natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that way, the relationship between the principles and directives would create a climate more likely to guarantee legal certainty and more in keeping with the institutional equilibrium underlying a system of sources such as the Community one. 16
Tako naj bi odnos med splo�nimi načeli in direktivami zagotavljal več pravne varnosti in bolje upo�teval institucionalno ravnotežje sistema virov, kot je sistem Skupnosti. 16
I believe that the Court should be very cautious when applying directives and general principles of law simultaneously.
Menim, da mora Sodi�če izkazati veliko previdnosti pri hkratni uporabi direktiv in splo�nih pravnih načel.
Indeed, their coexistence would be of more use to the Court if it were argued that directives, once they have become part of the legal system, must be interpreted in such a way that they complement the general principles but the two are not placed on an equal footing, because if, following the adoption of a directive, the principles were to govern
Njihov soobstoj naj bi bil dejansko produktivnej�i za pravnike, če bi trdili, da se direktive, ko so enkrat uvedene v pravni red, dodatno razlagajo s splo�nimi načeli, ne da bi jim bile enakovredne; če bi se po sprejetju neke direktive določeni vidiki,
In those circumstances, the question referred by the Landesgericht Bozen calls for an assessment of whether the uncertainties raised may be resolved using Community legislation, in which case the general principles would be used exclusively as tools for interpreting the directives. However, if there are no applicable directives, the general principles of Community law would come into play as autonomous rules of law.
Za odgovor na vpra�anje Landesgericht Bozen je treba v teh okoli�činah preučiti, ali bi bilo mogoče izražene dvome odpraviti z zakonodajnimi instrumenti Skupnosti, pri čemer bi se splo�na načela uporabljala izključno kot orodja za razlago direktiv; vendar pa bi splo�na načela prava Skupnosti zaradi neobstoja veljavnih direktiv delovala kot samostojni normativni elementi.
14 — The opinion of Advocate General Mázak in Palacios de la Villa is most illuminating both for its grounds and for the clarity with which the advocate general expresses his disagreement with the Mangold case-law.
14 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Mazáka v zadevi Palacios de la Villa so posebno nazorni zaradi obrazložitve in jasnosti, s katero generalni pravobranilec izraža svoje nestrinjanje s sodno prakso Mangold.
Perhaps the most revealing section is contained in his closing points when he states that ‘… as a rule … where a directive has been adopted, such an act of secondary Community law may be interpreted in the light of the general principles underlying it and measured against those principles.
Najpomembnej�i odlomek je nedvomno v končnih ugotovitvah, v katerih generalni pravobranilec izjavlja, da „[…] se lahko v kontekstu, kakr�ne so okoli�čine obravnavane zadeve, ko je bila direktiva sprejeta, tak akt sekundarnega prava Skupnosti praviloma razlaga v luči splo�nih načel, ki so njegova podlaga.
Thus general principles of law — referred to by the Court on the basis of Article 220 EC as part of primary Community law — are given expression and effect through specific Community legislation …A problematic situation could arise, however, if this concept were to be turned practically upside down by allowing a general principle of Community law which, as in the present case, may be considered to be expressed in specific Community legislation, a degree of emancipation such that it can be invoked instead or independently of that legislation.Not only would such an approach raise serious concerns in relation to legal certainty, it would also call into question the distribution of competence between the Community and the Member States, and the attribution of powers under the Treaty in general …’ (paragraphs 136 to 138).
Splo�na pravna načela – na katera se Sodi�če na podlagi člena 220 ES sklicuje kot na del primarnega prava Skupnosti – se torej izvajajo preko konkretne zakonodaje Skupnosti. […]Vendar pa bi lahko pri�lo do težavnega položaja, če bi se ta koncept praktično obrnilo na glavo in bi se priznalo splo�nemu načelu prava Skupnosti […], izraženemu v konkretni zakonodaji Skupnosti, […] tako stopnjo samostojnosti, da bi se bilo mogoče nanj sklicevati namesto in neodvisno od navedene zakonodaje.Ne samo, da bi tak pristop povzročil resno zaskrbljenost glede pravne varnosti, ampak bi tudi postavil pod vpra�aj delitev pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami ter podelitev pristojnosti po Pogodbi nasploh […]“ (točke od 136 do 138).
16 — A different situation arises where a directive requires the Member States to transpose it in the light of the fundamental rights of the European Union.
Sodi�če je v sodbi z dne 10. julija 2003 v združenih zadevah Booker Aquaculture in Hydro Seafood (C-20/00 in C-64/00, Recueil, str.
In the judgment in Joined Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00 Booker Aquaculture and Hydro Seafood [2003] ECR I-7411, the Court, in line with the opinion of Advocate General Mischo, declared that, in so far as they are general principles of Community law, the fundamental rights must be observed by States when transposing directives into their national legal systems.
I-7411), v kateri je upo�tevalo mnenje generalnega pravobranilca Mischa, odločilo, da morajo države članice spo�tovati temeljne pravice kot splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, ko direktivo prena�ajo v svoj pravni red.
Indeed, the fundamental rights of the European Union are useful not only for interpretation but also for reviewing acts of the public authorities.
Temeljne pravice Unije se ne uporabljajo samo za razlago, ampak tudi za nadzor ukrepov državnih organov.
That function is derived from the essentially constitutional nature of the fundamental rights, in that, as well as conferring areas of freedom on individuals, they also legitimise the acts of the Union.
Ta funkcija temelji na vsebinsko institucionalnem značaju temeljnih pravic, saj poleg tega, da posamezniku podeljujejo svobodo, upravičujejo tudi delovanje Unije.
MICHAELER AND OTHERS years.
MICHAELER IN DRUGI do katerega so imeli dostop samo delavci, ki so v zadnjih petih letih delali najmanj tri leta s polnim delovnim časom.
17However, the Court held that the disputed scheme concerned working conditions, thereby excluding Directive 97/81 and avoiding the need to consider the question which has arisen in the present case. 18
17Sodi�če je nasprotno menilo, da se zadevna ureditev nana�a na delovne pogoje, ter tako izključilo Direktivo 97/81 in se izognilo obravnavi vpra�anja, ki se obravnava tu. 18
In my opinion, the uncertainties raised by the Italian court are governed by two directives: Directive 97/81, to which that court has expressly referred and which governs parttime work, and Directive 76/207, which concerns the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
Po mojem mnenju se dvomi italijanskega sodi�ča nana�ajo na obe direktivi: Direktivo 97/81, ki jo je predložitveno sodi�če izrecno navedlo in ureja delo s kraj�im delovnim časom, ter Direktivo 76/207 o izvr�evanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev.
Although the referring court cites Article 137 EC, its questions pertain to Directive 76/207.
Čeprav predložitveno sodi�če navaja člen 137 ES, se njegova vpra�anja nana�ajo na zgoraj navedeno Direktivo 76/207.
One year later, the question of the relationship between the two directives arose again in Wippel, in which the Court finally agreed that they could apply simultaneously in an individual case.
Leto pozneje se je vpra�anje soobstoja teh direktiv znova pojavilo v zadevi Wippel, v kateri je bila končno priznana njuna sočasna uporaba v konkretnem primeru. 19 Zdi se mi primerno, da tu omenim sklepne predloge generalne pravobranilke Kokott v tej zadevi.
20 The advocate general took the view, which I fully support, that the two directives pursue different objectives.
20 Po njenem mnenju – s katerim se popolnoma strinjam – ti dve direktivi sledita različnim ciljem.
In the absence of any material similarity, it is not possible to assume a relationship of general rule to special rule between the provisions. 21
Zaradi neistovetnosti dejstev ni mogoče uporabiti merila splo�nosti in njunih posebnosti. 21
Accordingly, in the present case it will be appropriate to interpret those directives in accordance with the general principles, while ensuring that those principles are not applied as autonomous rules which would have the effect of widening the scope of the directives by the back door and bypassing democratic decisionmaking processes.
Zato se zdi v tej zadevi razlaga direktiv v skladu s splo�nimi načeli mogoča, s čimer bi se bilo mogoče izogniti uporabi splo�nih načel kot avtonomnih pravil, ki bi skozi zadnja vrata in ob robu demokratičnih postopkov odločanja raz�irila območje vpliva direktiv.
Now that the nature of the application of the directives has been identified, in terms of their relationship with the principles and
Ker je bila uporaba direktiv natančneje opredeljena v njunih odnosih s splo�nimi načeli in tudi v njunih vzajemnih odnosih,
17 — Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in Case C-77/02 Steinicke [2003] ECR I-9027.
18 – Sodba Steinicke, navedena v opombi 17, točka 52.
18 — Judgment in Steinicke, cited in footnote 17, paragraph 52.19 — Judgment in Case C-313/02 Wippel [2004] ECR I-9483
19 – Sodba z dne 12. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Wippel (C-313/02, ZOdl., str. I-9483).
21 — As the Advocate General states in point 67 of her Opinion in Wippel, ‘the prohibition on discrimination in Directive 76/207 is also applicable alongside the prohibition on discrimination against parttime workers under the Framework Agreement on parttime work because the two provisions relate to different facts and pursue different objectives.
21 – Kot generalna pravobranilka trdi v točki 67 sklepnih predlogov v zadevi Wippel, „[p]repoved diskriminacije, ki je določena v Direktivi 76/207, se sicer poleg prepovedi manj ugodnega obravnavanja delavcev, zaposlenih s kraj�im delovnim časom, uporablja tudi na podlagi Okvirnega sporazuma o delu s kraj�im delovnim časom, ker določbi urejata različna dejanska stanja in zasledujeta različne cilje.
Their particular prohibitions on discrimination are based on different circumstances.
Njuna prepoved diskriminacije ima različne navezne okoli�čine.
There is no relationship between them of general rule to special rule.’
Druga do druge nimata odnosa splo�ne določbe do posebne določbe.“
In Steinicke, Advocate General Tizzano saw no reason not to apply the two directives to a parttime employment scheme with a view to retirement that was open only to employees who had worked fulltime for a total of at least three of the last five
V zadevi Steinicke se generalnemu pravobranilcu Tizzanu ni zdelo neprimerno uporabiti teh dveh direktiv za ureditev dela s kraj�im delovnim časom zaradi starosti,
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-55/07 AND C-56/07 between parttime and fulltime employment contracts.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-55/07 IN C-56/07 je treba preučiti temelj vpra�anja, ki ga je postavilo Landesgericht Bozen, ter pri tem najprej preučiti skladnost spornih italijanskih ukrepov z Direktivo 97/81, preden se obravnavajo v zvezi z Direktivo 76/207.
That aim is enshrined in Clause 1(a) of the Framework Agreement annexed to the directive, which states that its purpose is ‘to provide for the removal of discrimination against parttime workers and to improve the quality of parttime work’.
diskriminacijo med pogodbami o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom in pogodbami o zaposlitvi s polnim delovnim časom.
22 with each other, it is necessary to examine the substance of the question submitted by the Landesgericht Bozen. First, I will analyse whether the disputed Italian measures are compatible with Directive 97/81 and I will then determine whether they conform to Directive 76/207.
Zaradi tega cilja je bila sprejeta določba 1(a) okvirnega sporazuma, priloženega Direktivi, v kateri je naveden cilj „omogočiti odpravo diskriminacije delavcev, ki delajo s kraj�im delovnim časom, in izbolj�ati kakovost dela s kraj�im delovnim časom“. 22
B — The administrative obligations imposed by Legislative Decree 61/2000 in the light of Directive 97/81
B – Upravne obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zakonske uredbe št. 61/2000, z vidika Direk­tive 97/81
The equal treatment required by the directive is aimed principally at the substantive conditions of the employment relationship.
Enako obravnavanje, ki ga zahteva Direktiva, zadeva predvsem vsebinske pogoje delovnega razmerja.
The directive seeks to abolish all discrimination between the two types of contract which disadvantages parttime workers.
Med tema vrstama pogodb je treba odpraviti vsakr�no neravnotežje v �kodo pogodbe o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom.
The caselaw of the Court in this field confirms that view. 23
Sodna praksa Sodi�ča na tem področju je potrdila to usmeritev. 23
However, the present case does not concern the subjectmatter of the employment contract; instead, the Italian legislation introduces bureaucratic measures into the administrative obligations of employers.
Vendar pa se ta zadeva ne nana�a na vsebino pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ker italijanski predpisi uvajajo birokratske ukrepe v upravne obveznosti delodajalcev.
Accordingly, this case relates to a vertical relationship between the State (the employment authority) and an individual (the employer).
Zato zadeva vertikalni odnos med javnimi organi (in�pektorat za delo) in posameznikom (delodajalec).
Despite the fact that in the context of these proceedings the complaint does not concern the type of discrimination which
Čeprav se v tej zadevi ne izpodbija vrsta diskriminacije, ki jo Direktiva 97/81 najbolj
23 — Wippel, cited in footnote 19.
23 – Sodba Wippel, navedena v opombi 19.
I examined certain aspects of parttime work in my opinion in Case C-300/06 Voß [2007] ECR I-10573, paragraphs 28 to 31.
Nekatere vidike dela s kraj�im delovnim časom preučujem tudi v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Voß (sodba z dne 6. decembra 2007, C-300/06, ZOdl., str. I-10573, točke od 28 do 31).
With a view to promoting employment, Directive 97/81 abolished all discrimination
Namen Direktive 97/81 je zaradi pospe�evanja zaposlovanja odpraviti vsakr�no
MICHAELER AND OTHERS constitutes an infringement of Community law.
MICHAELER IN DRUGI za delo kr�itev prava Skupnosti.
Consequently, it is necessary to identify whether there is an objective, reasonable justification for the different treatment.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, ali je zadevno različno obravnavanje objektivno in razumno utemeljeno.
constitutes the main objective of Direct- ive 97/81, it is still important to examine the measures adopted in Italy.
zadeva, ostaja interes za preučitev ukrepov, sprejetih v Italiji.
Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement calls on the Member States to identify obstacles of a legal or administrative nature which may limit the opportunities for parttime work and, where appropriate, eliminate them.
Na podlagi določbe 5(1)(a) okvirnega sporazuma se države članice zavezujejo, da bodo opredelile zakonske in administrativne ovire, ki lahko omejujejo možnost za delo s kraj�im delovnim časom, in jih, kjer je to primerno, odpravile.
It is clear, therefore, that the bureaucratic restrictions imposed on the conclusion of parttime contracts are liable to infringe Directive 97/81.
Zato se zdi očitno, da birokratske omejitve, naložene za sklenitev pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom, lahko kr�ijo Direktivo 97/81.
The principle of proportionality has been accorded a prominent position in the assessment of the Community principle of nondiscrimination by the caselaw of the Court and the judicial practice of a number of Member States.
Sodna praksa Sodi�ča in sodna praksa več držav članic sta načelu sorazmernosti dali posebno mesto v presoji skupnostnega načela prepovedi diskriminacije.
It has been treated in the same way by academic writers.
Tudi pravni strokovnjaki so ga priznali.
24 The threefold proportionality test provides a useful tool for resolving the problem, requiring that the discrimination must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate in the strict sense.
24 Trojno merilo sorazmernosti je torej pomemben instrument za re�itev vpra�anja; diskriminacija mora biti ustrezna, potrebna in sorazmerna v ožjem pomenu besede.
25Using that threefold evaluation, which is carried out in stages rather than cumulatively, the assessment of equality becomes more transparent and generates greater legal certainty.
25 S to trojno presojo, ki jo je treba opraviti v fazah, in ne kumulativno, postane presoja enakosti preglednej�a ter ustvarja večjo pravno varnost.
Accordingly, my reply will focus on whether Legislative Decree 61/2000 is compatible with Clause (5)(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement annexed to Direct- ive 97/81.
Zato se bom pri odgovoru osredotočil na združljivost zakonske uredbe �t. 61/2000 z določbo 5(1)(a) Direktive 97/81.
It is appropriate to assess the lawfulness of the notification obligation first of all, followed by the lawfulness of the punitive measures.
Najprej je treba preučiti zakonitost obveznosti po�iljanja, nato zakonitost sistema kazni.
The provisions concerned are both contrary to the principle of nondiscrimination between employment contracts laid down in Directive 97/81.
Ta dva vidika ne upo�tevata načela prepovedi diskriminacije med pogodbami o zaposlitvi, določenega z Direktivo 97/81.
For reasons of conceptual and expositional clarity, the failings of the two provisions must be dealt with separately.
Zaradi konceptualne jasnosti in razumljivosti obrazložitve je treba pomanjkljivosti teh sistemov dokazati ločeno.
The assessment of the principle of proportionality also confirms the points put
Preverjanje načela sorazmernosti potrjuje tudi ideje, navedene v točkah od 17 do 22
25 — The Court carries out this threefold evaluation on a regular basis.
25 – Sodi�če precej redno opravlja to trojno presojo.
The Landesgericht Bozen asks whether the obligation to notify all parttime employment contracts to the employment authority
Landesgericht Bozen se spra�uje, ali je obveznost po�iljanja vseh pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom in�pektoratu
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-55/07 AND C-56/07 reference for answering the question referred for a preliminary ruling in the present case.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-55/07 IN C-56/07 teh sklepnih predlogov.
Notwithstanding the obvious differences between the fundamental freedoms and a harmonised sector like employment, the methods of review employed by the Court are useful when it comes to drawing up rules for the interpretation of Directive 97/81.
Če obstaja direktiva, ki usklajuje poseben sektor, imajo splo�na načela razlagalno funkcijo. V obravnavanem primeru načelo sorazmernosti pomaga pri določitvi pomena določbe 5(1)(a) okvirnega sporazuma, priloženega Direktivi 97/81.
In the case of a directive which harmonises a specific sector, the general principles perform an interpretative function.
postavljenega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
In the present case, the principle of proportionality helps to determine the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 97/81.
Kljub očitnim razlikam med sistemom svobo�čin in usklajenim sektorjem, kot je sektor dela, so lahko tehnike nadzora, ki jih uporablja Sodi�če, koristne za pripravo določenih pravil razlage Direktive 97/81.
Caselaw provides many examples of national provisions which impede the attainment of Community objectives.
Sodna praksa ponuja �tevilne primere nacionalnih sistemov, ki ovirajo uresničevanje ciljev Skupnosti.
26 The most prolific area is the freedoms of movement.
26 Najplodnej�e področje je področje prostega pretoka.
In that field, the Court reserves particularly harsh criticism for directly discriminatory measures, because they lead to open inequality which it is for the Member States, to justify.
Sodi�če na tem področju posebno strogo kaznuje ukrepe, ki so neposredno diskriminatorni, z obrazložitvijo, da povzročajo očitno neenakost, ki jo morajo utemeljiti države članice.
However, in the case of indirectly discriminatory measures, the standard of review is always more measured and cautious in view of the difficulties which this type of assessment creates for the court performing it. 27
Kadar pa so zadevni ukrepi posredno diskriminatorni, je merilo nadzora vedno preudarnej�e in previdnej�e, ob upo�tevanju težav, ki jih ta vrsta presoje povzroča sodi�ču. 27
It is my view that the caselaw on freedom of movement must become the point of
Menim, da je sodna praksa na področju prostega pretoka referenčna točka za re�itev
The freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment have provided the Court with the opportunity to rule on the compatibility with Community law of a number of national administrative procedures aimed solely at professionals exercising the right to freedom of movement.
Svoboda opravljanja storitev in svoboda ustanavljanja sta Sodi�ču omogočili, da je odločilo o združljivosti nekaterih nacionalnih upravnih formalnosti, ki veljajo samo za subjekte, ki uveljavljajo svojo pravico do prostega pretoka, s pravom Skupnosti.
In Vander Elst, 28the Court held that ‘national legislation which makes the provision of certain services on national territory … subject to the issue of an administrative licence constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services’.
Sodi�če je v sodbi Vander Elst 28odločilo, da „nacionalna ureditev, v okviru katere se za opravljanje storitev […] na nacionalnem ozemlju zahteva izdaja upravnega dovoljenja, pomeni omejitev svobode opravljanja storitev“.
29 That finding, which has become settled caselaw and been endorsed as a test of proportionality, is founded on the appropriateness and necessity of the administrative measures concerned.
29 To stali�če, ponovljeno v �tevilnih sodbah in opisano kot primer nadzora sorazmernosti, temelji na primernosti in nujnosti zadevnih upravnih ukrepov.
First of all, the Court determines whether there is a logical relationship between the national obligation and the aim it pursues.
Prvič, Sodi�če ugotovi, ali obstaja logična povezava med nacionalno obveznostjo in ciljem, ki ga želi uresničiti.
30 Second, the Court evaluates whether there are less restrictive alternatives which would enable the State to achieve the same objectives using less
30Drugič, Sodi�če preveri, ali obstajajo manj omejevalne možnosti, ki
27 — The principle of proportionality requires the prior determination of a level of protection, which must be adopted by the court carrying out the assessment on the basis of the factual, institutional and legislative context of each individual case.
27 – Načelo sorazmernosti zahteva predhodno določitev ravni za�čite, standarda za�čite, ki ga mora sodi�če uporabiti glede na dejanski, pravni in normativni okvir vsakega konkretnega primera.
That occurs in all the legal systems of the Member States which have recognised the principle.
To velja za vse pravne rede držav članic, ki so priznale navedeno načelo. Craig, P., nav. delo, str. 657, trdi: „In any system of administrative law the courts will have to decide not only which tests to apply to determine the legality of administrative action, but also the rigour or intensity with which to apply them. In some legal systems this is worked out to a high degree, but the issue is pertinent for all systems. The relative intensity of judicial review is just as much a live question in relation to proportionality in the EU.“
28 — Case C-43/93 [1994] ECR I-3803.29 — Judgment in Vander Elst, cited in footnote 28, paragraph 15.30 — Judgment in Vander Elst, paragraphs 18 to 22.
29 – Sodba Vander Elst, navedena v opombi 28, točka 15.30 – Sodba Vander Elst, navedena v opombi 28, točke od 18 do 22.
MICHAELER AND OTHERS onerous means.
MICHAELER IN DRUGI državi članici omogočajo, da doseže enake cilje z manj zavezujočimi sredstvi.