natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
15); and Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37).
15) in Direktivo Sveta 2004/113/ES z dne 13. decembra 2004 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk pri dostopu do blaga in storitev ter oskrbi z njimi (UL L 373, str. 37).
Under Article 18 of the Directive, the timelimit for implementation by the
V skladu s členom 18 Direktive je rok, ki so ga imele države za njen prenos, pretekel
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-267/06 of 16 February 2001 10 created, for people of the same sex, a family-law institution which resembles marriage.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-267/06 v nadaljevanju: LPartG) z dne 16. februarja 2001 10je za osebe istega spola uvedel institut družinskega prava, ki je soroden zakonski zvezi.
The body has its headquarters in Munich and its activities cover the whole territory of the Federal Republic.
Sedež ima v Münchnu, njene aktivnosti pa zajemajo celotno ozemlje Zvezne republike.
Its Regulations, dated 12 December 1991, 9 set out the body’s composition, its duties, and the benefits it is required to provide.
Njen statut z dne 12. decembra 1991 9določa sestavo, naloge in prejemke, ki jih mora plačati.
Under Paragraph 27(2) of the Regulations, as conditions for the grant of pensions to survivors, the insurance, whether compulsory or voluntary, must have been in force immediately prior to the operative event and the qualification period must have been satisfied.
Člen 27(2) statuta za podelitev ugodnosti preživelim osebam določa pogoj, da je neposredno pred zavarovalnim primerom v veljavi obvezno ali prostovoljno zavarovanje in da se spo�tuje rok za plačilo.
For the duration of the relationship, the partners must support and care for one another (Paragraph 2).
Člen 1(1) za registracijo take zveze zahteva izkaz volje za sklenitev življenjske skupnosti.
They must contribute to the common needs of the partnership and, with regard to maintenance obligations, they are bound by the provisions of the Civil Code applicable to spouses (Paragraph 5). Like spouses, the partners are subject to the financial system of common ownership of property acquired ex post facto, although they are free to agree to a different system (Paragraph 6).
Dokler razmerje traja, si partnerja dolgujeta vzajemno podporo in pomoč (člen 2); dolžna sta prispevati za skupne potrebe, medtem ko glede preživninskih obveznosti zakoncev veljajo določbe državljanskega zakonika (člen 5); za partnerja velja ureditev skupnega premoženja, čeprav se lahko dogovorita drugače (člen 6); poleg tega se vsakega od njiju �teje za člana družine drugega (člen 11).
In addition, each partner is regarded as a member of the other partner’s family (Paragraph 11).
V primeru prenehanja razmerja se, podobno kot je urejeno državljanskem zakoniku, ohrani obveznost preživljanja (člen 16) in opravi nadomestna razdelitev pravic do pokojnine (člen 20).
governing registered
registriranih partnerskih
The legislation partnerships
Ureditev skupnosti
In accordance with Paragraph 46(4) of Book VI of the Sozialgesetzbuch (Social Security Code), 11 registered partnerships are
Člen 46(4), knjiga VI, Sozialgesetzbuch (zakonik socialne varnosti) 11vna�a v zakonsko ureditev za primer starosti
266, as subsequently amended.
266, pozneje spremenjen.
3396), which the representative of the VddB is unaware of because he asserted at the hearing that Paragraph 46 excluded equal treatment with regard to pensions.
3396), ki ga zastopnik VddB ne pozna, čeprav je na obravnavi potrdil, da navedeni člen 46 izključuje enakost pri pokojninah.
546, as subsequently amended.
546, ter poznej�e spremembe.
MARUKO placed on an equal footing with marriage for the purposes of old-age pension schemes, and spouses and registered partners are treated in the same way in that regard.
MARUKO izenačitev registrirane partnerske skupnosti in zakonskega para, s čimer izenačuje subjekte obeh institutov.
VddB, by a decision of 28 February 2005, refused to grant him on the ground that the Regulations made no provision for such survivor’s benefits to be paid to registered partners.
odločbo z dne 28. februarja 2005 zavrnil, ker statut partnerjem v registriranih partnerskih skupnosti ni priznaval takih ugodnosti za preživele osebe.
After appealing unsuccessfully against that decision, the claimant brought an action before the courts.
Po neuspeli pritožbi se je tožeča stranka obrnila na sodi�če.
III — The facts, the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
III – Dejansko stanje, spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
Mr Maruko and another man entered into a registered partnership pursuant to the LPartG on 8 November 2001.
Na podlagi LpartG sta T. Maruko in neki drug mo�ki 8. novembra 2001 registrirala partnersko skupnost.
The Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Munchen, has concluded that the German provisions do not confer on the claimant any entitlement to the disputed pension because Paragraphs 32 and 34 of the VddB Regulations require that the applicant and the insured must have been married, while the terms ‘widower’, ‘widow’, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are not to be interpreted broadly because the registered partnership institution is restricted to persons who cannot marry one another.
Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht iz Münchna je odločilo, da nem�ki predpisi tožeči stranki ne podeljujejo sporne pokojnine, saj se v členih 32 in 34 statuta VddB zahteva, da med prosilcem in zavarovancem obstaja zakonska zveza, in ne dopu�čajo �iroke razlage pojmov „vdovec“, „vdova“, „mož“ ali „žena“, upo�tevajoč, da je institut registrirane partnerske skupnosti pridržan tistim, ki ne morejo skleniti zakonske zveze.
Furthermore, the referring court considers that the provisions concerned are compatible with other hierarchically superior national provisions, in particular, Paragraph 3 of the German Basic Law. 13
Poleg tega sta omenjeni določbi skladni z drugimi nacionalnimi določbami vi�jega ranga, konkretno s členom 3 temeljnega zakona. 13
That being the situation, since it is of the opinion that the action may be upheld only by virtue of the Community provisions, the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Munchen
V teh okoli�činah je, ko je ugotovilo, da lahko o zahtevku odloči le na podlagi pravil
13 — Order of 29 February 2000 of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court) and judgment of 29 July 2005 of the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court).
12 – Ni znano ali tožeča stranka prejema pokojnino iz nem�kega sistema socialne varnosti, saj njegov zastopnik ni znal odgovoriti na vpra�anje, ki sem mu ga v zvezi s tem zastavil na obravnavi.
(4) If the preceding questions are answered in the affirmative: Is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation permissible by virtue of recital 22 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78?
Ali je sistem obveznega pokojninskega zavarovanja – kot je ta, ki ga v predloženem primeru upravlja VddB – enakovreden enemu od državnih programov v smislu člena 3(3) Direktive Sveta 2000/78/ES […]?
(5) Would entitlement to the survivor’s pension be restricted to periods from 17 May 1990 in the light of the caselaw in Barber (Case C-262/88)?’ 14
Ali bi bila pravica do pokojnine za preživele osebe na podlagi sodne prakse v zadevi Barber (C-262/88) 14omejena na čas po 17. maju 1990?
(2) Are benefits paid by a compulsory professional pension institution to survivors in the form of widow’s/widower’s allowance to be construed as pay within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78?
Ali pojem plačila iz člena 3(1)(c) Direktive 2000/78/ES zajema tudi ugodnosti za preživele osebe, kot je vdovska pokojnina, ki jo plača institucija obveznega pokojninskega zavarovanja?
Written observations were lodged, within the period laid down in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, by the VddB, the United Kingdom Government and the Commission.
VddB, vlada Združenega kraljestva in Komisija so vložili pisne izjave v roku iz člena 23 Statuta Sodi�ča.
The VddB argues that it administers a state social security scheme which, as such, falls outside the scope of Directive 2000/78.
VddB navaja, da upravlja javni sistem socialnega varstva, ki ni podvržen Direktivi 2000/78.
The Vddb maintains that a survivor’s pension in the form of a widower’s allowance
Vendar pa naj bi prejemki za preživele osebe, ki jih institucija obveznega zavarovanja podeli kot vdovsko pokojnino, ne sodili med „plačila“ iz člena 3(1)(c). Statut
14 — Case C-262/88 Barber [1990] ECR I-1889.
14 – Sodba z dne 17. maja 1990 v zadevi Barber (C-262/88, Recueil, str. I-1889).
MARUKO with marriage. However, the Commission goes on to point out that, in the event that a State does treat the two institutions in the same way — a matter which it is for the national court to determine — the principle of equal treatment must be respected.
MARUKO pa naj tudi ob upo�tevanju tega pravnega predpisa ne bi dopu�čal niti neposredne niti posredne diskriminacije.
In line with that proposition, the Commission concludes that it is possible to rule out direct discrimination but not indirect discrimination.
Poleg tega bi se bilo primerno sklicevati na zakonski stan iz dvaindvajsete uvodne izjave direktive, čeprav v njenih določbah to ni določeno.
Lastly, the Commission submits that the Court should not reply to the fifth question because the Barber judgment dealt with issues which were different from the ones raised in these proceedings.
Nazadnje, sodba v zadevi Barber naj bi bila brezpredmetna, ker je zadevala drugačen spor.
Furthermore, even if the Directive were to apply, the institution’s Regulations do not give rise to direct or indirect discrimination.
obravnavanja, če država enači oba instituta, kar pa mora ugotoviti nacionalni sodnik; s to premiso bi se izognili neposredni, ne pa posredni diskriminaciji.
Finally, the defendant asserts that the Barber caselaw is not applicable because that case arose in a different type of dispute.
Nazadnje naj ne bi bilo treba odgovoriti na peto vpra�anje, ker se je sodba v zadevi Barber nana�ala na okoli�čine, ki se razlikujejo od teh, obravnavanih v tem postopku.
At the hearing, held on 19 June 2007, oral argument was presented by the representatives of Mr Maruko, the VddB, the Netherlands and United Kingdom Governments, and the Commission.
Na obravnavi, ki je potekala dne 19. junija 2007, so zastopniki T. Maruka, VddB, nizozemske vlade, vlade Združenega kraljestva in Komisije ustno predstavili svoja stali�ča.
The United Kingdom submits that it is appropriate to analyse the fourth question first of all in the light of the wording of recital 22 to Directive 2000/78, which excludes benefits linked to marital status such as the one at issue in the present case where entitlement is conditional on marriage. Accordingly, in the view of the United Kingdom, it is not necessary to examine the other questions referred.
Združeno Kraljestvo meni, da je treba najprej preučiti četrto vpra�anje glede na besedilo dvaindvajsete uvodne izjave Direktive 2000/78, ki se ne nana�a na prejemke, vezane na zakonski stan, kot je ugodnost v obravnavani zadevi, v kateri je pravica odvisna od zakonske zveze; zato naj ne bi bilo treba odgovoriti na ostala zastavljena vpra�anja.
The Commission considers that the pension claimed is not one which is paid by a state social security scheme or similar, because it satisfies the conditions laid down by the Court for classification as pay, and, consequently, for the application of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78.
Po mnenju Komisije zapro�ena pokojnina ne izvira iz javnega ali podobnega sistema socialnega varstva, saj izpolnjuje pogoje, ki jih je oblikovalo Sodi�če, zato da se jo opredeli kot „plačilo“ in posledično vključi v besedilo člena 3(1)(c) Direktive 2000/78.
As concerns the third and fourth questions, which it proposes should be answered together, the Commission refers to the interpretative value of recital 22 to the Directive, from which it infers that there is no obligation on the part of the State to place registered civil partnerships on an equal footing
V zvezi s tretjim in četrtim vpra�anjem, za katera predlaga, da se obravnavata skupaj, omenja razlagalni pomen dvaindvajsete uvodne izjave navedene direktive, iz katerega izhaja odsotnost obveznosti države, da registrirane partnerske skupnosti �teje za zakonske zveze, a pri tem opozarja, da bi bilo treba spo�tovati načelo enakega
First and foremost, there is an important temporal consideration in this case, since the Member States were required to have transposed the Directive into national law no later than 2 December 2003 but Germany did not enact the relevant legislation until 14 August
Pred vsemi drugimi je pomemben časovni pomen, saj bi se moralo nacionalno pravo prilagoditi direktivi najpozneje do 2. decembra 2003, a Nemčija ustreznega
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-267/06
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-267/06 zakona ni sprejela do 14. avgusta 2006, 15medtem ko je tožeča stranka za prejemek zaprosila 17. februarja 2005.
Furthermore, a body, whatever its legal form, which has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public service under the control of the State, and has for that purpose special powers, is included among the bodies against which a directive may be relied upon. 19
Poleg tega med subjekte, pred katerimi se lahko sklicuje na omenjeno možnost uveljavljanja, spadajo tudi subjekti, ki ne glede na svojo pravno naravo, po pooblastilu javnih organov in pod ustreznim nadzorom, prevzamejo izpolnjevanje storitve v splo�nem interesu s čezmernimi pristojnostmi. 19
Accordingly, it is necessary to examine whether, in view of the transposition out of time of Directive 2000/78, Mr Maruko is entitled to require the VddB to comply with that directive.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali lahko, potem ko je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila Direktiva 2000/78 prenesena z zamudo, T. Maruko od VddB zahteva spo�tovanje te direktive.
That raises the question of the direct effect of Directives, in relation to which there is a large body of caselaw to the effect that whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subjectmatter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied upon by individuals against the State where the latter has failed to implement the directive in domestic law by the end of the period prescribed or where it has failed to implement the directive correctly.
Tako se pojavi ideja neposrednega učinka direktive, o kateri se je oblikovala obsežna sodna praksa, v skladu s katero se v vseh primerih, ko se določbe direktive z vidika njihove vsebine izkažejo za nepogojne in dovolj natančne, posamezniki lahko sklicujejo nanje zoper državo, ki jih ne prenese v nacionalno pravo v roku, kot ga določa direktiva, ali jih ne prenese pravilno.
16 A Community provision is unconditional where it is not qualified by any condition and is not made subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any measure either by the Community institutions or by the Member States; 17 it is sufficiently precise where it lays down an obligation in unequivocal terms. 18
16Določba Skupnosti ni pogojna, kadar ni vezana na noben pogoj, pri izvr�evanju ali učinkih pa ni odvisna od sprejema kakr�nega koli akta institucij Skupnosti ali držav članic; 17izkaže se za dovolj natančno, če nedvoumno nalaga obveznost. 18
15 — In Case C-43/05 Commission v Germany [2006] ECR I-33, the Court held that, by failing to transpose the Directive at the appropriate time, Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations.
15 – S sodbo z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (C-43/05, neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je bila ugotovljena neizpolnitev obveznosti države zaradi nepravočasnega prenosa direktive v svoj pravni red.
First, Article 1 of the Directive sets out the aim of combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as regards occupation, with a view to putting into effect the principle of equal treatment; Article 2 defines the concept of discrimination; and Article 3(1) lists the fields in which the Direct- ive applies to individuals, including the field of pay.
Po eni strani člen 1 direktive izraža njen namen bojevati se proti izključitvam pri zaposlovanju in delu zaradi spolne usmerjenosti, da pride do izraza načelo enakosti; člen 2 opredeljuje pojem diskriminacije; člen 3(1) pa se nana�a na vidike, po katerih so osebe lahko prizadete, med katere spada plačilo.
Thus, Directive 2000/78 contains an unconditional and precise prohibition of any inequality between employees’ pay on grounds of sexual orientation.
Direktiva 2000/78 zajema nepogojno in natančno prepoved vsakr�nega ločevanja delavcev pri plačilu zaradi spolne usmerjenosti.
I therefore share the view of the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht and the Commission that, in the main proceedings, the conditions are met for the recognition of direct effect and the corresponding consequences.
Strinjam se torej z mnenjem Verwaltungsgericht in Komisije, da so izpolnjeni pogoji, da se v sporu o glavni stvari prizna neposreden učinek in ustrezne posledice.
For the purpose of resolving those questions and determining the legal nature of the pension at issue, it is necessary to analyse in depth the concepts of ‘social security benefit’ and ‘pay’, which are incompatible.
Da bi odgovorili na ti vpra�anji in ugotovili pravno naravo sporne pokojnine, je treba preučiti pojma „prejemek iz socialnega varstva“ in „plačilo“, ki nista združljiva.
VI — The scope of Directive 2000/78
VI – Področje uporabe Direktive 2000/78
By the fourth question, the referring court enquires about the implications of the statement made in recital 22 to the Directive to the effect that benefits dependent on marital status are unaffected by the Directive. That question therefore concerns the scope of the Community measure but must be dealt with independently because it relates to a separate sphere.
Četrto vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje preučuje razsežnost izjeme iz dvaindvajsete uvodne izjave direktive glede prejemkov, ki so odvisni od zakonskega stanu; povezano je z dosegom delovanja predpisa Skupnosti, a mora biti deležno posebne pozornosti, ker se nahaja v ločeni orbiti.
Now that the uncertainty concerning whether the Community legislation may be relied on has been resolved, I invite the Court to reply jointly to the first two questions submitted by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Munchen, since both concern the scope of Directive 2000/78.
Potem ko je razjasnjen dvom o možnosti uveljavljanja predpisa Skupnosti, pozivam Sodi�če, da skupaj odgovori na prvi vpra�anji, ki jih je zastavilo Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht iz Münchna, ker se obe nana�ata na področje uporabe Direktive 2000/78.
A — Social security benefits
A – Prejemki iz socialnega varstva
Article 3 delimits the scope of the Directive in both positive and negative terms, in that paragraph 1(a) to (d) set out the matters covered while paragraph 3 lists the matters excluded.
Člen 3 direktive je oblikovan pozitivno in negativno, saj točke od (a) do (d) iz odstavka 1 na�tevajo področja, na katera se nana�a, medtem ko odstavek 3 na�teva izključena področja.
The referring court asks whether the pension claimed by Mr Maruko may be construed as pay within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) or as a payment under a State
Predložitveno sodi�če želi vedeti, ali je treba pokojnino, ki jo je zahteval
Article 3(3) of Directive 2000/78 excludes payments of any kind made by state schemes or similar, including state social security or social protection schemes, while recital 13 states that the Directive does not
Člen 3(3) Direktive 2000/78 izključuje plačila kakr�ne koli vrste iz državnih programov ali podobnih ureditev, vključno s sistemom socialne varnosti ali socialnega zavarovanja, trinajsta uvodna izjava
Although not very precise, that definition reveals that the concept was intended to be a broad one, and it contains certain essential requirements such as the ‘public’ nature of the funds paid.
Čeprav ta opredelitev ni preveč natančna, kaže na razsežnost, s katero je bila zasnovana, in sprejema bistveni socialni red, kot je „javni“ izvor odobrenih zneskov.
apply to ‘social security and social protection schemes whose benefits are not trea - ted as income within the meaning given to that term for the purpose of applying Article 141 EC …’.
pa določa, da se direktiva ne uporablja za „sistem[e] socialnega zavarovanja in socialnega varstva, katerih ugodnosti ne �tejejo za dohodek v smislu opredelitve tega pojma, ki velja pri uporabi člena 141 Pogodbe o Evropski skupnosti“.
That serves to preserve the special nature of social security schemes, which are governed by specific measures such as Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 (‘the Regulation’). 20
S tem se ohranja posebnost socialnega varstva, ki jo urejajo posebni predpisi, kot je Uredba Sveta (EGS) �t. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971. 20
The wording implies that taking out a widow’s/widower’s pension is not enough to ensure the application of the Regulation and that such a pension must, in addition, be linked to the social security system. 21
Zapis kaže na to, da obstoj vdovske pokojnine ni dovolj, da se uporabi ta uredba; poleg tega je potrebna �e povezava s socialno varnostjo. 21
Social security benefits
Prejemki iz socialnega varstva
The Regulation does not provide a definition of its subjectmatter owing to the differences between the schemes of the Member States, a fact which is referred to in the third
Uredba se ne spu�ča v opredelitev njene vsebine, pri čemer se zaveda raznovrstnosti ureditev držav članic, kar omenja v tretji in
By excluding ‘payments of any kind’, Directive 2000/78 refers to all the ‘benefits’ and ‘pensions’ defined in Article 1(t) of Regulation No 1408/71, which include ‘all elements thereof payable out of public funds, revalorisation increases and supplementary allowances … as also lump-sum benefits which may be paid in lieu of pensions, and payments made by way of reimbursement of contributions’.
Ko Direktiva 2000/78 izloča „plačil[a] kakr�ne koli vrste“, se nana�a na „dajatve“ in „pokojnine“, opredeljene v členu 1, točka (t), Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ki zajema „vs[e] njihov[e] element[e], ki se izplačujejo iz javnih sredstev, z uskladitvami in dopolnilnimi dodatki […], pa tudi pav�alne dajatve, ki se lahko izplačajo namesto pokojnin, in izplačila, ki predstavljajo povračila prispevkov“.
21 — In any event, the notion of social security benefits is the subject of lively debate. See Mavridis, P. La sécurité sociale à l’épreuve de l’intégration européenne. Etude d’une confrontation entre libertés du marché et droits fondamentaux, Bruylant, Brussels, 2003, p. 214.
21 – V vsakem primeru je ideja „prejemek iz socialne varnosti“ predmet pravih nasprotij; Mavridis, P. La sécurité sociale à l’épreuve de l’intégration européenne. Étude d’une confrontation entre libertés du marché et droits fondamentaux, izd. Bruylant, Bruselj, 2003, str. 214.
416), as subsequently amended.
2), in poznej�e spremembe.
The increased productivity brought about by the Industrial Revolution 26led to the creation of specific methods of providing protection for the working population.
Porast produktivnosti, ki je bil posledica industrijske revolucije, 26je prinesel vzpostavitev posebnega sistema financiranja delavskega razreda.
27 The and fourth recitals.
27 Modeli se spreminjajo četrti uvodni izjavi.
22 The absence of a definition does not preclude a more detailed analysis of the concept with a view to providing the most appropriate reply possible to the referring court.
22Odsotnost tega ne preprečuje, da se ne bi poglobili v analizo omenjene institucije, da bi primerneje odgovorili predložitvenemu sodi�ču.
models vary from country to country but two in particular stand out: the contribution model, where the amount of the benefits is dependent on previous contributions, and the welfare model, which is independent of such contributions.
iz kraja v kraj, pri čemer ločimo predvsem dva: prispevni sistem, v katerem je znesek prejemkov odvisen od prej�njih vplačil, in sistem pomoči, ki na omenjena vplačila ni vezan.