natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The general principles of Community law do not, in a case such as this, appear to me necessarily to preclude section 6 of the 2003 Act from being interpreted in such a way as to have retroactive effect, at least not in a vertical legal relationship in which the principle of nondiscrimination is relied upon by an employee as against a publicsector employer.
Menim, da splošna načela prava Skupnosti v primeru, kot je obravnavani, ne govorijo nujno proti razlagi, ki dovoljuje retroaktivno veljavo člena 6 zakona iz leta 2003, vsaj ne v vertikalnem pravnem razmerju, v katerem se delavec sklicuje na načelo nediskriminacije nasproti delodajalcu v javnem sektorju.
The principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with directives requires national courts to do whatever lies within their jurisdiction, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that the relevant directive is fully effective and achieving an outcome
Pri tem načelo skladne razlage zahteva, naj nacionalna sodi�ča naredijo vse v svoji pristojnosti, upo�tevajoč pri tem celotno notranje pravo in ob uporabi načinov razlage, ki jih notranje pravo priznava, da bi zagotovila polni učinek konkretne direktive in
83 — Pfeiffer (cited in footnote 53), paragraphs 115, 116, 118 and 119, and Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 111.
83 – Sodbi Pfeiffer (navedena v opombi 53, točke 115, 116, 118 in 119) in Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točka 111); podobno že sodba z dne 13. novembra 1990 v zadevi Marleasing (C-106/89, Recueil, str.
Similarly, Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8, in which the Court emphasises that the national court ‘is required to [interpret the directive], as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive’.
I-4135, točka 8), v kateri Sodi�če poudarja, da se mora nacionalno sodi�če „pri razlagi, kolikor je mogoče, ravnati po besedilu in namenu direktive“.
81 — See above: points 45 to 84 and points 89 to 102 of this Opinion.
81 – Glej zgoraj točke od 45 do 84 in točke od 89 do 102 teh sklepnih predlogov.
85 — Case C-105/03 Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285, paragraphs 44 and 47, and Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 110.
82 – Glej le sodbe Von Colson in Kamann (navedena v opombi 73, točka 26); Pfeiffer (navedena v opombi 49, točka 113) in Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točka 108).
82 — See, by way of example, Von Colson and Kamann (cited in footnote 73), paragraph 26; Pfeiffer (cited in footnote 53), paragraph 113; and Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 108.
85 – Sodbi z dne 16. junija 2005 v zadevi Pupino (C-105/03, ZOdl., str. I-5285, točki 44 in 47) in Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točka 110).
Although, in terms of Community law, the principle of legal certainty generally precludes a measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise when a purpose that is in the public interest so demands and when the legitimate expectations of the persons concerned are duly respected.
Načelo pravne varnosti iz vidika prava Skupnosti na splo�no sicer nasprotuje temu, da bi bila časovna veljavnost akta v izhodi�ču določena na dan, preden je objavljen; izjemoma pa je to lahko drugače, če to zahteva cilj, ki je v splo�nem interesu, in če je zagotovljeno dolžno spo�tovanje legitimnih pričakovanj prizadetih.
86A case such as the present could be regarded as such an exception.
86Za tak�no izjemo bi lahko �lo v primeru, kot je obravnavani.
Nevertheless, there is no need in the present case to reach any conclusion as to whether the retroactive application of national transposing legislation may in some circumstances be appropriate under Community law, or whether general principles of law preclude it, since, in any event, a national court cannot be compelled by the principle of interpretation in conformity with directives to apply its domestic law retroactively contra legem.
Vendar pa v obravnavanem primeru ni treba dokončno ugotoviti, ali pravo Skupnosti po potrebi lahko določa retroaktivno uporabo nacionalnega zakona o prenosu in ali temu nasprotujejo splo�na pravna načela. Kajti načelo skladne razlage vsekakor ne more prisiliti nacionalnega sodi�ča, da svoje nacionalno pravo uporabi contra legem za nazaj.
First, the transposition of a direct- ive into domestic law within the period prescribed undoubtedly constitutes a purpose that is in the public interest.
Po eni strani je namreč pravočasni prenos direktive v nacionalno pravo nedvomno cilj, ki je v splo�nem interesu.
Second, public authorities could hardly invoke the principle of protection of legitimate expect -ations in a case such as this.
Po drugi strani bi se javni organi v primeru, kot je obravnavani, le težko sklicevali na načelo varstva legitimnega pričakovanja.
Any expect -ation on their part that the earlier domestic law would be maintained cannot qualify for protection, given that the Member State concerned was under an obligation to ensure that its domestic law conformed to Community law at the latest by the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70.
Njihovega morebitnega pričakovanja, da bo prej�nje nacionalno pravno stanje veljalo naprej, ni mogoče varovati, ko pa bi morala zadevna država članica svoje nacionalno pravo najpozneje do poteka roka za prenos Direktive 1999/70 prilagoditi pravu Skupnosti.
In the present case, the Labour Court refers to a ‘strong presumption’ in Irish law against legislation having retroactive effect.
Labour Court v obravnavanem primeru opozarja na „močno domnevo“ zoper možnost retroaktivne veljave zakonov, ki jo vsebuje irsko pravo. To domnevo naj bi
As it was thus foreseeable by public employers that the law would be amended — in this case, by the introduction of the principle of nondiscrimination as required
88 – Oseba, ki je očitno kr�ila veljavno zakonodajo, ne more uveljavljati načela varstva legitimnih pričakovanj (sodba z dne 14. julija 2005 v združenih zadevah ThyssenKrupp proti Komisiji, C-65/02 P in C-73/02 P, ZOdl., str. I-6773, točka 41).
87 — See, to that effect (in relation to traders), Case C-342/03 Spain v Council [2005] ECR I-1975, paragraph 48.
86 – Sodba z dne 26. aprila 2005 v zadevi „Goed Wonen“ (C-376/02, ZOdl., str.
86 — C-376/02 ‘Goed Wonen’ [2005] ECR I-3445, paragraph 33; similarly, in relation to substantive rules, Joined Cases 212/80 to 217/80 Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Salumi [1981] ECR 2735, paragraphs 9 and 10 and settled case-law.
I-3445, točka 33); v istem smislu že, kar zadeva materialnopravne predpise, sodba z dne 12. novembra 1981 v združenih zadevah Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato proti Salumi (od 212/80 do 217/80, Recueil, str.
In Case 80/87 Dik [1988] ECR 1601, paragraph 15, the Court expressly confirms that the national legislature may transpose a directive with retroactive effect.
2735, točki 9 in 10) in ustaljena sodna praksa. Sodi�če je v sodbi z dne 8. marca 1988 v zadevi Dik (80/87, Recueil, str.
88 — The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations may not be relied upon by an undertaking which has committed a manifest infringement of the rules in force (Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P ThyssenKrupp v Commission [2005] ECR I-6773, paragraph 41).
1601, točka 15) izrecno potrdilo, da lahko nacionalni zakonodajalec pri prenosu direktive določi retroaktivno veljavo.
90 only by clear and unequivocal language in the provision itself or by clear and necessary implication from other provisions of the statute in question.
Besedilo člena 6 zakona iz leta 2003 naj sicer ne bi izrecno izključevalo razlage v smislu možne retroaktivne veljave.
Although the wording of section 6 of the 2003 Act does not contain any express provision to preclude a retroactive construction, there is no unequivocal basis for inferring it either.
Vendar pa naj tudi ne bi obstajale nobene nedvoumne oporne točke v prid taki retroaktivni veljavi.
Therefore, under the rules of construction established in Irish law, section 6 cannot be regarded as having retroactive effect.
Zato naj določbi v skladu s pravili razlage irskega prava ne bi bilo možno pripisati retroaktivne veljave.
Thus, if Irish law before 14 July 2003 contained a legal provision or even a general legal principle which, for example, prohibited conduct by an employer towards his employees that is discriminatory, abusive or in breach of public policy, the referring court would be obliged to interpret and apply that legal provision or principle in conformity with Directive 1999/70, having regard to the wording and purpose of that directive, 91and, in doing so, to give due consideration in particular to the principle of nondiscrimination against fixedterm employees that is at issue in this case (Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixedterm work).
Če je torej irsko pravo pred 14. julijem 2003 poznalo predpis ali tudi samo splo�no načelo, po katerem je na primer prepovedano ravnanje delodajalca zoper svoje delavce, ki je diskriminatorno, ki pomeni zlorabo ali ki je nemoralno, bi bilo predložitveno sodi�če dolžno ta predpis ali to načelo ob upo�tevanju besedila in namena Direktive 1999/70 razlagati in uporabiti v skladu z direktivo 91in pri tem zlasti primerno upo�tevati v tem primeru zadevno načelo nediskriminacije delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas (določba 4(1) okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas).
89 If that is so, the Labour Court cannot be required by Community law to establish the retroactivity of the 2003 Act by way of interpretation in conformity with directives.
Če to drži, potem to sodi�če tudi ne more biti na podlagi prava Skupnosti dolžno, da tak�no retroaktivno veljavo določi s pomočjo razlage, ki je v skladu z direktivo.
If, on the other hand, the result prescribed by Directive 1999/70 cannot be achieved by way of interpretation, Community law requires the Member States to make good any damage that may have been caused to individuals through failure to transpose that directive, in accordance with Francovich and subject to the conditions laid down in that case. 92
Če pa nasprotno cilja, ki ga določa Direktiva 1999/70, ni mogoče doseči s pomočjo razlage, pravo Skupnosti v skladu s sodbo Francovich in pod pogoji, ki so v njej določeni, nalaga državam članicam, naj povrnejo morebitno �kodo, ki so jo povzročile posameznikom zaradi neprenosa te direktive. 92
In addition, however, it should be borne in mind that the obligation resting on national courts to interpret legislation in conformity with directives is not confined to the legislation transposing the particular directive in question but encompasses all
Spomniti pa je treba �e na to, da obveznost nacionalnega sodi�ča glede razlage, ki je v skladu z direktivo, ni omejena na zakon o prenosu konkretne direktive, ampak se razteza na celotno nacionalno pravo in tako obsega tudi že prej obstoječe nacionalno pravo. 90
89 — According to additional information given by the respondents at the hearing before the Court of Justice, the retroactive application of the 2003 Act was the subject of debate in the Irish Parliament and was consciously rejected by the legislature.
89 – V skladu z dopolnjenimi navedbami toženih irskih ministrstev na ustni obravnavi pred Sodi�čem je bila retroaktivna uporaba zakona iz leta 2003 predmet razprave v irskem parlamentu in jo je zakonodajalec zavestno zavrgel.
See also point 121 of this Opinion together with the caselaw cited in footnote 75.
I-3325, točka 27) in Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točka 112); glej tudi že točko 121 teh sklepnih predlogov in sodno prakso, navedeno v opombi 75.
To summarise, therefore:
Skupno torej velja:
This highly contentious question is referred only in the event that Question 1 or Question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative.
To zelo sporno vpra�anje je zastavljeno le za primer, da je odgovor na prvo ali na četrto vpra�anje pritrdilen. Glede na moj predlog odgovora na prvo vpra�anje, 93je peto vpra�anje treba obravnavati.
Community law does not give rise to any obligation on a national court to interpret national legislation transposing a directive (where such legislation has been brought into force out of time) as having retroactive effect to the date by which that directive should have been transposed, if such an interpretation would be contra legem under the provisions of national law.
Pravo Skupnosti ne določa obveznosti nacionalnega sodi�ča, da prepozno sprejet nacionalni zakon o prenosu neke direktive razlaga tako, da učinkuje za nazaj od dneva poteka roka za prenos te direktive, če bi bila tak�na razlaga v skladu s pravili nacionalnega prava contra legem.
Not only IMPACT and the Commission, but also the referring court take the view that the employment conditions referred to in the Framework Agreement also cover pay and pensions.
Ne samo IMPACT in Komisija, ampak tudi predložitveno sodi�če menijo, da pogoji zaposlitve v smislu okvirnega sporazuma obsegajo tudi osebne prejemke in pokojnine.
By contrast, the respondents and, in particular, the United Kingdom Government emphatically take the diametrically opposed view, as, incidentally, Advocate General Poiares Maduro did also in his Opinion in Del Cerro Alonso a year ago. 94
Nasprotno pa tožena irska ministrstva in predvsem vlada Združenega kraljestva s posebnim poudarkom zastopajo diametralno nasprotno stali�če, kot je to sicer pred kratkim storil tudi generalni pravobranilec Poiares Maduro pred enim letom v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Del Cerro Alonso. 94
The obligation of the national court to interpret in conformity with directives other domestic legislation in force on the date on which the relevant directive should have been transposed is unaffected, as is the obligation of the Member State concerned to make good any damage that may have been caused to individuals through failure to transpose that directive.
To ne vpliva na obveznost nacionalnega sodi�ča, da preostalo nacionalno pravo, ki obstaja v trenutku poteka roka za prenos zadevne direktive, razlaga v skladu z Direktivo, ter na obveznost konkretne države članice, da posameznikom povrne morebitno �kodo, ki jim je nastala zaradi neprenosa te direktive.
E — Question 5: Applicability of Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement to matters of remuneration and pensions
E – Peto vprašanje: možnost uporabe določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma pri sestavnih elementih osebnih prejemkov in pokojnin
Essentially, there are two matters in dispute. First, there is no agreement as to how the term ‘employment conditions’ should be interpreted, including by comparison with other employment and social Community directives.
V bistvu sta sporni dve stvari: po eni strani obstaja nesoglasje glede tega, kako je treba razumeti sam pojem pogojev zaposlitve, tudi v primerjavi z drugimi delovno- in socialnopravnimi direktivami Skupnosti.
Second, there is a difference of opinion as to the scope of the legal basis of Directive 1999/70 in view of the fact that
Po drugi strani obstajajo različna mnenja glede dosega pravne podlage Direktive 1999/70,
93 — See points 45 to 84 of this Opinion.
93 – Glej zgoraj točke od 45 do 84 teh sklepnih predlogov.
94 — Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 10 January 2007 in Del Cerro Alonso (cited in footnote 3), points 16 to 25.
94 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Poiaresa Madura z dne 10. januarja 2007 v zadevi Del Cerro Alonso (sodba navedena v opombi 3, točke od 16 do 25).
By its fifth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the ‘employment conditions’ referred to in Clause 4 of the
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s petim vpra�anjem v bistvu izvedeti, ali spadajo k pogojem zaposlitve v smislu določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma tudi pogoji pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki zadevajo osebne prejemke in pokojnine.
Article 139(2) EC permits Council decisions on the implementation of framework agreements only in relation to the matters covered by Article 137 EC, which, however, expressly exclude pay (see Article 137(5) EC).
spričo okoli�čine, da člen 139(2) ES dovoljuje sklepe Sveta za izvajanje okvirnih sporazumov le v zadevah iz člena 137 ES, h katerim pa plače izrecno ne spadajo (glej člen 137(5) ES).
I shall deal with both aspects in detail below.
Oba vidika bom v nadaljevanju obravnavala posamično.
The term ‘employment conditions’
Pojem pogojev zaposlitve
The term ‘employment conditions’, as it is used in connection with the principle of nondiscrimination in Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixedterm work, neither expressly includes nor excludes payments such as the remuneration and pensions at issue in this case.
Pojem pogojev zaposlitve, kot se uporablja v povezavi z načelom nediskriminacije v določbi 4 okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas, niti izrecno ne vključuje niti ne izključuje denarnih dajatev, kot so zadevni osebni prejemki in pokojnine v obravnavanem primeru.
The earlier caselaw relating to equal treatment of men and women, according to which the term ‘working conditions’ in Dir -ective 76/207 — prior to its amendment by Directive 2002/73 — did not extend to pay, 96cannot simply be applied to the present case either, since it is explained primarily by the existence of Directive 75/117/EEC, 97 which contained special provisions for the equal treatment of men and women as regards pay, 98and the scope of which was distinct from that of Directive 76/207.
Tudi prej�nje sodne prakse, ki se nana�a na enako obravnavanje mo�kih in žensk, v skladu s katero se pojem delovnih pogojev iz Direktive 76/207 – preden je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/73 – ni raz�iril na plače, 96 ni mogoče brez nadaljnjega prenesti na obravnavani primer. Kajti ta sodna praksa je pretežno utemeljena v obstoju Direktive 75/117/EGS, 97ki je v zvezi s plačami vsebovala posebno ureditev glede enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk 98in področje uporabe katere je bilo treba razmejiti od tistega Direktive 76/207.
By contrast, there is no difficulty in the present case of demarcating the scope of application of one legal measure from that of another existing in parallel.
Nasprotno pa v obravnavanem primeru ne obstaja noben tak�en problem razmejitve z vzporedno obstoječim predpisom.
In a number of measures of recent employment and social legislation, the Community legislature explicitly stated that the term ‘employment conditions’ used in those measures includes pay.
Normodajalec Skupnosti je v nekaterih novej�ih delovno in socialnopravnih predpisih izrecno poudaril, da tam uporabljeni pojem pogojev zaposlitve vključuje plače.
97 — Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19).
97 – Direktiva Sveta 75/117/EGS z dne 10. februarja 1975 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z uporabo načela enakega plačila za mo�ke in ženske (UL L 45, str. 19).
98 — See also the second recital in the preamble to Directive 76/207, to which express reference is made in the judgments cited in footnote 96.
98 – Glej tudi drugi uvodno izjavo Direktive 76/207, na katero se izrecno sklicujejo sodbe, navedene v opombi 96.
Since the amendment of Directive 76/207 by Directive 2002/73, Directive 75/117 is not so much a special provision as a provision to which Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 76/207 refers in order to define the meaning of pay further.
Odkar je bila Direktiva 76/207 spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/73, Direktiva 75/117 ni več toliko posebna ureditev kot bolj predpis, na katerega napotuje člen 3(1)(c) Direktive 76/207 zaradi podrobnej�e določitve pojma plačila.
95 — See Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p.
95 – Glej člen 3(1)(c) Direktive Sveta 2000/43/ES z dne 29. junija 2000 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost (UL L 180, str.
22), Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p.
22), člen 3(1)(c) Direktive Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splo�nih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu (UL L 303, str.
16), and Article 3(1)(c) 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 (OJ 1976 L 39, p.
16) in člen 3(1)(c) 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 (UL L 39, str.
40), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).
40), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/73/ES (UL L 269, str. 15).
Fundamental Social Rights for Workers 103and the European Social Charter. 104
103 in o temeljnih socialnih pravicah delavcevv Evropski socialni listini. 104
The term ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixedterm work requires interpretation.
Pojem pogojev zaposlitve v smislu določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas je treba razložiti.
According to settled caselaw, it is necessary to consider not only the wording of that provision but also the context in which it occurs and the objects of the rules of which it is part. 99
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba pri tem upo�tevati ne le besedilo te določbe, ampak tudi sobesedilo, v katero je ume�čena, in cilje, ki jih zasleduje ureditev, katere del je. 99
In light of the setting of those sociopolitical objectives, the prohibition of discrimination against fixedterm workers is among the principles of Community social law which may not be narrowly interpreted.
V luči teh socialno-političnih ciljev spada prepoved diskriminacije delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas, k temeljnim načelom socialnega prava Skupnosti, ki se ne smejo razlagati ozko.
105That in itself would suggest that financial matters such as pay and pensions cannot be categorically excluded from the scope of the prohibition of discrimination.
105Že to govori proti brezpogojni izključitvi finančnih vidikov, kot so osebni prejemki in pokojnine iz področja uporabe prepovedi diskriminacije.
The practical value of the prohibition of discrimination in working life would be considerably reduced also, if the prohibition applied only to employment conditions that are unrelated to pay. Thus, although it may
Tudi dejanska vrednost prepovedi diskriminacije v delovnem vsakdanu bi bila občutno okrnjena, če bi se ta prepoved nana�ala le na take pogoje zaposlitve, ki nimajo
According to Clause 1(a) of the Framework Agreement, the purpose of that Agreement is to improve the quality of fixedterm work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination.
Namen okvirnega sporazuma je v skladu z njegovo določbo 1(a) izbolj�ati kakovost dela za določen čas z zagotavljanjem uporabe načela nediskriminacije.
100 Fundamental social policy objectives of the Community are thereby expressed, such as are laid down in particular in the first paragraph of Article 136 EC, especially the improvement of living and working conditions and ensuring proper social protection.
100 V tem se izražajo temeljni cilji socialne politike Skupnosti, kot so zlasti določeni v členu 136(1) ES, predvsem izbolj�anje življenjskih razmer in delovnih pogojev ter omogočanje ustrezne socialne za�čite.
The same objectives are alluded to also in the preambles to the EU Treaty 101and to the EC Treaty, 102 and in the Community Charter of
Isti cilji so poudarjeni že v preambuli Pogodbe EU 101 in Pogodbe ES, 102 prav tako v Listini Skupnosti
99 — Case C-17/03 VEMW and Others [2005] ECR I-4983, paragraph 41, and Case C-76/06 P Britannia Alloys & Chemicals v Commission [2007] ECR I-4405, paragraph 21. 100 — See also recital (14) in the preamble to Directive 1999/70 and the third paragraph in the preamble to the Framework Agreement.
I-4983, točka 41) in z dne 7. junija 2007 v zadevi Britannia Alloys & Chemicals proti Komisiji (C-76/06 P, ZOdl., str. I-4405, točka 21). 100 – Glej tudi 14. uvodno izjavo Direktive 1999/70 ter tretji odstavek preambule okvirnega sporazuma.