natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The discrimination (as compared with couples who are closer to each other in age) derives from their combined characteristics and is clearly agerelated.
Diskriminacija (v primerjavi s pari z manj�o starostno razliko) izhaja iz njihovih skupnih značilnosti in je očitno povezana s starostjo. Očitno je, da je oseba, kot je B.
Such treatment is directly discriminatory as between different categor- ies of widows of employees in respect of receipt of, or exclusion from, pension rights.
Tako obravnavanje neposredno diskriminira med različnimi kategorijami vdov zaposlenih glede pridobitve ali izključitve pokojninskih pravic.
The adverse result follows straightforwardly
92 – Glej točke od 109 do 110 spodaj.
Analysis under Directive 2000/78 the general principle.
Presoja na podlagi Direktive 2000/78 enake utemeljitve, kot bi se uporabile pri presoji na podlagi splo�nega načela.
They are confirmed by a number of specific characteristics of the directive.
Potrjujejo jih �tevilne posebne značilnosti Direktive.
Article 3(1) applies the directive to ‘all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to … (c) employment and working conditions, including … pay’.
V skladu s členom 3(1) se Direktiva uporablja „za vse osebe, bodisi v javnem bodisi v zasebnem sektorju, vključno z javnimi telesi, kar zadeva […] (c) zaposlitev in delovne pogoje, vključno s […] plačilom“.
According to established caselaw, a survivor’s pension falls within the concept of ‘pay’ under Article 141 EC as a benefit deriving from the deceased spouse’s employment relationship. 93
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso vdovska pokojnina spada v pojem „plačila“ na podlagi člena 141 ES kot izplačilo ugodnosti, ki izhaja iz delovnega razmerja umrlega zakonca. 93
The survivors’ pension is ‘pay’ under Article 141 EC and therefore ‘pay’ for the purposes of Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/78.
Vdovska pokojnina je „plačilo“ na podlagi člena 141 ES in zato „plačilo“ za namene člena 3(1) Direktive 2000/78.
After the expiry of the period for transposing Directive 2000/78, the validity of the age-gap clause would therefore fall to be assessed under the directive.
Po izteku roka za prenos Direktive 2000/78 bi se morala veljavnost klavzule o starostni razliki presojati na podlagi Direktive.
That is also consistent with standard principles of interpretation, which dictate that the concept of discrimination in Article 2 should be read broadly, while the justifications and derogations under Article 2(2)(b)(i) and under Article 6 should be construed narrowly.
To je tudi v skladu z splo�nimi razlagalnimi načeli, ki narekujejo, da je treba pojem diskriminacije iz člena 2 razlagati �iroko, utemeljitve in izjeme na podlagi člena 2(2)(b)(i) in člena 6 pa ozko.
To read Article 2 as applying only to absolute ages (‘the employer treats a 50-year-old less favourably than a 40-year-old’), would be to interpret the principle in that article narrowly.
Če bi člen 2 razlagali tako, da se uporablja samo za absolutne starosti (delodajalec obravnava 50-letnika manj ugodno kot 40-letnika), bi bilo treba načelo iz tega člena razlagati ozko.
That is not the way in which the Court has interpreted sex discrimination, 94or any fundamental Treaty-based freedom.
Sodi�če ni razlagalo na ta način spolne diskriminacije 94ali katere koli temeljne svobo�čine, ki temelji na Pogodbi.
It seems to me that, as regards the question what types of age-related discrimination are covered, the same arguments apply under the directive as applied in the analysis under
Zdi se mi, da se na podlagi Direktive glede vpra�anja, katere vrste s starostjo povezane diskriminacije so zajete, uporabljajo
93 — See Case C-379/99 Menauer [2001] ECR I-7275, paragraph 18 and the caselaw cited there; and Case C-117/01 K.B. [2004] ECR I-541, paragraph 26.
94 – Tako spolna diskriminacija vključuje diskriminacijo, ki izhaja iz spremembe spola.
94 — Thus, sex discrimination includes discrimination arising from gender reassignment.
Glej zadevo P. proti S., C-13/94, Recueil, str.
See Case C-13/94 P. v S. [1996] ECR I-2143, paragraphs 17 to 20, and Case C-423/04 Richards [2006] ECR I-3585, paragraph 24.
I-2143, točke od 17 do 20; in zadevo Richards, C-423/04, ZOdl., str.
In Grant, cited in footnote 21, paragraph 42 (which, however, predates the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam and hence the introduction of Article 13 in the EC Treaty), the Court took the view that it did not extend to differences of treatment based on a person’s sexual orientation.
I-3585, točka 24. Sodi�če je v zadevi Grant, navedeni v opombi 21, točka 42, (ki je nastala pred začetkom veljavnosti Amsterdamske pogodbe in zato pred vključitvijo člena 13 v Pogodbo ES) menilo, da ni raz�irilo razlik v obravnavanju na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti posameznika.
Secondly, as the Commission observes, reading Article 2 as applying only to absolute ages would make it easier to evade the pro -hibition on discrimination that it contains.
Drugič, kot poudarja Komisija, če bi razlagali člen 2 tako, da se uporablja samo za absolutne starosti, bi se bilo lažje izogniti prepovedi diskriminacije, ki jo vsebuje.
An astute employer might get round the prohibition by recasting his existing discriminatory practices in terms of relative, rather than absolute, ages.
Preudaren delodajalec lahko zaobide prepoved s preoblikovanjem svoje dejanske diskriminatorne prakse glede na relativno, ne absolutno, starost.
Question 3(b)
Vprašanje 3(b)
I therefore read the directive as prohibiting discrimination based both on absolute and relative age.
Zato razlagam Direktivo v smislu, da prepoveduje diskriminacijo na podlagi absolutne in relativne starosti.
In my analysis of the general principle, I have suggested that ‘discrimination on grounds of relative age’ would cover both discriminatory treatment affecting the deceased employee and discriminatory treatment affecting the survivor.
Pri presoji splo�nega načela sem predlagala, da bi „diskriminacija zaradi relativne starosti“ zajemala diskriminatorno obravnavanje, ki �koduje umrlemu zaposlenemu, in diskriminatorno obravnavanje, ki �koduje preživelemu družinskemu članu.
95I cannot conceive that the principle contained in Article 2 of Directive 2000/78, which is intended to ‘put into effect’ the principle of equal treatment, 96is to be construed more narrowly in this respect than that general principle.
95Ne morem si predstavljati, da bi bilo treba načelo iz člena 2 Direktive 2000/78, katerega namen je „uresničevati“ načelo enakega obravnavanja, 96 v zvezi s tem razlagati ožje kot splo�no načelo.
The referring court asks whether, if a provision like the age-gap clause gives rise to differential treatment, that discrimination can be justified by the employer’s interest in limiting risks assumed by voluntary pension schemes (and his desire to make those risks more quantifiable).
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je mogoče diskriminacijo upravičiti z delodajalčevim interesom, da se omejijo tveganja, ki se prevzamejo s prostovoljnim sistemom pokojninskega zavarovanja (in njegovo željo količinsko bolj opredeliti ta tveganja), če določba, kot je klavzula o starostni razliki, povzroča različno obravnavanje.
98However, it seems to me that, once a risk is quantified, it is no longer a ‘risk’ but a foreseeable obligation for which provision can be made.
98Vendar se mi zdi, da ko se tveganje količinsko opredeli, ne gre več za „tveganje“, temveč za prihodnjo obveznost, za katero je mogoče sprejeti ukrepe.
It also seems clear that actuarial analysis will quantify the obligations likely to arise as a result of ‘age gaps’.
Zdi se tudi očitno, da bo aktuarska presoja količinsko opredelila obveznosti, ki lahko izhajajo iz „starostnih razlik“.
I therefore proceed on the basis that the referring court essentially wishes to know whether discrimination can be justified by the employer’s interest in placing an overall
Zato izhajam iz tega, da predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu želi vedeti, ali je diskriminacijo mogoče upravičiti z delodajalčevim interesom pri določanju splo�ne omejitve stro�kov, ki breme-
I therefore proceed upon the basis that an age-gap clause such as that at issue in the proceedings before the national court is capable of constituting direct discrimination for the purposes of Article 2(2)(a) of Direct-
Zato izhajam iz tega, da lahko taka klavzula o starostni razliki, kot je obravnavana v postopku v glavni stvari pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo v smislu člena 2(2)(a) Direk-
97 — Under this provision, direct discrimination is taken to occur ‘where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation’ on grounds, inter alia, of age.
97 – Na podlagi te določbe se �teje, da gre za neposredno diskriminacijo, „kadar je, je bila ali bi bila oseba obravnavana manj ugodno kakor neka druga v primerljivi situaciji“ med drugim -zara distarosti.
Indirect discrimination is defined in Article 2(2)(b).
Posredna diskriminacija je opredeljena v členu 2(2)(b). Glej točko 109.
95 — See point 98.96 — Article 1 of Directive 2000/78.
95 – Glej točko 98.96 – Člen 1 Direktive 2000/78.
98 — See point 17 above.
98 – Glej točko 17 zgoraj.
is satisfied, no indirect discrimination shall be taken to have occurred (otherwise, it has).
�teje, da ni pri�lo do posredne diskriminacije (sicer pa je).
At first sight, that would appear to suggest (a contrario) that discrimination falling within Article 2(2)(a) is not capable of objective justification.
Na prvi pogled se zdi, da to predlaga (a contrario), da diskriminacije iz člena 2(2)(a) ni mogoče objektivno upravičiti.
There is, however, obviously an overlap between the terms of Article 2(2)(b) and the framing of the (extensive) justification on objective grounds for age discrimination that is set out in Article 6.
Očitno pa se prekrivajo pojmi iz člena 2(2)(b) in formulacija (�iroke) utemeljitve starostne diskriminacije na podlagi objektivnih razlogov, ki je določena v členu 6.
Directive 2000/78 provides a convenient analytical framework for approaching this question.
Direktiva 2000/78 zagotavlja primeren analitični okvir za presojo tega vpra�anja.
If the events giving rise to the present reference had occurred after the expiry of the transposition period for Dir -ective 2000/78, would an age-gap clause in a private supplementary pension scheme of the kind operated by BSH have been capable of justification?
Če bi dogodki, ki so pripeljali do obravnavanih vpra�anj, predloženih v predhodno odločanje, nastali pred iztekom roka za prenos Direktive 2000/78, ali bi bilo mogoče upravičiti klavzulo o starostni razliki v takem zasebnem dopolnilnem sistemu pokojninskega zavarovanja, kot ga je upravljala družba BSH?
Directive 2000/78 defines both direct and indirect discrimination within Article 2.
Direktiva 2000/78 opredeljuje neposredno in posredno diskriminacijo v členu 2.
The two limbs of Article 2(2) start in the same way: ‘… discrimination shall be taken to occur where …’. Article 2(2)(a) defines direct discrimination without going on to suggest that it may, in principle, be capable of justification.
Člen 2(2) se v dveh delih začne na enak način: „[… S]e �teje, da gre za neposredno diskriminacijo, kadar […]“ V členu 2(2)(a) je opredeljena neposredna diskriminacija, brez nadaljnje navedbe, da bi jo bilo mogoče načeloma upravičiti.
Article 2(2)(b), in contrast, states that ‘indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having … a particular age … at a particular disadvantage unless … that provision, criter- ion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary …’. In other words, if the proviso in Article 2(2)(b)
Nasprotno, v členu 2(2)(b) je določeno, da „se �teje, da gre za posredno diskriminacijo, kadar je zaradi kak�ne navidez nevtralne določbe, merila ali prakse neka oseba […] določene starosti […] v slab�em položaju, razen če tako določbo, merilo ali prakso objektivno upravičuje legitimni cilj in je način uresničevanja tega cilja primeren in nujen […]“ Drugače povedano, če je zado�čeno določbi iz člena 2(2)(b), se
Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 deals exclusively with justification for one specific type of differential treatment: discrimination on grounds of age.
V členu 6(1) Direktive 2000/78 je urejena izključno upravičenost posebne vrste različnega obravnavanja: diskriminacija zaradi starosti.
It opens with the words, ‘Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide …’.
Začne se takole: „Ne glede na člen 2(2) lahko države članice predvidijo […]“.
Here, no distinction is drawn by the legislator between Article 2(2)(a) (direct discrimination) and Article 2(2)(b) (indirect discrimination).
Zakonodajalec v tem primeru ne razlikuje med členom 2(2)(a) (neposredna diskriminacija) in členom 2(2)(b) (posredna diskriminacija).
Rather, Member States are permitted to provide that any differences of treatment caught by Article 2(2) ‘shall not constitute discrimination if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim … and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary’.
Državam članicam je prej dopu�čeno, da zagotovijo, da katero koli različno obravnavanje, ki spada v člen 2(2), „ne predstavlja diskriminacije, če ga v kontekstu nacionalnega prava objektivno in razumno utemeljujejo z legitimnim ciljem […] in če so načini uresničevanja tega cilja primerni in nujni“.
Certain specific ‘legitimate aims’ are expressly identified (‘including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives’), in what is (given the use of the word ‘including’) meant not to be an exhaustive list.
Nekateri „legitimni cilji“ so izrecno navedeni („vključno z legitimnimi cilji zaposlovalne politike, delovnega trga in poklicnega usposabljanja“), kar pa pomeni (glede na uporabo besede „vključno“), da seznam ni izčrpen.
After this introduction, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) then identify (again, non-exhaustively) certain types of differential treatment which appear to
Pododstavki (a), (b) in (c) po tem uvodnem stavku (ponovno neizčrpno) določajo nekatere vrste različnega obravnavanja, ki deloma
BARTSCH involve partly direct discrimination, 99 partly indirect discrimination 100on grounds of age.
BARTSCH vključujejo neposredno diskriminacijo, 99deloma posredno diskriminacijo 100zaradi starosti.
Article 6(2) makes provision for certain types of age-related differential treatment for occupational social security schemes.
V členu 6(2) so določene nekatere vrste s starostjo povezanega različnega obravnavanja za sisteme poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja.
particular kinds of differential treatment based directly on grounds of age, provided that they are ‘objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim … and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary’.
različnega obravnavanja neposredno na podlagi starosti, pod pogojem, da so „objektivno in razumno utemeljeni z legitimnim ciljem[,…] in če so načini uresničevanja tega cilja primerni in nujni“.
This analysis of the text is borne out by the Court’s judgment in Palacios de la Villa, 102which concerned a compulsory retirement clause in national legislation.
To presojo potrjuje sodba Sodi�ča v zadevi Palacios de la Villa, 102ki se je nana�ala na klavzulo o obvezni upokojitvi v nacionalni zakonodaji.
103Recital 14 of Directive 2000/78 states that ‘[t]his Directive shall [ 104] be without prejudice to national provisions laying down retirement ages’.
103V uvodni izjavi 14 Direktive 2000/78 je določeno, da „[t]a direktiva ne vpliva[ 104] na nacionalne določbe, ki urejajo upokojitveno starost“.
However, no substantive provision in the directive exempts retirement clauses from its scope.
Nobena materialna določba iz Direktive pa iz svojega področja uporabe ne izključuje klavzule o upokojevanju.
The Court found that such a clause fell within the directive and constituted direct age discrimination.
Sodi�če je ugotovilo, da je taka klavzula spadala v Direktivo in pomenila neposredno starostno diskriminacijo.
105It nevertheless decided that it served an object- ive which could, under Article 6(1) of the directive, reasonably and objectively justify a difference in treatment on grounds of age. 106
105 Kljub temu je odločilo, da je ustre- zala cilju, ki je lahko na podlagi člena 6(1) Direktive razumno in objektivno utemeljeval različno obravnavanje zaradi starosti. 106
It would be fair to say that the majority of the specific illustrations of ‘acceptable’ differential treatment in Article 6(1) involve the direct use of age as a decision criterion (‘older workers’, ‘minimum conditions of age’, ‘a maximum age for recruitment’).
Prav bi bilo povedati, da večina posebnih primerov „sprejemljivega“ različnega obravnavanja iz člena 6(1) vključuje neposredno uporabo starosti kot merila za odločitev („starej�i delavci“, „minimalni pogoji glede starosti“, „najvi�ja starost za zaposlitev“).
101The decision criterion is thus not ‘an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice’ (as identified, in Article 2(2)(b) within the definition of indirect discrimination).
101Merilo za odločitev zato ni „navidez nevtralna določba, merilo ali praksa“ (kot je določeno v členu 2(2)(b) v okviru opredelitve posredne diskriminacije).
Rather, it is often differential treatment on grounds of age, pure and simple.
Pogostokrat gre prej za jasno in preprosto različno obravnavanje zaradi starosti.
The age-gap clause does not fit neatly into any of the specific illustrations in
Klavzula o starostni razliki jasno ni vključena v nobenega od posebnih primerov
103 — In Palacios de la Villa, cited in footnote 20, unlike the present case, the transposition period had of course already expired.
103 – Rok za prenos se je v sodbi Palacios de la Villa, navedeni v opombi 20, drugače kakor v obravnavani zadevi, seveda že iztekel.
See point 39 above.
Glej točko 39 zgoraj.
100 — For example, the setting of minimum conditions of seniority in service for access to certain advantages linked to employment (Article 6(1)(a)).
100 – Na primer določitev minimalnih pogojev delovne dobe glede dostopa do nekaterih ugodnosti, povezanih z zaposlitvijo (člen 6(1)(a)).
Seniority in service, although an ‘apparently neutral criterion’, is likely to operate indirectly as an age-based criterion.
Delovna doba, čeprav „navidez nevtralno merilo“, lahko posredno deluje kot merilo, ki temelji na starosti.
104 — This is a curious use of ‘shall’ (an enacting form) in a preamble (which is explanatory).
104 – Angle�ka različica uporablja modalni glagol „shall“ (ki lahko izraža prepoved), kar je neobičajno za preambulo (ki ima pojasnilno naravo).
See point 10 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation (OJ 1999 C 73, p.
Glej točko 10 Medinstitucional -nega sporazuma o skupnih smernicah za pripravo kakovo -stnih pravnih aktov Skupnosti (UL 1999, C 73, str.
1), to which I referred in my Opinion of 10 April 2008 in Case C-345/06 Heinrich, points 28, 64, and 65.
1), na katerega sem se sklicevala v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Heinrich, C-345/06, predstavljenih 10. aprila 2008, točke 28, 64 in 65.
101 — Compare Advocate General Jacobs’s discussion of two types of justification for difference in treatment on grounds of sex, and their relation to direct and indirect discrimination, at points 34 to 35 of his Opinion in Case C-79/99 Schnorbus [2000] ECR I-10997.
101 – Primerjaj razpravo generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa o dveh vrstah upravičenosti različnega obravnavanja zaradi spola in o njuni povezavi z neposredno in posredno diskriminacijo v točkah od 34 do 35 njegovih sklepnih predlogov v zadevi Schnorbus, C-79/99, Recueil, str. I-10997.
105 — Paragraph 51.106 — Paragraph 66.
105 – Točka 51.106 – Točka 66.
On the one hand, the present state of Community law allows Member States and, where appropriate, the two sides of industry at national level fairly broad discretion, not only in whether to pursue a particular aim in the field of social and employment policy, but also in the definition of measures capable of achieving it. 108
Po eni strani imajo v dandana�njem stanju prava Skupnosti države članice in v določenih primerih socialni partnerji na nacionalni ravni na voljo �iroko diskrecijsko pravico pri izbiri, ne le glede sledenja določenemu cilju na področju socialne in zaposlovalne politike, temveč tudi pri sprejemanju ukrepov za uresničevanje cilja.
Article 6(1)(a), (b) or (c).
108 iz člena 6(1)(a), (b) ali (c).
The employer’s interest in placing an overall limitation on the costs borne by a voluntary pension scheme 107is reminiscent of the factors behind the Article 6(2) derogation.
Interes delodajalca pri določanju splo�ne omejitve stro�kov, ki bremenijo sistem prostovoljnega pokojninskega zavarovanja, 107spominja na dejavnike, ki stojijo za izjemo iz člena 6(2).
Derogations are, as a general principle of construction, to be interpreted restrictively.
Izjeme je treba v skladu s splo�nim razlagalnim načelom razlagati ozko.
At the same time, it is clear that Article 6 does not contain an exhaustive list of permissible derogations.
Hkrati je očitno, da člen 6 ne vsebuje izčrpnega seznama dovoljenih izjem.
On the other hand, the Court has consistently taken a strict approach to pension schemes which, as in the present case, exclude certain categories of persons, as opposed to those which provide differential benefits.
Po drugi strani je Sodi�če vedno strogo presojalo pokojninske sisteme, ki kot v obravnavani zadevi izključujejo določene kategorije posameznikov, v nasprotju s tistimi sistemi, ki določajo razlikovalne dajatve.
In particular, it circumscribed the non-retroactive effect of its ruling in Barber 109so as not to apply to the former type of scheme.
Zlasti je omejilo neretroaktivno veljavnost svoje sodbe Barber 109, tako da se ne uporablja za prvo vrsto sistemov.
110 The Court has also been circumspect in accepting grounds based on
110 Sodi�če je bilo tudi previdno pri sprejemanju razlogov, ki
108 — See Palacios de la Villa, cited in footnote 20, paragraph 68.
108 – Glej sodbo Palacios de la Villa, navedeno v opombi 20, točka 68.
See also recital 25 to Directive 2000/78.
Glej tudi uvodno izjavo 25 Direktive 2000/78.
109 — Case C-262/88 [1990] ECR I-1889.
109 – Zadeva C-262/88, Recueil, str. I-1889.
If the Member State had already transposed Directive 2000/78, it would (presumably) have made some policy choices.
Če bi država članica že prenesla Direktivo 2000/78, bi (verjetno) sprejela nekatere politične odločitve.
If it had chosen to invoke Article 6(2) of the directive so as to allow a private employer to include a provision such as the age-gap clause in its occupational pension scheme, the Court would first have to decide whether use of the age-gap clause qualified under the derogation and then (if so) assess the actual scheme for proportionality.
Če bi se odločila, da se bo sklicevala na člen 6(2) Direktive, da bi omogočila zasebnemu delodajalcu vključitev take določbe, kot je klavzula o starostni razliki, v svoj sistem poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja, bi moralo Sodi�če, prvič, odločiti, ali je za uporabo klavzule o starostni razliki veljala izjema, in, drugič, (če je bilo tako) presoditi dejanski sistem na podlagi načela sorazmernosti.
107 — See point 107 above.
107 – Glej točko 107 zgoraj.
BARTSCH actuarial calculations to justify differential treatment. 111
BARTSCH temeljijo na aktuarskih izračunih, za upravičenost različnega obravnavanja. 111