natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In accordance with settled case-law, in a claim for damages brought by an official the Community can be held liable for damages only if a number of conditions are satisfied: the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, actual harm suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered (see Case 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, paragraph 30; Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others, cited above, paragraph 42, and Council v De Nil and Impens, cited above, paragraph 23).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso odgovornost Skupnosti v okviru od�kodninskega zahtevka uradnika predpostavlja izpolnjevanje vseh pogojev glede nezakonitosti ravnanja, ki se očita institucijam, glede obstoja dejanske �kode in vzročne zveze med ravnanjem in zatrjevano �kodo (glej sodbo z dne 16. decembra 1987 v zadevi Delauche proti Komisiji, 111/86, Recueil, str. 5345, točka 30, in zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Brazzelli Lualdi in drugim, točka 42, in Svet proti de Nil in Impens, točka 23).
As regards the condition relating to the allegedly unlawful act, it is clear from paragraph 83 of the interim judgment, against which no appeal has been brought and which must therefore be considered to be final, that the unlawful conduct in the present case resides in the fact that, by the two contested decisions, the Commission did not demonstrate that it had properly examined the merits of Mrs Girardot’s application in relation of each of the posts she had applied for, before rejecting it.
Glede pogoja, ki se nana�a na očitano nezakonitost, iz točke 83 vmesne sodbe, ki ni bila predmet pritožbe in jo je zato treba �teti za dokončno, izhaja, da je bilo v obravnavanem primeru nezakonito ravnanje v tem, da Komisija s svojima spornima odločitvama ni ustrezno preučila primernosti prijave M.-C. Girardot za vsako delovno mesto, na katerega se je prijavila, preden je zavrgla njeno prijavo.
As regards the condition relating to damage, the damage for which compensation is sought must be actual and certain (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 256/80, 257/80, 265/80, 267/80 and 5/81 Birra Wührer and Others v Council and Commission [1982] ECR 85, paragraph 9, and Case C-243/05 P Agraz and Others v Commission [2006] ECR I-10833, paragraph 27).
Glede pogoja, ki se nana�a na �kodo, je treba opozoriti da mora biti �koda, katere povrnitev se zahteva, dejanska in gotova (v tem smislu glej sodbi z dne 27. januarja 1982 v združenih zadevah Birra Wührer in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji, 256/80, 257/80, 265/80, 267/80 in 5/81, Recueil, str. 85, točka 9, in z dne 9. novembra 2006 v zadevi Agraz in drugi proti Komisiji, C-243/05 P, ZOdl., I-10833, točka 27).
In the present case, it is not a matter of dispute that, because of the unlawful act committed by the Commission, Mrs Girardot lost, definitively and irremediably, the chance of being recruited to a post within the departments of that institution on the conclusion of the procedure in question in this case and that, consequently, that loss of an opportunity represents damage which is for her actual and certain.
V obravnavanem primeru se ne izpodbija, da je M.-C. Girardot zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja Komisije gotovo in nepopravljivo izgubila možnost zaposlitve v tej instituciji na koncu zadevnega postopka v tej zadevi in da zato ta izguba možnosti zanjo pomeni dejansko in gotovo �kodo.
Further, it is clear from the findings made by the Court of First Instance, in particular in paragraphs 84 to 91 of the interim judgment, which, for the reasons given in paragraph 53 of this judgment, can no longer be challenged in this appeal, that the actual and certain damage suffered by Mrs Girardot extends to the fact that it was impossible for her to take part in a fresh and properly conducted recruitment procedure, since Mrs Girardot was no longer either in a position or even entitled to express her interest in posts to be filled by replying to a ‘specific research’ vacancy notice in respect of posts for which she had submitted applications.
Iz ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, zlasti v točkah od 84 do 91 vmesne sodbe, ki jih zaradi razlogov, navedenih v točki 53 te sodbe ni mogoče več izpodbijati v okviru te pritožbe, poleg tega izhaja, da ta dejanska in gotova �koda, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, vključuje tudi nezmožnost, da bi se udeležila novega in pravilno izvedenega postopka zaposlovanja, saj M.-C. Girardot ni bila več niti sposobna niti upravičena potegovati se za delovna mesta z odgovorom na objavo prostih delovnih mest z oznako „posebna raziskava“, na katera se je prijavila.
By this appeal, the Commission challenges the method adopted by the Court of First Instance to determine the extent of the reparation for the damage suffered.
Komisija s svojo pritožbo kljub temu izpodbija metodo, ki jo je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo za določitev obsega nadomestila navedene �kode.
The Commission claims that, by that method, the Court of First Instance did not quantify the actual and certain damage resulting from the loss of opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot but, in fact, evaluated a different form of damage, purely hypothetical, resulting from the loss of earnings which she might have suffered if she had been entitled to be recruited, thereby transforming the loss of opportunity to be recruited to a post into the loss of the certainty of obtaining a post.
Zatrjuje, da Sodi�če prve stopnje s to metodo ni kvantitativno določilo dejanske in gotove �kode, ki je nastala zaradi izgube možnosti, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, temveč da je dejansko izračunalo drugo vrsto �kode, ki je povsem hipotetična in ki izhaja iz izgube plačila, ki bi jo ta utrpela, če bi imela pravico, da se zaposli, in je tako pojem izgube možnosti zaposlitve spremenilo v izgubo gotovosti zaposlitve.
In addition, in accordance with the caselaw referred to in paragraph 45 of this judgment, when the Court of First Instance has determined that there is damage, it alone
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu s sodno prakso, navedeno v točki 45 te sodbe, Sodi�če prve stopnje, ko ugotovi obstoj �kode, edino pristojno, da v okviru
2008 — CASE C-348/06 P has jurisdiction to decide, within the confines of the claim and subject to compliance with the obligation to state reasons, how and to what extent reparation for the damage should be provided.
2008 – ZADEVA C-348/06 P zahtevka in ob spo�tovanju obveznosti obrazložitve oceni način in obseg nadomestila te �kode.
However, as the Commission itself acknowledged at the hearing in response to a question from the Court on that matter, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to specify a method whereby it is possible accurately to quantify the chance of being recruited to a post within that institution and, consequently, to assess the damage resulting from the loss of that chance.
Kot pa je priznala tudi Komisija na obravnavi v odgovor na vpra�anje Sodi�ča glede te točke, je zelo težko, če ne nemogoče, opredeliti metodo, s katero je mogoče točno kvantitativno določiti možnost zaposlitve v navedeni instituciji in posledično oceniti �kodo, ki je nastala zaradi izgube te možnosti.
Consequently, for the purpose of examining whether the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law as regards the determination of the extent of the compensation for the damage resulting from the loss of opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot, account must be taken of the margin of appreciation which the Court of First Instance has, when exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, in relation to the method to be chosen to carry out such a determination.
Zato je treba za preizkus, ali je v izpodbijani sodbi pravo napačno uporabljeno glede določitve obsega nadomestitve �kode, ki je nastala zaradi izgube možnosti, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, upo�tevati diskrecijsko pravico, s katero razpolaga Sodi�če prve stopnje pri izvr�evanju svoje neomejene pristojnosti glede izbire metode za tako določitev.
It is clear from the judgment under appeal that, to determine the extent of the reparation for the damage caused in this case to Mrs Girardot, the Court of First Instance considered that it should, first, specify the loss of earnings suffered by her, by establishing the difference between the earnings which she would have received if she had been recruited and the earnings which she actually received following the unlawful act, and then, secondly, assess, as a percentage, the chance she had of being recruited in order to weight the loss of earnings thus calculated.
Iz izpodbijane sodbe izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje, zato da bi določilo obseg povrnitve �kode, ki jo je v obravnavanem primeru utrpela M.-C. Girardot, menilo, da mora najprej opredeliti izgubo plačila, ki jo je ta utrpela, s tem da določi razliko med plačilom, ki bi ga prejela, če bi bila izbrana, in plačilom, ki ga je dejansko prejela, potem ko je bila nezakonitost storjena, in nato v obliki odstotka oceniti možnost, ki jo je imela, da bi bila izbrana ter nazadnje ponderirati tako izračunano izgubo plačila.
It is admittedly true that, to the extent that the method employs the criterion of the loss of earnings suffered by the person concerned, it is a corollary of that method, as the Commission has rightly observed, that when the earnings actually received after
Res je, da če ta metoda temelji na merilu izgube plačila, ki jo utrpi zainteresirana oseba, potem povzroča, kot je Komisija pravilno ugotovila, da ko je dejansko plačilo, prejeto, potem ko je bila nezakonitost storjena, vi�je od plačila, ki je bilo izgubljeno
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT the unlawful conduct are higher than the earnings which were lost because of it no compensation would be awarded, although an opportunity would still have been lost.
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja, ni mogoče dobiti nikakr�ne od�kodnine, čeprav je bila možnost izgubljena.
In addition, such a method, as the Commission has also stated, necessarily imposes on the Community courts the task of carrying out, as the Court of First Instance did in paragraphs 59 to 95 of the judgment under appeal, a prospective examination in an attempt to construct the fictitious career which she might have achieved within that institution, relying on a series of suppositions which, while they fall within that appraisal of the facts by the Court of First Instance against which no appeal lies, remain, by their nature, at best uncertain, both as to the length of her employment and the progression in the amount of her earnings.
Kot je poudarila tudi Komisija, mora poleg tega sodi�če Skupnosti zaradi take metode nujno izvesti vnaprej�nji pregled, kot je to storilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 59 do 95 izpodbijane sodbe, da bi lahko rekonstruiralo fiktivno kariero, ki bi jo zainteresirana oseba lahko imela v tej instituciji, tako da bi se naslonilo na vrsto hipotez, ki čeprav spadajo pod neodvisno presojo dejstev, ki jo je opravilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, ostajajo negotove glede trajanja zaposlitve in ocene vi�ine njenega plačila.
Moreover, it is true that the criterion of loss of earnings cannot by itself determine the extent of the reparation for the damage caused following the loss of an opportunity to be recruited.
Poleg tega je res, da merilo izgube plačila samo po sebi ne more določiti obsega povrnitve �kode, ki je nastala zaradi izgube možnosti zaposlitve.
In such a situation, the damage suffered cannot be identified with the earnings which would have been received if the chance had materialised, since, as the Court of First Instance stated in this case in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, when account is taken of the discretion which the Commission has in this area, the party cannot claim any right to be recruited.
V takem primeru utrpljena �koda namreč ni enaka znesku plačila, ki bi bilo prejeto, če bi se ta možnost uresničila, ker – kot je glede diskrecijske pravice, ki jo ima Komisija na tem področju, v točki 116 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo Sodi�če prve stopnje – zainteresirana oseba ne more zatrjevati, da ima pravico do zaposlitve.
Consequently the damage for which such a person is entitled to obtain compensation cannot correspond to the loss of earnings resulting from the loss of a right (see, by analogy, Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder and Others v Council and Commission [2000] ECR I-203, paragraphs 59 and 60).
Škoda, glede katere ima zainteresirana oseba pravico do povrnitve, zato ne ustreza izgubljenemu dobičku zaradi izgube pravice (po analogiji glej sodbo z dne 27. januarja 2000 v združenih zadevah Mulder in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji, C-104/89 in C-37/90, Recueil, str. I-203, točki 59 in 60).
However, it cannot therefore be concluded that the criterion of the loss of earnings to which the Court of First Instance had recourse in the judgment under appeal, taking account of the discretion which that Court has in the method to be adopted for that purpose, is unsuited to determining the extent of the reparation for the damage resulting from the loss of opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot in the present case.
Vendar ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je merilo glede izgube plačila, h kateremu se je Sodi�če prve stopnje zateklo v izpodbijani sodbi, ob upo�tevanju diskrecijske pravice, s katero to razpolaga glede metode, ki jo je v zvezi s tem treba uporabiti, neprimerno za določitev obsega povrnitve �kode, ki je nastala zaradi izgube možnosti, ki jo je v obravnavanem primeru utrpela M.-C. Girardot.
Indeed, since the value of the chance lost by her is, as the Advocate General in essence stated in point 77 of his Opinion, a function of the income attributable to that chance materialising, the loss of earnings suffered because of the alleged unlawful conduct, while that cannot by itself determine the extent of the reparation for the loss of opportunity, constitutes nevertheless a relevant criterion.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 77 svojih sklepnih predlogov, glede na to, da je vrednost možnosti, ki jo je izgubila M.-C. Girardot, sorazmerna z dobičkom, ki bi ga dobila, če bi bila ta možnost uresničena, je utrpljena izguba plačila zaradi očitanega nezakonitega ravnanja, čeprav ta samo po sebi ne more določiti obsega povrnitve izgubljene možnosti, kljub temu upo�tevno merilo v zvezi s tem.
Even though Mrs Girardot had no right to be recruited, the value to be attributed to that chance depends therefore, at least in part, on the amount of the earnings which she could have expected.
Čeprav M.-C. Girardot ni imela nobene pravice, da bi dobila zaposlitev, je torej vrednost te možnosti vsaj deloma odvisna od zneska plačila, za katerega je lahko upala, da ga bo dobila.
On that point, it must also be observed that the alternative method proposed by the Commission in this appeal for the purposes of making good the damage suffered by Mrs Girardot, which consists in awarding her lump sum compensation the amount of which is set at the three months’ net remuneration to be paid for the minimum notice period laid down in Article 47(2)(a) of the Conditions of Employment, is also based on the amount of earnings lost because of the alleged unlawful conduct.
V zvezi s tem je prav tako treba ugotoviti, da alternativna metoda, ki jo v okviru te pritožbe predlaga Komisija za povrnitev �kode, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, in katere namen je na pav�alen način dodeliti od�kodnino, ki naj bi zna�ala tri neto mesečne plače, izplačane na podlagi minimalnega odpovednega roka, ki je predviden v členu 47(2)(a) PZDU, prav tako temelji na vi�ini izgubljenega plačila zaradi očitane nezakonitosti.
In those circumstances, the Commission can hardly criticise the relevance of that criterion.
V teh okoli�činah bi Komisija težko izpodbijala upo�tevnost tega merila.
In addition, it must be accepted that the remuneration actually received subsequent to the unlawful acts also partly determines the extent of the reparation for the damage, since any injured party has the obligation to minimise his loss.
Poleg tega je treba priznati, da plačilo, ki je bilo dejansko prejeto po storjeni nezakonitosti, prav tako deloma določa obseg povrnitve �kode, saj ima vsak o�kodovanec obveznost, da svojo �kodo omeji.
In that regard, the claim by the Commission that there is a risk of discrimination cannot be upheld.
V zvezi s tem nevarnosti diskriminacije, na katero se sklicuje Komisija, ni mogoče sprejeti.
If two unlawfully excluded candidates do not suffer the same loss of earnings, they cannot, even when they have the same chance of being recruited, be considered to be in an identical or similar situation as to the extent of the damage suffered.
Ni namreč mogoče �teti, da sta dva kandidata, ki sta bila nezakonito izključena in sta utrpela različni izgubi plačila, v enakem ali podobnem položaju glede obsega utrpljene �kode, čeprav sta imela enake možnosti za zaposlitev.
Furthermore, even if the Court of First Instance, in order to determine the extent of the reparation for the loss of opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot, did indeed seek to determine the amount of the earnings lost by her, that court did not rely on that criterion alone to determine the extent of that reparation.
Poleg tega, čeprav je Sodi�če prve stopnje za določitev obsega povrnitve izgube možnosti, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, dejansko najprej določilo znesek plačila, ki ga je ta izgubila, obsega te povrnitve ni določilo zgolj na temelju tega merila.
It is true that, by ruling in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal that, in order to determine the extent of the reparation for the loss of opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot, it was necessary ‘if appropriate’ to make an assessment of the chance she had of being recruited, suggesting thereby that that assessment was merely optional, the Court of First Instance committed an error of law, since the omission of that assessment, which is part of the very definition of loss of opportunity, would amount to evaluating only the loss of earnings suffered by Mrs Girardot, although she had no right to be recruited.
Res je, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje, s tem da je v točki 58 izpodbijane sodbe razsodilo, da je za določitev obsega povrnitve izgube možnosti, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, treba, „če je to ustrezno“, oceniti njeno možnost za zaposlitev, ter tako dalo vedeti, da je ta ocena povsem fakultativna, pravo napačno uporabilo, saj bi neobstoj te ocene, ki je del pojma izgube možnosti, povzročil, da bi bila izračunana zgolj izguba plačila, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, čeprav ni imela nobene pravice, da bi dobila zaposlitev.
However, that error is inoperative since, having, calculated the loss of earnings suffered by Mrs Girardot, in paragraphs 59 to 95 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance, in paragraphs 96 to 122 of that judgment, in fact applied to that loss a percentage which was intended, on the basis of all the particular facts of the case — the appraisal of those facts by that court not being open to appeal — to quantify the chance which Mrs Girardot had of being recruited.
Ta napaka kljub temu nima učinka, saj je Sodi�če prve stopnje, potem ko je v točkah od 59 do 95 izpodbijane sodbe izračunalo izgubo plačila, ki jo je utrpela utrpela M.-C. Girardot, v točkah od 96 do 112 navedene sodbe to izgubo dejansko pomnožilo z odstotkom, ki je na podlagi vseh elementov, ki so ustrezali okoli�činam obravnavanega primera in ki so spadali pod njegovo neodvisno presojo dejstev, kvantitativno določil možnost M.-C. Girardot za zaposlitev.
However, that criterion, applied in that way, in order to weight the criterion relating to loss of earnings, following a method also adopted, as the Advocate General stated in point 55 of his Opinion, in the domestic law of several Member States, is capable of providing relevant guidance to determine the extent of the reparation for the loss of opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot, since it is thereby possible for the purposes of that determination, to take account of the probability of her receiving the earnings which she in fact irremediably lost.
Tako merilo, ki se v skladu z metodo, ki je sprejeta v več nacionalnih pravnih sistemih, kot je v točki 55 svojih sklepnih predlogov poudaril generalni pravobranilec, uporablja za ponderiranje merila, ki se nana�a na izgubo plačila, je lahko pomembno vodilo pri določitvi obsega povrnitve izgube možnosti, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, saj se na njegovi podlagi pri tej določitvi lahko upo�teva verjetnost, da bi M.-C. Girardot prejela plačilo, ki je bilo nepopravljivo izgubljeno.
It is true that, as the Commission submitted at the hearing, the degree of chance thus calculated by the Court of First Instance is hypothetical and that it cannot itself be considered actual or certain.
Res je, kot je na obravnavi poudarila Komisija, da je stopnja možnosti, ki jo je izračunalo Sodi�če prve stopnje, hipotetična in da je ni mogoče �teti za dejansko in gotovo.
However, that factor is irrelevant, since it is common ground that the damage suffered by Mrs Girardot because of the loss of opportunity to be recruited is actual and certain and that the Court of First Instance has a margin of appreciation as to the method to be adopted to quantify it.
Kljub temu ta okoli�čina ni pomembna, ker je nesporno, da je �koda, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot zaradi izgube možnosti zaposlitve, dejanska in gotova in ker ima Sodi�če prve stopnje diskrecijsko pravico glede sprejetja metode za določitev vi�ine �kode.
Lastly, it must in any event be held that the method proposed by the Commission, described in paragraph 68 of this judgment, is manifestly less suitable for determining the extent of the reparation for the damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity than that adopted in the judgment under appeal.
Nazadnje je treba v vsakem primeru ugotoviti, da je metoda, ki jo predlaga Komisija in ki je navedena v točki 68 te sodbe, očitno manj primerna za določitev obsega povrnitve �kode, ki je nastala zaradi izgube možnosti, kot pa metoda, ki je bila sprejeta v izpodbijani sodbi.
Such a method, which has the effect of entirely ignoring the particular circumstances of Mrs Girardot’s situation in order to propose a rule designed to provide reparation in a consistent manner for the loss by any party of the opportunity of being recruited, fails, contrary to the requirements set out in the caselaw (see, in particular, Joined Cases 169/83 and 136/84 Leussink and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 2801, paragraph 13, and Lucaccioni v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 22 and 28), to ensure that the individual damage actually suffered by the party concerned because of the particular unlawful acts of which she was the victim is fully compensated, and, in addition, deprives the Community courts of the margin of appreciation which they have to determine the extent of the reparation for the damage.
Taka metoda, ki v celoti zanemarja okoli�čine položaja M.-C. Girardot in s katero se predlaga uporaba pravila, katerega namen je povrnitev izgube možnosti zaposlitve na enak način za vsako zainteresirano osebo, v nasprotju z zahtevami, ki jih je postavila sodna praksa Sodi�ča (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 8. oktobra 1986 v združenih zadevah Leussink in drugi proti Komisiji, 169/83 in 136/84, Recueil, str. 2801, točka 13, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Lucaccioni proti Komisiji, točki 22 in 28), namreč ne zagotavlja celotne nadomestitve individualne �kode, ki jo je zainteresitrana oseba dejansko utrpela zaradi nezakonitosti, ki je bila storjena zoper njo, in sodi�ču Skupnosti poleg tega odvzema diskrecijsko pravico, ki jo ima v zvezi z določitvijo obsega povrnitve te �kode.