natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Given the necessarily approximate nature of a single correction coefficient per country, it must be considered that the goal of ensuring a certain parity of purchasing power among former officials residing in the various Member States has been attained, to the extent that the single correction coefficient is determined according to criteria which ensure that it is representative.
Odločitev zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da z odpravo korekcijskih koeficientov spremeni ureditev pokojnin za pokojnine, pridobljene od 1. maja 2004, ki se je odrazila z Uredbo �t. 723/2004 o spremembi Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti in pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropskih skupnosti, ni neskladna z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
The method of calculating the correction
Čeprav drži, da stara pokojninska ureditev, ki temelji
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION anticipates the abolition of correction coefficients for certain pensioners provided for under the definitive rules.
CAMPOLI PROTI KOMISIJI korekcijskih koeficientov, ki je predvidena s končno ureditvijo.
of correction coefficients and, consequently, on a certain compensation for loss of purchasing power according to the Member State in which the pensioner resided, constituted an appropriate way of implementing that principle, it cannot be inferred from this that any other system is incompatible with that principle.
na sistemu korekcijskih koeficientov in, posledično, na določenem izenačenju kupne moči glede na državo članico, v kateri upokojenec prebiva, pomeni ustrezno sredstvo za izvr�evanje navedenega načela, iz tega ni mogoče sklepati, da je vsak drug sistem v neskladju s tem načelom.
A pension scheme intended to create equality of purchasing power is just one possible way of ensuring compliance with the principle of equal treatment. That principle is just as equally complied with by a scheme under which pensioners receive, for an equivalent contribution, the same nominal pension.
Glede na to, da je končna pokojninska ureditev, ki izhaja iz novih Kadrovskih predpisov, zato ker ne sledi več cilju zagotovitve določene enakovrednosti kupne moči med upokojenci ne glede na njihov kraj prebivanja, v skladu z načelom enakega obravnavanja, prehodna ureditev, ki le predčasno uvaja načelo pokojnine v „enotnem“ znesku v korist upokojencev, ki jim je načelo naklonjeno, ne ustvarja diskriminacije.
Since the definitive pension scheme under the new Staff Regulations, inasmuch as it no longer pursues the object- ive of guaranteeing a certain equality of purchasing power among officials, regardless of their place of residence, is therefore compatible with the principle of equal treatment, the transitional arrangements, which simply anticipate the principle whereby a ‘single’ amount pension is paid to pensioners for whom that principle is favourable, cannot constitute discrimination.
Pokojninski sistem, ki določa enako kupno moč, je namreč le eno izmed možnih sredstev za spo�tovanje načela enakega obravnavanja.
The introduction, as part of the transitional arrangements, of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% simply
To načelo je upo�tevano tudi s sistemom, v skladu s katerim upokojenci ob enakovrednem prispevanju prejmejo enak nominalni znesek pokojnine.
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALMENGOZZI delivered on 8 April 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAPAOLA MENGOZZIJA, predstavljeni 8. aprila 2008 1
I — Introduction the pensions of former officials of the Communities under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’).
I – Uvod predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti (v nadaljevanju: Kadrovski predpisi) urejajo pokojninske prejemke za nekdanje uradnike Evropskih skupnosti.
By judgment of 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05 Campoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-297 and II-A-2-1527 (the ‘judgment under appeal’), the Court of First Instance of the European Communities dismissed as inadmissible in part and unfounded in part the action in which Mr Franco Campoli sought annulment of his pension statements for the months from May to July 2004 on the ground that they were unlawful in several respects.
Predhodno je treba opozoriti, da so bili Kadrovski predpisi leta 2004 bistveno spremenjeni z Uredbo �t. 723/2004 2: „novi Kadrovski predpisi“, kot se pogosto označujejo Kadrovski predpisi, spremenjeni z navedeno uredbo, so začeli veljati 1. maja 2004.
The Court of Justice is now required to give a ruling in an appeal brought by Mr Campoli against the abovementioned judgment.
V tem postopku je Sodi�če pozvano, naj odloči o pritožbi F. Campolija proti navedeni sodbi.
In the version applicable before the abovementioned reform, the part of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations that is of relevance in this case provided as follows:
V členu 82 različice Kadrovskih predpisov pred spremembo je bilo v zvezi s pokojninami, ki so predmet tega postopka, določeno:
The relevant regulations for the purposes of the present dispute are those governing
Predpisi, upo�tevni za odločitev v tem sporu, so tisti, ki v okviru Kadrovskih
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION preamble to Regulation No 723/2004, which is worded as follows:
CAMPOLI PROTI KOMISIJI tridesete uvodne izjave Uredbe �t. 723/2004, ki se glasi:
They shall be weighted at the rate fixed for the country inside the Communities where the recipient proves he has his residence.
Ponderirajo se po stopnji, določeni za državo v Skupnosti, v kateri prejemnik dokazano prebiva.
‘Deepened integration of the European Union and the free choice of pensioners of their place of residence within the European Union has made the system of correction coefficients for pensions obsolete.
Ta sistem je povzročal tudi težave pri spremljanju kraja prebivanja upokojencev, ki jih je treba preseči.
This system has also created monitoring problems as regards the place of residence of pensioners which should be overcome.
Zato je treba sistem odpraviti s primernim prehodom za upokojence in uradnike, zaposlene pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe.“
In the version applicable from 1 May 2004, by contrast, Article 82 reads as follows:
V različici, veljavni od 1. maja 2004, pa se člen 82 glasi:
The decision of the Community legislature to abolish the system of correction coefficients as far as pensions are concerned is explained, at least in part, in recital 30 in the
Odločitev zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da bo za pokojnine odpravil sistem ponderiranja, je mogoče, vsaj deloma, pojasniti na podlagi
In concrete terms, however, the period of transition laid down in the new version of the Staff Regulations is not, as the abovementioned recital might lead one to suppose, a period of transition from a pension calculated using a correction coefficient to a pension without such a coefficient.
Prehodno obdobje, predvideno v novi različici Kadrovskih predpisov, pa ne obsega – kot bi morda lahko sklepali na podlagi zgoraj navedene uvodne izjave – obdobja od obračuna pokojnine z upo�tevanjem korekcijskega koeficienta do obračuna pokojnine brez upo�tevanja katerega koli korekcijskega koeficienta.
In fact, for all pension rights acquired before 1 May 2004 (and hence, in the case of the appellant, who has been retired since 2003, all his pension rights), the legislature simply laid down transitional arrangements for a gradual switch from a correction coefficient calculated using the ‘capital method’ to one calculated in accordance with the ‘country method’.
Za vse pokojninske pravice, pridobljene pred 1. majem 2004 (v primeru pritožnika, ki se je upokojil leta 2003, gre torej za vse pokojninske pravice), je namreč zakonodajalec ob reformi predpisov določil prehodno ureditev, ki predvideva le postopno nadomestitev korekcijskega koeficienta, izračunanega po „metodi glavnega mesta“, s korekcijskim koeficientom, izračunanim po „metodi države“.
In other words, for persons who acquired pension rights before 1 May 2004, the reference cost of living for calculating the correction coefficient is no longer solely that for the capital of the Member State where he resides but the average for all of the State in question. This derives, specifically, from the provisions of Article 20 of Annex XIII
Povedano drugače, za osebe, ki so pridobile pravico do pokojninskih prejemkov pred 1. majem 2004, se poslej za izračun korekcijskega koeficienta niso upo�tevali življenjski stro�ki, ugotovljeni za glavno mesto države prebivanja, temveč povprečni življenjski stro�ki, ugotovljeni za
III — Facts to the Staff Regulations in conjunction with Articles 1(3) and 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.
To izhaja zlasti iz povezanih določb člena 20 Priloge XIII h Kadrovskim predpisom ter členov 1(3) in 3(5) Priloge XI h Kadrovskim predpisom.
The appellant retired in February 2003.
Pritožnik se je upokojil februarja 2003.
He then took up residence in London, in the United Kingdom.
Za kraj svojega prebivali�ča je izbral London v Združenem kraljestvu.
Consequently, a correction coefficient of 139.6%, calculated on the basis of the cost of living in London (the ‘capital method’), was applied to his pension.
Posledično je bil za izračun njegove pokojnine upo�tevan korekcijski koeficient 139,6 %, izračunan na podlagi življenjskih stro�kov v Londonu (po „metodi glavnega mesta“).
As a further safeguard for officials who retired before 1 May 2004, the first subparagraph of Article 24(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides that:
Z namenom dodatne za�čite pravic uradnikov, upokojenih pred 1. majem 2004, je v členu 24(2), prvi stavek, Priloge XIII h Kadrovskim predpisom določeno:
‘When these provisions enter into force, the nominal amount of net pension received before 1 May 2004 shall be guaranteed. …’
„Ob začetku veljavnosti teh določb se zajamči nominalni znesek neto pokojnine, prejete pred 1. majem 2004 […]“
With the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, that correction coefficient was gradually to decrease and become the coefficient calculated in accordance with the ‘country method’, subject, however, to the guarantee that the nominal amount of the pension received before 1 May 2004 would not be reduced.
Z uveljavitvijo novih Kadrovskih predpisov se je začel ta korekcijski koeficient postopno zmanj�evati, dokler ga ni nadomestil korekcijski koeficient, izračunan po „metodi države“, vendar brez poseganja v določbo o jamstvu upokojencem, da se nominalni znesek neto pokojnine, prejete pred 1. majem 2004, ne bo znižal.
However, the adjustment of correction coefficients provided for in the reform of the Staff Regulations came into effect for the first time only with the advent of Regulation No 31/2005, 3 which provided for the adjustment to apply with retroactive effect as from 1 July 2004.
Poleg tega je bila prilagoditev korekcijskih koeficientov, predvidena z reformo Kadrovskih predpisov, prvič izvedena �ele z Uredbo �t. 31/2005, 3 s katero je bilo predvideno, da se tako prilagojeni korekcijski koeficienti začnejo uporabljati z retroaktivnim učinkom od 1. julija 2004.
On 14 August 2004, the appellant submitted a complaint to the Appointing Authority under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, in which he asked for his pension statements for the months of May, June and July 2004 to be annulled.
Pritožnik je 14. avgusta 2004 pri organu, pristojnem za imenovanje, vložil pritožbo na podlagi člena 90 Kadrovskih predpisov, s katero je predlagal razglasitev ničnosti pokojninskih odrezkov za mesece maj, junij in julij 2004.
The complaint was rejected by decision of 13 December 2004.
Ta pritožba je bila zavrnjena z odločbo z dne 13. decembra 2004.
IV — Proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 29 March 2005, the appellant appealed against the abovementioned decision rejecting his complaint.
Pritožnik je 29. marca 2005 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje vložil tožbo proti navedeni odločbi o zavrnitvi pritožbe.
As regards the appellant’s arguments in support of his claim of a difference in treatment — which, as we shall see, are the only ones he reiterates in the appeal — the Court of First Instance first dismissed the claim that the correction coefficient based on the ‘country method’, unlike the coefficient based on the ‘capital method’, could not guarantee that all pensioners would have equal purchasing power, irrespective of their place of residence.
Glede trditev, ki jih je pritožnik navajal v podporo zatrjevani kr�itvi načela enakega obravnavanja – pri katerih, kot bomo videli, vztraja tudi v okviru pritožbe zoper izpodbijano sodbo –, je Sodi�če prve stopnje predvsem zavrnilo stali�če, da je korekcijski koeficient, določen po „metodi države“, za razliko od v nasprotju s korekcijskim koeficientom, katerega izračun temelji na „metodi glavnega mesta“, neustrezen, ker ne zagotavlja vsem upokojencem enake kupne moči ne glede na kraj njihovega prebivali�ča.
In particular, the Court of First Instance observed that, since any system for adjusting pensions is by its very nature approximate, there is no reason to believe that, of itself, the choice of the ‘country method’ in place of the ‘capital method’ is less able to guarantee equal treatment, all the more so as the Community legislature has very wide discretion in that sphere. 4
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem pojasnilo, da bi vsak sistem prilagajanja pokojnin že zaradi svoje narave to zagotavljal le približno, zato ni razlogov, ki bi opravičevali stali�če, da je z vidika zagotavljanja enakega obravnavanja „metoda države“ manj primerna od „metode glavnega mesta“. Tak�en sklep po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje dodatno utemeljuje dejstvo, da ima zakonodajalec Skupnosti na tem področju �iroko diskrecijsko pravico. 4
By order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2005, the Council of the European Union was granted leave to intervene in the case.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijani sodbi ugotovilo predvsem, da je tožbeni razlog v zvezi z načinom izračuna gospodinjskega dodatka in dodatka za �olanje nedopusten, ker ni bil naveden v pritožbi.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance first ruled that the criticism relating to the method of calculating the household allowance and the education allowance was inadmissible as it had not been raised in the complaint. It also ruled inadmissible, for lack of a legal interest in bringing proceedings, the part of the application directed against the pension statements for May and June 2004, since the adjustment of the correction coefficients did not take effect until July 2004, as we have seen.
Glede trditve, v skladu s katero naj bi bili novi korekcijski koeficienti disktiminatorni, saj se za pokojnine izračunavajo drugače kot za prejemke aktivno zaposlenih uradnikov (za te se namreč �e naprej uporablja korekcijski koeficient, določen na podlagi „metode glavnega mesta“), je Sodi�če prve stopnje razložilo, da položaj aktivno zaposlenega uradnika, odvisen od kraja službovanja, objektivno ni primerljiv s položajem upokojenega uradnika, ki lahko svobodno izbere kraj prebivanja. 5
The Court of First Instance then rejected the argument on which the appellant based
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato zavrnilo trditev, s katero je pritožnik utemeljeval
4 — The judgment under appeal, paragraphs 99 to 109.5 — Ibid., paragraphs 110 to 115.
4 – Izpodbijana sodba, točke od 99 do 109.5 – Ibidem, točke od 110 do 115.
The Court of First Instance then dismissed the appellant’s pleas alleging breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, nonretroactivity, acquired rights, equal treatment, proportionality and good administration and alleging misuse of powers and lack of an adequate statement of reasons.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato zavrnilo tožbene razloge, s katerimi je pritožnik uveljavljal kr�itev načel zaupanja v pravo, pravne varnosti, prepovedi retroaktivnosti, varstva pridobljenih pravic, enakega obravnavanja, sorazmernosti in dobrega upravljanja, ter prekoračenje pooblastil in nezadostno obrazložitev.
In any event, the Court of First Instance also observed that the legislature’s introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% also for ‘less expensive’ Member States cannot be considered a manifestly arbitrary or inappropriate act. 7
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo �e, da odločitve zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da uvede minimalen korekcijski koeficient 100 % tudi za „manj drage“ države članice, ni mogoče �teti za samovoljno ali neustrezno. 7
V — Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought by the parties his claim of a difference in treatment in relation to pensioners living in Belgium, to whom a correction coefficient calculated on the basis of the cost of living in Brussels, instead of the entire territory of Belgium, continued to be applied, despite the switch to the ‘country method’.
V – Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi strank neenako obravnavo določene skupine upokojencev v primerjavi z upokojenci, ki prebivajo v Belgiji, ker naj bi se zanje �e naprej uporabljal – kljub sicer�njemu prehodu k upo�tevanju „metode države“ – korekcijski koeficient, izračunan na podlagi življenjskih stro�kov v Bruslju in ne na podlagi življenjskih stro�kov, ugotovljenih za celotno ozemlje Belgije.
The Court of First Instance observed that the rules of the new Staff Regulations on correction coefficients for pensioners make absolutely no reference to Brussels but simply to Belgium.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem poudarilo, da se določbe novih Kadrovskih predpisov glede korekcijskih koeficientov za upokojence nikjer ne nana�ajo na Bruselj, temveč enostavno le na Belgijo.
The possible unlawfulness of which the appellant complains concerns not the Staff Regulations but only the practical procedures for implementing those rules.
Eventualna izpodbijana nezakonitost naj se ne bi nana�ala na Kadrovske predpise, temveč na njihovo izvedbo, na postopek njihove uporabe.
The Court of First Instance also noted that it is in fact the amount of pension paid to former officials resident in Belgium that constitutes the benchmark for applying any correction coefficients for pensioners living in other Member States.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je poleg tega pojasnilo, da je prav znesek pokojnine, obračunan za nekdanje uradnike s prebivali�čem v Belgiji, izhodi�če za uporabo morebitnih korekcijskih koeficientov za izračun pokojnine upokojencev s prebivali�čem v drugih državah članicah.
Finally, it stated that, in any event, the principle that no person may rely, in support of his claim, on unlawful acts committed in favour of third parties was to be heeded. 6
Končno, vsekakor je treba opozoriti tudi na načelo, da nihče v svojo korist ne more uveljavljati nezakonitosti nekega ravnanja, ki je bilo storjeno v korist drugih subjektov. 6
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 8 February 2007, the appellant appealed against the abovementioned judgment.
Pritožnik je 8. februarja 2007 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča zoper navedeno sodbo vložil pritožbo.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
Pritožnik Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— set aside the judgment under appeal;
– izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi;
Lastly, the Court of First Instance rejected the appellant’s argument that he suffered discrimination by comparison with pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ Member States.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zavrnilo tudi zadnjo trditev pritožnika, s katero je utemeljeval diskriminatorno obravnavo upokojencev, ki živijo v „dragih državah“, glede na položaj upokojencev s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah.
Before the reform, a correction coefficient of less than 100% was applied to the pensions of pensioners living in such States (in other words, their pensions were reduced in relation to the reference amount).
Pred spremembo Kadrovskih predpisov se je za pokojnine upokojencev s prebivali�čem v teh državah uporabljal korekcijski koeficient, nižji od 100 % (povedano drugače, znesek pokojnine se je znižal glede na izhodi�čni znesek).
As a result of the reform, however, a minimum correction coefficient of 100% was applied to all pensioners, which means that no pensioner, irrespective of his place of residence, will henceforth be paid a lower pension than that paid to pensioners living in Belgium.
Po uvedbi sprememb pa je bil vsem upokojencem priznan minimalen korekcijski ugodi predlogom, podanim v pritožbi, vloženi pri organu, pristojnem za imenovanja, in posledično razglasi za nične
7 — Ibid., paragraphs 131 to 139.
7 – Izpodbijana sodba, točke od 131 do 139.
— order the appellant to pay the costs.
– pritožniku naloži plačilo stro�kov.
annulling the decision on the complaint and his pension statements;
odločbo v zvezi s pritožbo ter pokojninske odrezke;
VI — Legal analysis
VI – Pravna presoja
— order the Commission to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and those before the Court of Justice.
Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in postopka pred Sodi�čem.
A — Preliminary observations
A – Predhodne ugotovitve
— declare that the appeal is inadmissible;
– ugotovi, da je pritožba primarno, nedopustna;
In these appeal proceedings, the appellant pursues, among the many pleas in law relied on before the Court of First Instance, only the plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
V tem pritožbenem postopku pritožnik izmed �tevilnih tožbenih razlogov, ki jih je uveljavljal v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, povzema le razlog v zvezi s kr�itvijo načela enakega obravnavanja.
— in the alternative, dismiss the appeal in its entirety as unfounded;
– podredno, pritožbo v celoti zavrne kot neutemeljeno;
— order the appellant to pay the costs in accordance with Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
– pritožniku naloži plačilo stro�kov v skladu s členom 122 Poslovnika Sodi�ča.
More specifically, the appellant focuses his criticism on the response of the Court of First Instance to three of the four arguments adduced in support of that plea: the appellant expressly states that he does not intend to call into question the findings of the Court of First Instance on the second of those arguments, relating to alleged discrimination between pensioners and serving officials. 8
Natančneje, pritožnik svoje očitke osredotoča na pojasnila Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi s tremi izmed �tirih trditev, navedenih v utemeljitev tega razloga: pritožnik namreč izrecno navaja, da presoji Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi z drugo izmed navedenih trditev, ki se nana�a na zatrjevano diskriminatorno obravnavanje upokojencev glede na zaposlene uradnike, ne namerava oporekati. 8
Before examining the appellant’s criticism of the judgment under appeal, however,
Pred obravnavo pritožnikovih očitkov zoper izpodbijano sodbo pa je treba preučiti „nasprotno pritožbo“ Komisije.
— dismiss the appeal as unfounded;
– pritožbo kot neutemeljeno zavrne;
8 — See paragraph 14 of the appeal.
8 – Prim. točko 14 pritožbe.
it is necessary to assess the ‘cross-appeal’ brought by the Commission.
B – „Nasprotna pritožba“ Komisije niti, so tudi edine, pri katerih pritožnik, kot rečeno, vztraja tudi v okviru pritožbe.
The appellant, in his reply, maintains that the ‘cross-appeal’ is inadmissible, since the Commission was not unsuccessful in any of its submissions before the Court of First Instance, as required by Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
Pritožnik v repliki zatrjuje nedopustnost „nasprotne pritožbe“, saj Komisija v nobenem delu svojih predlogov v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje ni bila neuspela stranka, kot to zahteva člen 56 Statuta Sodi�ča.
Indeed, according to the appellant, the Commission did not raise the present objection of inadmissibility before the Court of First Instance and was therefore not unsuccessful on that point.
Komisija naj namreč v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje tega ugovora nedopustnosti ni podala, zato ni mogoče �teti, da s tak�nim predlogom ni uspela.