natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 18 January 2002 Mrs Girardot brought an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s two decisions dated 13 and 15 March 2001 rejecting her application for eight permanent posts to be paid from research and investment appropriations (‘the contested decisions’) and the consequent annulment of the eight decisions by the Commission appointing third parties to those posts.
M.-C. Girardot je 18. januarja 2002 v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje vložila tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti dveh odločitev Komisije z dne 13. oziroma 15. marca 2001, s katerima so bile zavržene njene prijave na osem stalnih delovnih mest, plačanih iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev za raziskave in naložbe (v nadaljevanju: sporni odločitvi), in posledično za razglasitev ničnosti osmih odločitev Komisije o imenovanju tretjih oseb na ta delovna mesta.
By its interim judgment the Court of First Instance annulled the two contested decisions on the ground that the Commission had not demonstrated that it had properly examined the merits of Mrs Girardot’s application in relation to each of the posts in question before rejecting it and, correspondingly, before accepting the application of other candidates (paragraph 83 of the interim judgment).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je z vmesno sodbo sporni odločitvi Komisije razglasilo za nični z obrazložitvijo, da Komisija ni ustrezno obravnavala primernosti prijave M.-C. Girardot za vsako zadevno delovno mesto, preden je zavrgla njeno prijavo in posledično sprejela prijave drugih kandidatov (točka 83 vmesne sodbe).
The Court of First Instance rejected, however, the claims of Mrs Girardot seeking annulment of the decisions appointing the successful candidates to the posts in ques-
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je zavrnilo predloge M.-C. Girardot za razglasitev ničnosti odločitev o imenovanju kandidatov, ki so bili sprejeti na zadevna delovna mesta.
The Court held, after balancing the respective interests of Mrs Girardot, the service and the third parties who had been appointed, that such an annulment would have excessively penalised the Commission for the unlawful act it had committed (paragraphs 85 to 88 of the interim judgment).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je, potem ko je pretehtalo interese M.-C. Girardot, službe in tretjih oseb, ki so bile imenovane, namreč ugotovilo, da bi taka razglasitev ničnosti pomenila pretirano sankcijo za nezakonitost ravnanja Komisije (točke od 85 do 88 vmesne sodbe).
Nevertheless, having observed that the Community courts have the power, in order to ensure that an annulment by the Court serves some useful purpose for the applicant, to make use of the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on them in proceedings concerning financial matters and to order, of its own motion, the defendant to make payment of compensation or request that it find an equitable outcome as appropriate, the Court of First Instance, in order adequately to protect Mrs Girardot’s rights, requested the parties to seek an agreement on fair financial compensation for the unlawful rejection of her applications.
Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje z opozorilom, da lahko sodi�če Skupnosti, zato da zagotovi polni učinek sodbe o razglasitvi ničnosti v dobro tožeče stranke, ravna v okviru pristojnosti za odločanje v sporu polne jurisdikcije, ki jo ima v sporih finančne narave, in tudi po uradni dolžnosti toženi instituciji naloži plačilo od�kodnine ali jo pozove, naj poskusi najti primerno re�itev za svoj primer, stranki pozvalo, naj poskusita doseči dogovor o primerni denarni od�kodnini za nezakonito zavrženje prijav M.-C. Girardot, da bi se njene pravice ustrezno zavarovale.
The Court of First Instance stated that, in quantifying that compensation, account should be taken of the fact that Mrs Girardot could no longer take part in the next procedure, which the Commission would take care to conduct in accordance with the rules, since, because the temporary staff contract attaching her to the Commission had come to an end and had not been renewed, she was neither in a position nor entitled to express her interest in vacant posts by responding to a ‘specific research’ vacancy notice.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem pojasnilo, da je treba pri določitvi te od�kodnine upo�tevati dejstvo, da M.-C. Girardot ni mogla več sodelovati v naslednjem postopku, katerega pravilen potek bi morala zagotoviti Komisija, ker zaradi poteka in nepodalj�anja pogodbe za začasno uslužbenko s Komisijo ni bila več niti sposobna niti upravičena, da se poteguje za delovna mesta z odgovorom na objavo prostih delovnih mest z oznako „Spécial Recherche“.
If agreement could not be reached, the Court of First Instance stated that the parties were to submit their estimates of damages with supporting figures within three months from delivery of the interim judgment (paragraphs 89 to 91 of the interim judgment).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je navedlo, da bi mu morali stranki, če dogovora ne bi sklenili, poslati svoje predloge o zneskih v treh mesecih od izreka vmesne sodbe (točke od 89 do 91 vmesne sodbe).
The judgment under appeal
Izpodbijana sodba
Since the parties could not reach an agreement on the amount of fair financial compensation, they sent their submissions on the quantum of damages to the Court of First Instance on 6 September 2004.
Ker strankama ni uspelo skleniti dogovora o primerni denarni od�kodnini, sta 6. septembra 2004 Sodi�ču prve stopnje posredovali svoje predloge o zneskih.
In her heads of claim, Mrs Girardot asked the Court of First Instance to set the amount of financial compensation, together with interest to be determined by the Court, as her principal claim, at EUR 2 687 994; in the alternative, at EUR 432 887 and, further in the alternative, at EUR 250 248.
M.-C. Girardot je Sodi�ču prve stopnje predlagala, naj se za denarno od�kodnino določi znesek 2.687.994 EUR, podredno pa 432.887 EUR in �e bolj podredno 250.248 EUR, skupaj z zakonitimi obrestmi.
The Commission, for its part, asked the Court of First Instance to set that amount at EUR 23 917.43, considering it reasonable to award to Mrs Girardot, as can be read in paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal, ‘first, payment of three months’ basic salary to correspond to the minimum period of notice laid down in [Article 47(2)(a) of the Conditions of employment] namely EUR 18 917.43, in compensation for loss of the opportunity to obtain one or other of the eight posts in question, and, secondly, EUR 5 000 in compensation for loss of the opportunity to take part in a further procedure for the filling of vacant posts’.
Komisija je Sodi�ču prve stopnje predlagala, naj določi ta znesek na 23.917,43 EUR, pri čemer je menila, kot izhaja iz točke 45 izpodbijane sodbe, da je M.-C. Girardot primerno izplačati „po eni strani tri mesečne neto plače za minimalni odpovedni rok, ki je določen v [členu 47(2)(a) PZDU], to je 18.917,43 EUR, kot od�kodnino za izgubo možnosti potegovati se za osem zadevnih delovnih mest, ter po drugi strani 5000 EUR kot od�kodnino za izgubo možnosti sodelovati v novem postopku zapolnitve prostih delovnih mest“.
That amount was to be supplemented by compensatory interest due between delivery of the interim judgment and actual payment of the sum due, together with token damages of one euro in compensation for nonmaterial harm.
Ta znesek naj bi bil povi�an za kompenzacijske obresti za obdobje od izreka vmesne sodbe do dejanskega plačila dolgovanega zneska, pa tudi za simbolični euro kot od�kodnino za nepremoženjsko �kodo.
After examination of the various forms of damage claimed by Mrs Girardot the Court of First Instance, by the judgment under appeal, first, set the amount of the financial compensation payable by the Commission at EUR 92 785, together with interest payable from 6 September 2004 at the rate set by the ECB for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, and, secondly, ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
Potem ko je Sodi�če prve stopnje preizkusilo različne �kode, ki naj bi jih M.-C. Girardot utrpela, je v izpodbijani sodbi po eni strani določilo znesek denarne od�kodnine, ki ga Komisija dolguje M.-C. Girardot, na 92.785 EUR skupaj z obrestmi, ki tečejo od 6. septembra 2004 dalje po stopnji, ki jo je Evropska centralna banka določila za operacije glavnega refinanciranja, povi�ano za dve točki, ter po drugi strani naložilo Komisiji plačilo stro�kov.
In relation to, first, the claimed loss of an opportunity to be recruited to a vacant post within the Commission, the Court of First Instance first stated, in paragraph 54 of the judgment under appeal, that the contested decisions had deprived Mrs Girardot, definitively and irreversibly, given the impossibility of restoring the position prior to their adoption, not only of the right to expect that her applications would be examined by the Commission, but also of the possibility that one of them would be accepted by the Commission.
Prvič, glede domnevne izgube možnosti zaposlitve na prostem delovnem mestu pri Komisiji je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 54 izpodbijane sodbe najprej opozorilo, da je bila s spornimi odločitvami M.-C. Girardot gotovo in dokončno odvzeta ne zgolj pravica, da Komisija njene prijave obravnavana, temveč tudi možnost, da bi bila ena od njih sprejeta, glede na to, da je nemogoče obnoviti položaj pred sprejetjem spornih odločitev.
The Court then stated, in paragraphs 55 and 56 of that judgment, that the loss of an opportunity to occupy a vacant post within a
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah 55 in 56 izpodbijane sodbe nadalje poja-
Community institution and to receive the financial advantages attaching to such a post was damage which was material, as the parties had agreed.
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT snilo, da izguba možnosti zaposlitve na prostem delovnem mestu v okviru institucije Skupnosti ter možnosti kori�čenja s tem povezanih denarnih ugodnosti pomeni �kodo premoženjske narave, o čemer sta se stranki sporazumeli.
Lastly, the Court stated, in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the judgment under appeal, that, in order to assess the extent of the damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity as claimed in the present case, it was necessary to ‘determine the difference between the earnings which Mrs Girardot would have received if the chance that her applications would be successful had materialised and the earnings which she in fact received after the unlawful rejection of her applications, and then, if appropriate, to assess, as a percentage, what chance Mrs Girardot had that such an eventuality would materialise’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nazadnje v točkah 57 in 58 izpodbijane sodbe razložilo, da je treba za oceno obsega �kode, ki je nastala zaradi domnevne izgube možnosti v obravnavanem primeru, „ugotoviti razliko med plačilom, ki bi ga M.-C. Girardot prejemala, če bi bila njena prijava sprejeta, in plačilom, ki ga je dejansko prejemala po nezakonitem zavrženju njene prijave, ter če je to ustrezno, v obliki odstotkov oceniti možnosti, ki jih je imela M.-C. Girardot, da se uresniči navedena hipoteza“.
As regards, first, the difference in earnings, the Court of First Instance explained, in paragraph 59 of the judgment under appeal, that that criterion was justified by the fact that while Mrs Girardot had lost a chance of occupying one of those posts and, consequently, of obtaining the corresponding financial benefits, she had not remained without employment.
Najprej, Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 59 izpodbijane sodbe glede razlike v plačilu navedlo, da je to merilo upravičeno zaradi dejstva, da je M.-C. Girardot sicer izgubila možnost zaposlitve na enem od zadevnih delovnih mest in posledično možnost kori�čenja s tem povezanih denarnih ugodnosti, vendar ni ostala brez zaposlitve.
In order to determine a possible difference in earnings, the Court of First Instance first established, in paragraphs 61 to 82 of the judgment under appeal, the period in which comparison was to be made between the financial terms of employment which Mrs Girardot would have enjoyed if she had been recruited by the Commission and those which she actually enjoyed.
Da bi Sodi�če prve stopnje določilo morebitno razliko v plačilu, je najprej v točkah od 61 do 82 izpodbijane sodbe določilo obdobje, v katerem je treba opraviti primerjavo med finančnimi pogoji delovnega mesta, ki bi veljali za M.-C. Girardot, če bi jo Komisija zaposlila, in finančnimi pogoji, ki so dejansko veljali zanjo.
The Court of First Instance rejected, in paragraphs 73 to 77 of that judgment, the Commission’s argument that reparation for Mrs Girardot’s loss of an opportunity could be achieved solely by the award of fair financial compensation amounting to the equivalent of payment of three months’ net salary, corresponding to the minimum notice period laid down in Article 47(2)(a) of the Conditions of employment.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 73 do 77 izpodbijane sodbe v zvezi s tem zavrnilo utemeljitev Komisije, da naj bi bilo možnost, ki jo je M.-C. Girardot izgubila, mogoče nadomestiti s plačilom primerne denarne od�kodnine, ki naj bi zna�ala tri neto mesečne plače, izplačane na podlagi minimalnega odpovednega roka, ki je predviden v členu 47(2)(a) PZDU.
The Court of First Instance held that that argument amounted to claiming that the length of time Mrs Girardot would have remained in the service of the Commission if it had recruited her was so hypothetical that it should be considered that the Commission terminated her employment immediately after its commencement, which was not credible.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je namreč menilo, da bi ta utemeljitev pomenila, da je trajanje zaposlitve M.-C. Girardot na Komisiji, če bi jo slednja zaposlila, tako hipotetično, da bi bilo treba ugotoviti, da bi jo Komisija odpustila takoj po tem, ko bi jo zaposlila, kar pa ni verjetno.
In those circumstances, in paragraph 78 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that, to take account of all the possibilities of termination of employment as laid down in Article 47(2) and Articles 48 to 50 of the Conditions of employment, the period to be considered might be set ex aequo et bono at five years, including the period of notice, running from the date of effective appointment of the candidates accepted by
V teh okoli�činah je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 78 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da se lahko ob upo�tevanju vseh možnosti prenehanja zaposlitve, ki so predvidene v členih 47(2) in od 48 do 50 PZDU, za obdobje, ki ga je treba upo�tevati, ex
2008 — CASE C-348/06 P the Commission on conclusion of the procedure for the filling of vacant posts from which Mrs Girardot was unlawfully excluded.
2008 – ZADEVA C-348/06 P æquo et bono določi petletno obdobje, vključno z odpovednim rokom, od datuma, ko so začela veljati imenovanja kandidatov, ki jih je Komisija sprejela ob koncu postopka zapolnitve delovnih mest, iz katerega je bila M.-C. Girardot nezakonito izločena.
On the other hand, in paragraph 80 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed Mrs Girardot’s arguments relating to the probability of becoming a permanent official on the ground that that factor was not a matter of certainty.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je poleg tega v točki 80 izpodbijane sodbe zavrnilo utemeljitve M.-C. Girardot glede verjetnosti imenovanja, ker je bilo to negotovo.
The Court of First Instance then determined, in paragraphs 83 to 95 of the judgment under appeal, the extent of the loss of earnings over that period.
Nadalje, Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 83 do 95 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo obseg izgube plačila v tem obdobju.
For that purpose, in paragraph 86 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance decided ex aequo et bono, in the absence of evidence produced by Mrs Girardot to enable the Court to determine the remuneration which would have been paid to her if her applications had been successful, and how that remuneration would have progressed, that Mrs Girardot would have received net monthly remuneration equivalent, on average, to the last remuneration paid to her by the Commission, which corresponded to a post in a grade A 5, step 4.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v ta namen v točki 86 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo ex aequo et bono, da ker M.-C. Girardot ni predložila dokazil za določitev plačila, ki bi ji bilo izplačano, če bi bila ena od njenih prijav sprejeta, ter glede povi�anja tega plačila, bi M.-C. Girardot prejemala neto mesečno plačilo, ki v povprečju ustreza zadnjemu plačilu, ki ji ga je izplačala Komisija in delovnem mestu v nazivu A5, plačilni razred 4.
In paragraph 85 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance rejected Mrs Girardot’s argument that she would have been selected for a post in a grade A 4.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 85 iste sodbe v zvezi s tem zavrnilo utemeljitev M.-C. Girardot, da bi bila izbrana za zasedbo delovnega mesta v nazivu A4.
As regards, secondly, the assessment of the opportunity lost, the Court of First Instance, after making the finding, in paragraphs 96 and 97 of the judgment under appeal, that the applications submitted by Mrs Girardot satisfied the requisite conditions to be considered, examined, in paragraphs 98 to 122 of that judgment, whether the chance of which she had been deprived could be regarded as a certainty, in the sense that Mrs Girardot would have had, if not every chance of obtaining one of the posts in question, at least a strong chance of obtaining one.
Drugič, glede presoje izgube možnosti je Sodi�če prve stopnje, potem ko je v točkah 96 in 97 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da so prijave M.-C. Girardot izpolnjevale pogoje, ki se zahtevajo zato, da bi bile lahko obravnavane, v točkah od 98 do 122 navedene sodbe preizkusilo, ali bi bila možnost, ki ji je bila odvzeta, lahko gotova, v smislu, ali je M.-C. Girardot imela, če ne vse, potem pa vsaj resne možnosti, da zasede eno od zadevnih delovnih mest.
Having established, in paragraphs 102 to 107 of that judgment, that Mrs Girardot was the only candidate for each of the posts at that stage of the procedure, that she could claim significant prior experience within the Commission, that her services were held in esteem and that her qualifications and the specification of the posts were sufficiently matched, the Court of First Instance ruled as follows in paragraphs 115 to 117 of that judgment:
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje, potem ko je v točkah od 102 do 107 iste sodbe poudarilo, da je bila M.-C. Girardot edina kandidatka za vsako od teh delovnih mest v tej fazi postopka, da je lahko izkazala bogate predhodne izku�nje z delom na Komisiji, da je bilo njeno delo spo�tovano in da so bile njene kvalifikacije primerne za navedena delovna mesta, v točkah od 115 do 117 navedene sodbe razsodilo:
Having regard to the foregoing facts, it cannot be held that, on conclusion of the first stage of the procedure for the filling of vacant posts laid down
Glede na zgoraj navedena dejstva ni mogoče izhajati iz tega, da bi Komisija, ki bi seveda gotovo raje imela večjo izbiro […], po koncu prve faze postopka
It may none the less be considered that Mrs Girardot had a strong chance in that regard, of which she was deprived because of the rejection of her applications by the Commission, which, on the evidence, did not examine them.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je kljub temu menilo, da je imela M.-C. Girardot resno možnost, ki ji je bila odvzeta, ker je Komisija njene prijave zavrgla, ne da bi jih preučila.
During the stage of the procedure for the filling of vacant posts laid down by Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations, another candidate, also a temporary staff member, expressed to the Commission his interest in each of the eight posts in which Mrs Girardot had also expressed her interest … .
Med fazo postopka zasedbe prostih delovnih mest iz člena 29(1)(b) Kadrovskih predpisov se je �e en kandidat, prav tako začasni uslužbenec, pri Komisiji potegoval za vseh osem delovnih mest, za katera se je M.-C. Girardot prav tako potegovala […].
The Commission could accept one or other of those candidates.
Komisija bi lahko sprejela enega ali drugega kandidata.
However, the Commission was also at liberty not to accept any of the competing applications, after having examined them, and to proceed to the stage of the procedure laid down by Article 29(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations … .
Vendar ji po preizkusu prijav prav tako ne bi bilo treba sprejeti nobene vložene prijave in nadaljevati postopka iz člena 29(1)(c) Kadrovskih predpisov […].
The Commission might finally, while respecting the principles stated in the case-law, not pursue that procedure … .
Nazadnje, Komisiji, v skladu z načeli, ki jih določa sodna praksa, ne bi bilo treba nadaljevati navedenega postopka […].
Those factors are such as to reduce the chance which Mrs Girardot had that her application to occupy one of the posts in question would be successful.
Ti dejavniki lahko zmanj�ajo možnost M.-C. Girardot za zasedbo enega od zadevnih delovnih mest.
However, if Mrs Girardot had been entitled to take part in a fresh procedure for the filling of vacant posts, held after annulment of the decisions rejecting her applications …, she might profitably have expressed her interest in other posts of the same kind and, having regard to, inter alia, the factors stated in paragraphs 103 to 106 above, might have been successful in one of them, a point which the Commission does not dispute.
Kljub temu, če bi M.-C. Girardot bila upravičena sodelovati v novem postopku zapolnitve prostih delovnih mest, ki bi bil organiziran po razglasitvi odločitev o zavrženju njene prijave […] za nično, bi se lahko ustrezno potegovala za delovna mesta iste vrste in bi bila eventualno sprejeta, zlasti glede na dejavnike, navedene v zgoraj navedenih točkah od 103 do 106, česar Komisija ne izpodbija.
That factor is such as to increase the chance which Mrs Girardot had that she would succeed in her application to obtain, as a temporary staff member within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Conditions of employment, a permanent post paid from research and investment appropriations, corresponding to Category A, requiring scientific qualifications and vacant within the Joint Research Centre in the Commission’s “Research” DG or in its “Information Society” DG.’
To lahko poveča možnost M.-C. Girardot, da kot začasna uslužbenka v smislu člena 2(d) PZDU zasede stalno delovno mesto kategorije A v Skupnem raziskovalnem centru, v GD ‚Raziskave‘ ali GD ‚Informacijska družba‘ Komisije, ki je plačano iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev za raziskave in naložbe.“
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance concluded, in paragraphs 118 and 119 of the judgment under appeal, that Mrs Girardot had a strong chance that her application would be successful and, consequently, the Court applied ex aequo et bono a multiplying factor of 0.5 to the loss of earnings she suffered.
V teh okoli�činah je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 118 in 119 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je M.-C. Girardot imela resno možnost, da bi bila njena prijava sprejeta, ter pomnožilo ex æquo et bono razliko v plačilu s faktorjem 0,5.
In paragraph 120 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance declined to raise that factor to 0.996 in accordance with the method proposed by Mrs Girardot, since under that method the extent of the chance lost depended solely on the number of applications lodged by her while disregarding the other factors set out earlier in that judgment.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 120 iste sodbe odklonilo ta faktor povečati na 0,996 v skladu z metodo, ki jo je predlagala M.-C. Girardot, ker je po tej metodi obseg izgubljene možnosti odvisen zgolj od �tevila prijav, ki jih vloži zainteresirana oseba, ne upo�teva pa drugih zgoraj navedenih dejavnikov.