vpra�anje in na drugo vpra�anje (točka b):
(4) If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is in the negative, are the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court required by any provision of Community law (and in particular the obligation to interpret domestic law in light of the wording and purpose of a Directive so as to produce the result pursued by the Directive) to interpret provisions of domestic law enacted for the purpose of transposing Council does Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC preclude a Member State, acting in its capacity as an employer, from renewing a fixed term contract of employment for up to eight years in the period after the said Directive should have been transposed and before the transposing legislation was enacted in domestic law where:
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje ali na drugo vpra�anje nikalen: ali morata Rights Commissioner in Labour Court na podlagi določbe prava Skupnosti (zlasti obveznosti razlage nacionalnega prava v luči besedila in namena direktive tako, da se izpolni ali določba 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas, ki je priložen k Direktivi 1999/70, prepoveduje državi članici, ki nastopa kot delodajalec, da v obdobju med potekom roka za prenos navedene direktive in uveljavitvijo zakona o prenosu obnovi pogodbo o zaposlitvi za določen čas za obdobje do osem let, če
Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP as having retrospective effect to the date on which the said Directive should have been transposed where:
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-268/06 njen cilj) razlagati določbe nacionalnega prava, ki so bile sprejete za prenos Direktive 1999/70 tako, da učinkujejo za nazaj od dneva, ko naj bi bila navedena direktiva prenesena, če
IMPACT and the respondents in the main proceedings, and also the United Kingdom Government and the Commission of the European Communities, have submitted written and oral observations in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
V postopku pred Sodi�čem so tako IMPACT kot irska ministrstva, ki so tožene stranke v sporu o glavni stvari, ter vlada Združenega kraljestva in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti podali pisna in ustna stali�ča.
In addition, the Netherlands Government has submitted written observations.
Nizozemska vlada je podala pisna stali�ča.
— the wording of the provision of domestic law does not expressly preclude such an interpretation, but,
– besedilo določbe nacionalnega prava izrecno ne izključuje take razlage, vendar
— a rule of domestic law governing the construction of statutes precludes such retrospective application unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary?
V – Presoja pravilo nacionalnega prava, ki določa razlago zakonov, izključuje tako retroaktivno uporabo, razen če obstajajo jasne in nedvoumne oporne točke, ki kažejo nasprotno?
A — Question 1: Obligation to apply directly effective provisions of Community law in the absence of express jurisdiction
A – Prvo vprašanje: dolžnost uporabe nepo­sredno veljavnih predpisov prava Skupnosti ob neobstoju izrecne pristojnosti
(5) If the answer to Question 1 or Question 4 is in the affirmative,
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje ali na četrto vpra�anje pritrdilen:
By its first question, the Labour Court asks, in essence, whether a national court is required to apply directly effective provisions of Community law if, notwithstanding the fact that it has not been given express jurisdiction to do so under domestic law, it does have jurisdiction to apply the national transposing legislation enacted in relation to those provisions and those provisions could do the “employment conditions” to which Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1990/70/EC refers include conditions of an employment contract relating to remuneration and pensions?’
S prvim vpra�anjem želi Labour Court v bistvu izvedeti, ali mora nacionalno sodi�če uporabiti neposredno veljavne predpise prava Skupnosti, če mu nacionalno pravo za to sicer ne podeljuje izrecne pristojnosti, je pa pristojno za uporabo nacionalnega zakona, ki je bil sprejet za prenos teh predpisov, in če bi se posameznik sicer na te
IMPACT otherwise be directly relied upon by individuals only before other domestic courts and on less favourable terms.
IMPACT predpise lahko neposredno skliceval le pred drugimi nacionalnimi sodi�či in le pod manj ugodnimi pogoji.
That question may initially appear somewhat unusual.
To vpra�anje se zdi morda na prvi pogled nenavadno.
For a better understanding of the question, we need to look at the system of court jurisdiction in Ireland.
Zaradi bolj�ega razumevanja je treba bolje spoznati sistem sodne pristojnosti na Irskem.
The procedural autonomy of the Member States and its limits
Postopkovna avtonomija držav članic in njene meje
Neither Directive 1999/70 nor the framework agreement on fixedterm work includes rules on jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to claims arising under them.
Direktiva 1999/70 in okvirni sporazum o delu za določen čas sama ne urejata pristojnosti za spore o zahtevkih, ki izvirajo iz njiju.
Instead, Clause 8(5) of the Framework Agreement specifically refers in that regard to national law, collective agreements and practice.
Nasprotno določba 8(5) okvirnega sporazuma v tem smislu izrecno napotuje na nacionalno zakonodajo, kolektivne pogodbe in običaje.
On that basis, the government departments concerned have, as respondents in the main proceedings, challenged the jurisdiction of the Rights Commissioner and of the Labour Court to determine the complaint lodged by the complainants in so far as it is based directly on Directive 1999/70.
S sklicevanjem na navedeno so zadevna ministrstva, ki so tožene stranke v sporu o glavni stvari, izpodbijala pristojnost komisarke za pravice in Labour Court, da odločata o pravnih sredstvih pritožnikov, če se ta opirajo neposredno na Direktivo 1999/70.
The starting point for answering the question put to the Court is therefore the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States. 15The Court has consistently held that, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the
Izhodi�če za odgovor na vpra�anje, ki je bilo predloženo Sodi�ču, je tako načelo postopkovne avtonomije držav članic: 15iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da kadar na določenem področju ni predpisov Skupnosti,
The practical significance of this jurisdictional issue relates to the period before
Ta problem glede pristojnosti ima praktičen pomen za obdobje pred 14. julijem 2003, ko Direktiva 1999/70 �e ni bila prene-
19 domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law. 16
19 mora pravni red vsake države članice določiti pristojna sodi�ča in podrobneje urediti postopkovna pravila pravnih sredstev, katerih namen je varstvo pravic, ki za upravičene subjekte izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti. 16
That reflects the principle of effect- ive judicial protection which, according to settled caselaw, is a general principle of Community law and forms part of the fundamental principles protected by the Community legal order, 20 which must therefore also be observed by the Member States when applying Community law. 21
Tu pride do izraza načelo učinkovitega sodnega varstva, ki je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti in spada k temeljnim pravicam, ki so varovane v Skupnosti, 20torej ga morajo pri uporabi prava Skupnosti upo�tevati tudi države članice. 21
In line with that procedural autonomy, it is not, in principle, for the Court to become involved in resolving questions of jurisdiction to which the classification of certain legal situations based on Community law may give rise within a national judicial system. 17
V smislu te postopkovne avtonomije načelno ni naloga Sodi�ča, da sodeluje pri re�evanju vpra�anj o pristojnosti, ki lahko na področju nacionalnega sodstva pripelje do opredelitve določenega pravnega stanja, ki temelji na pravu Skupnosti. 17
However, in order to ensure that individuals’ rights under Community law are protected effectively in each case, those individuals must be given appropriate access to the domestic courts.
Za učinkovito varstvo individualnih pravic, utemeljenih v pravu Skupnosti, v vsakem posamičnem primeru, pa mora biti posamezniku na primeren način zagotovljen dostop do nacionalnih sodi�č.
That access is principally governed by the determination of the courts’ jurisdiction and by the detailed pro -cedural rules governing the legal remedies available in each case.
Ta dostop je odločilno opredeljen tako z določitvijo sodne pristojnosti kot tudi s podrobnimi postopkovnimi pravili za vsakokratna pravna sredstva, ki so na razpolago. V tem smislu ne obstaja bistvena razlika med določbami
18It is for the Member
16 – Sodbe z dne 19. decembra 1968 v zadevi Salgoil (13/68, Recueil, str. 680, 693); z dne 16. decembra 1976 v zadevi Rewe-Zentralfinanz (33/76, Recueil, str.
16 — Case 13/68 Salgoil [1968] ECR 453, at p.
I-6297, točka 29); z dne 30. septembra 2003 v zadevi Köbler (C-224/01, Recueil, str.
20 — See, for example, Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651, paragraphs 18 and 19; Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, paragraph 39; and Unibet (cited in footnote 16), paragraph 37.
20 – Glej le sodbe z dne 15. maja 1986 v zadevi Johnston (222/84, Recueil, str. 1651, točki 18 in 19); z dne 25. julija 2002 v zadevi Unión de Pequeños Agricultores proti Svetu (C-50/00 P, Recueil, str.
As to the enshrinement of the right to effective judicial protection as a fundamental right, see Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (signed in Rome on 4 November 1950) and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000) (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1).
I-6677, točka 39) in Unibet (navedena v opombi 16, točka 37). Glede temeljnega zagotavljanja pravice do učinkovitega sodnega varstva glej člen 6 in člen 13 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin (podpisana 4. novembra 1950 v Rimu) ter člen 47(1) Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije (razgla�ena 7. decembra 2000 v Nici, UL C 364, str. 1).
18 — Unibet (cited in footnote 16), paragraph 38 in conjunction with paragraph 39.
I-5197, točka 35) in Köbler (navedena v opombi 16, točka 47).
IMPACT is no material difference between the rules governing jurisdiction and those governing procedure, as unfavourable procedural arrangements can be as much of an obstacle to an individual’s access to the domestic courts as unfavourable jurisdictional rules.
o pristojnosti in določbami o postopku: neugodna podrobnej�a ureditev postopkovnih pravil lahko namreč prav tako oteži dostop posameznika do nacionalnih sodi�č kot neugodna ureditev pristojnosti.
In that context, it is for the referring court — which alone has direct knowledge of the procedural rules governing actions under domestic law — to ascertain whether the principles of equivalence and effectiveness have been complied with in each particular case.
Pri tem mora predložitveno sodi�če, ki samo neposredno pozna podrobna postopkovna merila za tožbe na področju nacionalnega prava, preučiti, ali je v konkretnem posamičnem primeru zado�čeno načeloma enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti.
With a view to the appraisal to be carried out by the referring court, the Court of Justice can, however, provide the necessary guidance on the requirements of Community law. 23
Sodi�če pa lahko predložitvenemu sodi�ču za preizkus, ki ga bo to opravilo, posreduje potrebne napotke glede določb prava Skupnosti. 23
Both the rules on jurisdiction and the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding an individual’s rights under Community law must therefore be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence), and must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness). 22
Zato niti pristojnost niti podrobna postopkovna pravila za tožbe, ki naj zagotovijo varstvo pravic, ki jih ima posameznik na podlagi prava Skupnosti, ne smejo biti določena manj ugodno kot tista za ustrezne nacionalne tožbe (načelo enakovrednosti oziroma ekvivalence) in ne smejo praktično onemogočiti ali čezmerno otežiti uveljavljanja pravic, ki izvirajo iz pravnega reda Skupnosti (načelo učinkovitosti). 22
Those criteria of equivalence and effectiveness must be applied in order to ascertain whether it is compatible with Community law, in a case such as this, for the jurisdiction of the Irish labour courts (consisting of the Rights Commissioners and the Labour Court) to be declined in respect of claims based directly on Directive 1999/70 or the Framework Agreement and covering the period before 14 July 2003, and for the complainants to be directed instead to pursue their claims in proceedings before the ordinary Irish courts.
Na podlagi teh meril enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti je treba preučiti, ali bi bilo združljivo s pravom Skupnosti, če bi se v primeru, kot je obravnavani, zanikala pristojnost irskega delovnega sodstva (sestavljenega iz Rights Commissioners in Labour Court) glede zahtevkov za čas pred 14. julijem 2003, ki temeljijo neposredno na Direktivi 1999/70 oziroma na okvirnem sporazumu, in bi bili namesto tega pritožniki za njihovo
With regard to the principle of effectiveness, it is necessary, first, to ascertain whether the exercise of the complainants’ rights under Directive 1999/70 or the Framework Agreement would be rendered practically impossible or excessively difficult if — in respect of the period prior to 14 July 2003 — they were denied access to the Irish labour courts and instead directed to seek legal redress in the ordinary Irish courts.
Glede na načelo učinkovitosti je najprej treba preučiti, ali pritožnikom ne bi bilo praktično onemogočeno ali čezmerno oteženo uveljavljanje njihovih pravic, ki izvirajo iz Direktive 1999/70 oziroma iz okvirnega sporazuma, če bi se jim za čas pred 14. julijem 2003 onemogočil dostop do irskega delovnega sodstva in bi se jih namesto tega usmerilo na pravdni postopek pred rednimi irskimi sodi�či.
22 — As regards the detailed procedural rules, that is what the Court has consistently held.
23 – Sodbi z dne 1. decembra 1998 v zadevi Levez (C-326/96, Recueil, str.
See, by way of example, Rewe-Zentralfinanz, paragraph 5; Peterbroeck, paragraph 12; Courage and Crehan, paragraph 29; Unibet, paragraph 43; and Van der Weerd, paragraph 28 (all cited in footnote 16).
I-7835, točki 39 in 40) in z dne 16. maja 2000 v zadevi Preston in drugi (C-78/98, Recueil, str. I-3201, točki 49 in 50).
23 — Case C-326/96 Levez [1998] ECR I-7835, paragraphs 39 and 40, and Case C-78/98 Preston and Others [2000] ECR I-3201, paragraphs 49 and 50.
22 – To glede podrobnih postopkovnih pravil ustreza ustaljeni sodni praksi; glej le sodbe, navedene v opombi 16, Rewe-Zentralfinanz (točka 5), Peterbroeck (točka 12), Courage in Crehan (točka 29), Unibet (točka 43) in Van der Weerd (točka 28).
The present case is distinguished, however, by the fact that the complainants’ claims against their employer are based on Community law in respect of both the period before 14 July 2003 — in other words, before Directive 1999/70 was transposed into Irish law — and the period after that date.
Obravnavani primer pa je poseben zato, ker pritožniki zahtevke zoper delodajalca, utemeljene v pravu Skupnosti, uveljavljajo tako za čas pred 14. julijem 2003 – torej pred prenosom Direktive 1999/70 v irsko pravo – kot tudi za čas po tem.
The mere fact that certain claims cannot be brought before just any domestic court in a Member State but are reserved to a particu- lar court does not in itself offend against the principle of effectiveness.
Samo dejstvo, da v neki državi članici določenih zahtevkov ni mogoče uveljavljati pred vsemi nacionalnimi sodi�či, ker so pridržani določenemu sodstvu, samo po sebi �e ne utemeljuje kr�itve načela učinkovitosti.
A certain degree of specialisation within a judicial system can meet a legitimate need; it facilitates optimal efficiency in the organisation of the administration of justice and occurs in a great many variations in several Member States.
Nasprotno lahko določena specializacija znotraj nekega sodnega sistema ustreza legitimni potrebi; namenjena je čimbolj učinkoviti organizaciji pravosodja, kar v različnih oblikah poznajo �tevilne države članice.
Whilst the complainants’ claims in respect of the period before 14 July 2003 stem directly from the Directive or the Framework Agreement, they rely on the 2003 Act enacted to transpose the Directive so far as the period from 14 July 2003 is concerned.
Pritožniki sicer svoje zahtevke za čas pred 14. julijem 2003 izpeljujejo neposredno iz Direktive oziroma okvirnega sporazuma, medtem ko se za obdobje po 14. juliju 2003 opirajo na zakon iz leta 2003, ki je bil sprejet za prenos Direktive.
However, regardless of those formal distinctions as to the legal basis of their claim, they seek the same protection as fixedterm workers in respect of the period both before and after 14 July 2003, such protection ultimately being derived from Directive 1999/70.
Ne glede na ti formalno različni pravni podlagi pa tako za čas pred 14. julijem 2003 kot tudi za čas po tem zahtevajo isto varstvo kot delavci, zaposleni za določen čas, ki končno vselej temelji na Direktivi 1999/70.