natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
An air hostess brought an action against her employer on the grounds of discrimination in the pay she received compared with her male colleagues who did the same work.
Neka stevardesa je vložila tožbo proti delodajalcu iz razloga diskriminacije pri plačilu, ki ga je prejemala, glede na plačilo, ki so ga prejemali njeni sodelavci moškega spola, ki so opravljali enako delo.
On a reference from a Belgian court, the Court held in 1976 that the Treaty rule requiring equal pay for men and women for equal work had direct effect (Defrenne).
Na podlagi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje belgijskega sodišča je Sodišče leta 1976 odločilo, da ima določba Pogodbe, ki opredeljuje načelo enakega plačila za enako delo za moške in ženske, neposredni učinek (sodba v zadevi Defrenne).
In its interpretation of the Community rules on equal treatment for men and women, the Court has played a part in protecting women against dismissal linked to pregnancy.
Pri razlagi določb Skupnosti o enakem obravnavanju moških in žensk je Sodišče prispevalo k varstvu žensk pri odpuščanju zaradi materinstva.
A woman who was unable to continue work because of difficulties connected with her pregnancy was dismissed.
Neka ženska je bila odpuščena zato, ker zaradi težav z nosečnostjo ni mogla več delati.
In 1998, the Court held that that dismissal was contrary to Community law.
Leta 1998 se je Sodišče izreklo, da je tako odpuščanje v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
Dismissal of a woman during pregnancy for absences linked to pregnancy-related illness is unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex (Brown).
Odpustitev ženske med nosečnostjo iz razloga odsotnosti zaradi bolezni, ki je povezana s samo nosečnostjo, pomeni prepovedano diskriminacijo na podlagi spola (sodba v zadevi Brown).
In order to ensure the protection of the health and safety of workers, workers must have paid annual leave.
Da bi se zagotovilo varovanje varnosti in zdravja delavcev, je nujno, da imajo delavci plačan letni dopust.
In 1999, BECTU, a British trade union, challenged United Kingdom legislation which denied that right to workers on short-term contracts on the ground that it was incompatible with a Community directive on the organisation of working time.
Leta 1999 je britanski sindikat BECTU izpodbijal britansko ureditev, ki je to pravico odvzela delavcem, ki so bili zaposleni na podlagi pogodbe o zaposlitvi za kratek določen čas, iz razloga, ker ni bila v skladu z direktivo Skupnosti o urejanju delovnega časa.
The Court held (BECTU, 2001) that the right to paid annual leave is a social right directly conferred on every worker by Community law and that no worker may be denied that right.
Sodišče je odločilo (sodba v zadevi BECTU, 2001), da je pravica do plačanega letnega dopusta socialna pravica, ki jo vsem delavcem neposredno daje pravo Skupnosti, in da je nobenemu delavcu ni mogoče odvzeti.
By holding that respect for fundamental rights is an integral part of the general principles of law it safeguards, the Court has made a considerable contribution to improving the standards of protection of those rights.
Sodišče je z odločitvijo, da je spoštovanje temeljnih pravic sestavni del splošnih pravnih načel, katerih spoštovanje zagotavlja, pomembno prispevalo k zvišanju standardov pri varovanju teh pravic.
In this respect, it looks to the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and to international treaties on the protection of human rights, on which the Member States have collaborated or which they have signed, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights.
Pri tem Sodišče črpa iz ustavnih tradicij, ki so skupne državam članicam, in iz mednarodnih instrumentov o varstvu človekovih pravic (zlasti iz evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah), pri katerih države članice sodelujejo ali so k njim pristopile.
After numerous terrorist attacks against the police, police officers in Northern Ireland began carrying fire-arms.
Po številnih terorističnih napadih na policiste so na Severnem Irskem pri policiji uvedli nošenje orožja.
However, on the grounds of public safety, women police officers were not authorised to carry fire-arms (on the basis of a certificate issued by the competent minister which could not be challenged before the courts).
Vendar zaradi javne varnosti ženske članice policije orožja niso smele nositi (na podlagi mnenja pristojnega ministrstva, zoper katerega ni bilo sodnega varstva).
As a result, full-time contracts in the Northern Ireland police were no longer offered to women.
V severnoirski policiji od takrat z nobeno žensko niso več sklenili pogodbe o zaposlitvi za polni delovni čas.
On a reference from a United Kingdom court, the Court held that excluding any power of review by the courts of a certificate issued by a national authority runs counter to the principle of effective judicial control which may be relied upon by all persons who consider themselves wronged by discrimination on grounds of sex (Johnston, 1986).
Na podlagi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje sodišča iz Združenega kraljestva je Sodišče odločilo, da je izključitev sodnega nadzora nad mnenjem nacionalnega organa v nasprotju z načelom učinkovitega pravnega sredstva, ki je zagotovljeno vsaki osebi, ki meni, da je bila oškodovana zaradi diskriminacije na podlagi spola (sodba v zadevi Johnston, 1986).
In respect of European citizenship, which the Treaty establishes for every Member State national, the Court has stated that such citizenship entails the right to reside in another Member State.
Sodišče je glede evropskega državljanstva, ki v skladu s Pogodbo pripada vsakemu državljanu držav članic, potrdilo, da to vsebuje pravico do prebivanja na ozemlju druge države članice.
Accordingly, a minor who is a Member State national, is covered by sickness insurance and has available to him or her sufficient resources also has that right to reside.
Tako pravico do prebivanja ima tudi mladoletni državljan neke države članice, ki ima zdravstveno zavarovanje in zadostna sredstva.
The Court noted that Community law does not require the child itself to have the necessary resources and that refusal to grant at the same time to its mother, who is a third-country national, a right to reside would render redundant the child’s right to reside (Zhu and Chen, 2004).
Sodišče je poudarilo, da pravo Skupnosti od mladoletnikov ne zahteva, da bi imeli sami potrebna sredstva, in da sočasna zavrnitev dodelitve pravice do prebivanja materi, ki je državljanka tretje države, popolnoma odvzame koristen učinek pravice do prebivanja njenega otroka (sodba v zadevi Zhu in Chen, 2004).
In the same judgment the Court stated that, even where the purpose of acquiring the nationality of a Member State is to obtain for a third-country national a right of residence pursuant to Community law, it is not permissible for a Member State to restrict the effects of the grant of the nationality of another Member State.
V tej sodbi je Sodišče opredelilo, da država članica, tudi če je cilj pridobitve državljanstva neke države članice dodelitev pravice do prebivanja na podlagi prava Skupnosti državljanu tretje države, ne sme omejiti učinkov pridobitve državljanstva druge države članice.
Court of Justice of the European Communities: www.curia.eu.int Judgments of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance: www.curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm Press releases: www.curia.eu.int/en/actu/communiques/index.htm Portal of the European Union’s institutions: www.europa.eu.int Community legislation (EUR-Lex): www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/ www.curia.eu.int
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti: www.curia.eu.int Sodbe Sodišča in Sodišča prve stopnje: www.curia.eu.int/sl/content/juris/index.htm Sporočila za javnost: www.curia.eu.int/sl/actu/communiques/index.htm Portal Evropske unije: www.europa.eu.int Zakonodaja Evropske unije (EUR-Lex): www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/ www.curia.eu.int
The Court of Justice: case-law ph509826EN_BT.indd 4
Sodišče: njegova sodna praksa ph509826SL_BT.indd 4
THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IN THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER p
SODIŠČE EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI V PRAVNEM REDU SKUPNOSTI p
For the purpose of European construction, the Member States (now 25 in number) concluded treaties creating first the European Communities and then a European Union, with institutions which adopt laws in specific areas.
Države članice (danes jih je 25) so z namenom, da bi zgradile Evropo, sklenile pogodbe, ki ustanavljajo Evropske skupnosti in pozneje Evropsko unijo ter njihove institucije, ki sprejemajo pravne predpise na določenih področjih.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities is the judicial institution of the Community.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je sodni organ Skupnosti.
It is made up of three courts: the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal.
Sestavljajo ga tri sodišča: Sodišče, Sodišče prve stopnje in Sodišče za uslužbence.
Their main task is to examine the legality of Community measures and ensure the uniform interpretation and application of Community law.
Njihovi glavni nalogi sta nadzor nad zakonitostjo aktov Skupnosti in zagotavljanje enotne razlage in uporabe prava Skupnosti.
Through its case-law, the Court of Justice has identified an obligation on administrations and national courts to apply Community law in full within their sphere of competence and to protect the rights conferred on citizens by that law (direct application of Community law), and to disapply any conflicting national provision, whether prior or subsequent to the Community provision (primacy of Community law over national law).
Sodišče je s sodno prakso upravnim organom in nacionalnim sodiščem naložilo obveznost, da v okviru svojih pristojnosti v celoti uporabljajo pravo Skupnosti in da varujejo pravice, ki jih pravo Skupnosti daje državljanom (neposredna uporaba prava Skupnosti), ter da ne uporabijo določb nacionalnega prava, ki so v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, ne glede na to, ali so bile sprejete pred sprejetjem ustrezne norme Skupnosti ali po njem (primarnost prava Skupnosti nad nacionalnim pravom).
The Court has also recognised the principle of the liability of Member States for breach of Community law which, first, plays an important part in consolidating the protection of the rights conferred on individuals by Community provisions and, secondly, may contribute to more diligent application of Community provisions by Member States.
Sodišče je priznalo načelo odgovornosti držav članic za kršitev prava Skupnosti, ki pomeni na eni strani dejavnik, ki občutno izboljšuje varstvo pravic, ki jih norme Skupnosti dajejo posameznikom, in na drugi strani dejavnik, ki lahko prispeva k temu, da bi države članice vestneje izvajale norme Skupnosti.
Infringements committed by Member States are thus likely to give rise to obligations to pay compensation which may, in some cases, have serious repercussions on their public funds.
Kršitve držav članic lahko pripeljejo do odškodninskih obveznosti, ki imajo lahko v določenih primerih resne posledice za njihove javne finance.
Moreover, any breach of Community law by a Member State may be brought before the Court and, where a judgment finding such an infringement is not complied with, the Court can order payment of a periodic penalty and/or a fixed sum.
Poleg tega se vsaka neizpolnitev države članice, ki se nanaša na obveznosti, ki jih določa pravo Skupnosti, lahko predloži v ugotavljanje Sodišču, ki lahko državi članici, če ne izvrši sodbe, s katero je bila zadevna neizpolnitev ugotovljena, izreče denarno kazen in/ali plačilo povprečnine.
The Court of Justice also works in conjunction with the national courts, which are the ordinary courts applying Community law.
Sodišče opravlja naloge tudi tako, da sodeluje z nacionalnimi sodišči, ki so splošno pristojna na področju prava Skupnosti.
Any national court or tribunal which is called upon to decide a dispute involving Community law may, and sometimes must, submit questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Vsako nacionalno sodišče, ki odloča o sporu, ki zadeva pravo Skupnosti, lahko Sodišču postavi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje, včasih mu jih celo mora.
The Court must then give an interpretation or review the legality of a rule of Community law.
Takrat je Sodišče dolžno podati razlago katere od določb prava Skupnosti ali opraviti nadzor nad njeno zakonitostjo.
The development of its case-law illustrates the Court’s contribution to creating a legal environment for European citizens by protecting the rights which Community legislation confers on them in various areas of their daily life.
Razvoj sodne prakse Sodišča kaže na njegov prispevek k ustvarjanju takega pravnega prostora, ki državljane zadeva tako, da varuje njihove pravice, ki jim jih zakonodaja Skupnosti daje na različnih področjih njihovega vsakdanjega življenja.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY CASELAW p
TEMELJNA NAČELA, KI JIH JE POSTAVILA SODNA PRAKSA p
In its case-law (starting with Van Gend & Loos in 1963), the Court has introduced the principle of the direct effect of Community law in the Member States, which enables European citizens to rely directly on Community provisions before their national courts. The transport company Van Gend & Loos had imported goods from Germany to the Netherlands and had to pay customs duties which it considered to be incompatible with the rule in the EEC Treaty prohibiting increases in customs duties in trade between Member States. The action raised the question of the conflict between national legislation and the provisions of the EEC Treaty. The Court decided the question referred by a Netherlands court by stating the doctrine of direct effect, thus conferring on the transport company a direct guarantee of its rights under Community law before the national court. p
V nizu primerov (najprej s sodbo v zadevi Van Gend & Loos iz leta 1963) je Sodišče uvedlo načelo neposrednega učinka prava Skupnosti v državah članicah, ki evropskim državljanom omogoča, da se lahko pred nacionalnimi sodišči neposredno sklicujejo na pravo Skupnosti. Pri uvozu blaga iz Nemčije v Nizozemsko je moralo prevozno podjetje Van Gend & Loos plačati carino, ki je bila po mnenju tega podjetja v nasprotju z določbami Pogodbe EGS, ki državam članicam prepovedujejo zviševanje carin v njihovih medsebojnih trgovinskih odnosih. V tožbi se je pojavilo vprašanje nasprotja med nacionalno zakonodajo in določbami Pogodbe EGS. Sodišče je na podlagi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je prejelo od nizozemskega sodišča, sprejelo predhodno odločbo, s katero je potrdilo doktrino neposrednega učinka, ki prevoznemu podjetju pred nacionalnim sodiščem neposredno zagotavlja spoštovanje njegovih pravic, ki jih določa pravo Skupnosti. p
In 1964, the Costa judgment established the primacy of Community law over domestic law.
Leta 1964 je sodba v zadevi Costa vzpostavila primarnost prava Skupnosti pred notranjo zakonodajo.
In that case, an Italian court had asked the Court of Justice whether the Italian law on nationalisation of the production and distribution of electrical energy was compatible with certain rules in the EEC Treaty.
V tej zadevi je italijansko sodišče Sodišču postavilo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje o tem, ali je bil italijanski zakon o nacionalizaciji sektorja proizvodnje in distribucije električne energije v skladu z določenimi določbami Pogodbe EGS.
The Court introduced the doctrine of the primacy of Community law, basing it on the specific nature of the Community legal order, which is to be uniformly applied in all the Member States.
Sodišče je uvedlo doktrino primarnosti prava Skupnosti, ki jo je utemeljilo s posebnostjo pravnega reda Skupnosti, ki se mora v vseh državah članicah enotno uporabljati.
In 1991, in Francovich and Others, the Court developed another fundamental concept, the liability of a Member State to individuals for damage caused to them by an infringement of Community law by that State.
Sodišče je leta 1991 s sodbo v zadevi Francovich in drugi razvilo še en temeljni pojem, in sicer odgovornost države članice v razmerju do posameznika za škodo, ki mu je bila povzročena zato, ker je ta država kršila pravo Skupnosti.
Since 1991, European citizens have therefore been able to bring an action for damages against a State which infringes a Community rule.
Od leta 1991 lahko torej evropski državljani proti državi, ki krši pravo Skupnosti, vložijo odškodninski zahtevek.
Two Italian citizens who were owed pay by their insolvent employers had brought actions for a declaration that the Italian State had failed to transpose Community provisions protecting employees in the event of their employers’ insolvency.
Italijanska državljana, ki jima je delodajalec v stečaju dolgoval plačilo, sta sprožila postopek, v katerem sta se sklicevala na neizpolnitev obveznosti italijanske države, ki v notranje pravo ni prenesla določb Skupnosti o varstvu delavcev ob plačilni nesposobnosti delodajalca.
On a reference from an Italian court, the Court stated that the directive in question was designed to confer on individuals rights which they had been denied as a result of the failure to act of the State which had not implemented the directive. The Court thus opened up the possibility of an action for damages against the State itself.
Na podlagi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo italijansko sodišče, je Sodišče odločilo, da daje zadevna direktiva posameznikom pravice, ki jih niso bili deležni zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti države, ki direktive ni prenesla v notranje pravo, s čimer je Sodišče omogočilo vložitev odškodninskega zahtevka proti sami državi.
THE COURT IN THE LIFE OF EUROPEAN CITIZENS
SODIŠČE V ŽIVLJENJU EVROPSKEGA DRŽAVLJANA
Of the thousands of judgments given by the Court, the majority, particularly preliminary rulings, clearly have important consequences for the daily life of European citizens.
Med tisoči sodb Sodišča jih ima večina, zlasti tiste, ki jih izda na podlagi vprašanj za predhodno odločanje, zelo pomembne posledice za vsakdanje življenje evropskih državljanov.
Some of these judgments are cited below as examples from the most important areas of Community law.
Nekaj sodb na najpomembnejših področjih prava Skupnosti je za zglede navedenih v nadaljevanju.
Since the Cassis de Dijon judgment in 1979 on the principle of free movement of goods, traders can import into their country any product coming from another country within the Community, provided that it was lawfully manufactured and marketed there and that there is no overriding reason relating, for example, to the protection of health or the environment to prevent its importation into the country of consumption.
Od sodbe v zadevi Cassis de Dijon, ki je bila izdana leta 1979 na podlagi načela prostega pretoka blaga, lahko trgovci v svoje države uvažajo vse izdelke, ki izvirajo iz druge države Skupnosti — pod pogojem, da so bili v njej zakonito proizvedeni in trženi ter da v državi, v kateri naj bi se odvijala potrošnja, uvozu ne nasprotuje noben nujen razlog, na primer varstvo zdravja ali okolja.
Many judgments have been given in the field of freedom of movement of persons.
Številne sodbe so bile izdane na področju prostega pretoka oseb.
In the judgment in Kraus (1993), the Court held that the situation of a Community national who holds a postgraduate academic title, which was awarded in another Member State and facilitates access to a profession or the pursuit of an economic activity, is governed by Community law, even as regards the relations between that national and his Member State of origin.
S sodbo v zadevi Kraus (1993) je Sodišče potrdilo, da položaj državljana Skupnosti z univerzitetnim nazivom podiplomskega študija, pridobljenim v drugi državi članici, ki omogoča opravljanje nekega poklica ali neke gospodarske dejavnosti, ureja pravo Skupnosti, in sicer tudi glede razmerja tega državljana do države, katere državljan je.
Accordingly, if a Member State can make use of that title in its territory subject to an administrative authorisation, the authorisation procedure must be intended solely to verify whether the title was properly awarded.
Država članica lahko torej za uporabo tega naziva na svojem ozemlju zahteva pridobitev upravnega dovoljenja, vendar je namen postopka za izdajo tega dovoljenja lahko zgolj preverjanje, ali je bil naziv zakonito pridobljen.
One of the most well-known cases in this field is Bosman (1995), in which the Court gave a ruling on a reference from a Belgian court on the compatibility of rules of football federations with freedom of movement of workers.
Med sodbami, ki so bile izdane na tem področju, je med najbolj znanimi sodba v zadevi Bosman (1995), ki jo je Sodišče izdalo na podlagi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo belgijsko sodišče glede skladnosti predpisov nogometnih zvez s prostim pretokom delavcev.
It stated that professional sport is an economic activity whose exercise may not be hindered by rules governing the transfer of players or restricting the number of players who are nationals of other Member States.
Navedlo je, da je šport, ki se opravlja kot poklic, gospodarska dejavnost in da njenega opravljanja ne smejo ovirati predpisi, ki urejajo prehod igralcev ali ki omejujejo število igralcev, ki so državljani drugih držav članic.
That principle was extended in subsequent judgments to the situation of professional sportsmen from third countries which had entered into an association agreement (Deutscher Handballbund, 2003) or a partnership agreement (Simutenkov, 2005) with the European Communities.
To drugo stališče je bilo s poznejšimi sodbami razširjeno na položaj poklicnih športnikov iz tretjih držav, ki so z Evropskimi skupnostmi ustanovile združenje (sodba v zadevi Deutscher Handballbund, 2003) ali sklenile partnerstvo (sodba v zadevi Simutenkov, 2005).
A judgment of 1989 on freedom to provide services concerned a British tourist who was assaulted and seriously injured in the Paris metro.
Sodba iz leta 1989 o prostem pretoku storitev se nanaša na britanskega turista, ki so ga v pariški podzemni železnici napadli in hudo ranili.
On a reference from a French court, the Court held that, as a tourist, he was the recipient of services outside his country and was covered by the Community law principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.
Na podlagi vprašanja za predhodno odločanje francoskega sodišča je Sodišče odločilo, da je bil ta kot turist upravičen do storitev zunaj svoje države in da zanj velja načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, ki ga opredeljuje pravo Skupnosti.
He was therefore entitled to the same compensation as a French national could claim (Cowan).
Britanski turist je imel zato pravico do enake odškodnine, kot bi jo lahko zahteval francoski državljan (sodba v zadevi Cowan).
In cases referred by the Luxembourg courts, the Court declared that national provisions having the effect that an insured person cannot obtain reimbursement of the cost of dental treatment on the ground that it was given in another Member State constitute an unjustified restriction on freedom to provide services (Kohll, 1998), and that refusal to reimburse costs related to the purchase of spectacles abroad is regarded as an unjustified restriction on free movement of goods (Decker, 1998).
O vprašanju za predhodno odločanje luksemburškega sodišča se je Sodišče izreklo, da nacionalna zakonodaja, ki omogoča, da se zavarovancu zavrne povrnitev stroškov zobozdravstvene oskrbe iz razloga, ker so nastali v drugi državi članici, neupravičeno ovira prosti pretok storitev (sodba v zadevi Kohll, 1998) in da je zavrnitev povrnitve stroškov, nastalih zaradi nakupa očal v tujini, neupravičeno oviranje prostega pretoka blaga (sodba v zadevi Decker, 1998).
Special forms of procedure p
Posebni postopki p