natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Agreeing with the view I put forward in the Opinion, the Court held that the inequality of treatment did not relate to the award of the pension but to a necessary precondition for the grant of such a pension, namely, the capacity to marry (paragraph 30). The Court ruled that Article 141 EC precludes legislation which, by preventing transsexuals from marrying under their reassigned gender, deprives them of a widow’s/widower’s pension (paragraph 34). 95
Sodi�če, ki je sprejelo moj predlog iz sklepnih predlogov z dne 10. junija 2003, je ugotovilo, da neenako obravnavanje ni povezano s priznanjem pokojnine, temveč z bistvenim temeljnim pogojem za njeno podelitev, namreč zmožnostjo skleniti zakonsko zvezo (točka 30), in odločilo, da člen 141 ES nasprotuje zakonodaji, ki, s tem da transseksualcem preprečuje sklenitev zakonske zveze glede na spremenjeni spol, te prikraj�a za vdovsko pokojnino (točka 34). 95
92 — As Mr Maruko’s representative pointed out at the hearing, the situation was altered by means of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).
Maruka, je do spremembe pri�lo z Uredbo Sveta (ES, Euratom) �t. 723/2004 z dne 22. marca 2004 o spremembi Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti in pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropskih skupnosti (UL L 124, str. 1).
In D and Sweden v Council, 91 the Court was seised of an appeal in which it was required to examine the refusal to grant an official of the European Communities a household allowance intended for married couples, because, although the official had registered a civil partnership with another man in Sweden, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities did not permit his status to be assimilated to marriage. The Court noted that there were a great diversity of arrangements in the
Sodba z dne 31. maja 2001 v zdruŽenih zadevah D in Kraljevina Švedska proti Svetu 91je v pritožbenem postopku obravnavala zavrnitev dodelitve gospodinjskega dodatka, namenjenega zakoncem, uslužbencu Evropskih skupnosti, saj kljub temu, da je bilo zanj v �vedski register vpisano partnersko razmerje z mo�kim, Kadrovski predpisi za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti njegovega statusa ne dovoljujejo �teti za
95 — In that connection, the Court found in Richards that legislation which denies a transsexual who is now a woman entitlement to a pension at the age of 60 and requires her to wait until she is 65, the age fixed for men, is contrary to Community law.
95 – V tem smislu je sodba Richards obravnavala neskladnost zakonodaje, ki transseksualcu, ki je zdaj ženska, ne podeli pokojnine, ko dopolni 60 let, ampak jo obvezuje, da počaka do 65 leta, ki je starost, določena za mo�ke.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-267/06
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-267/06 spola, kar je zelo sporna skrajnost, 96 ne da
B — The discrimination based on sexual orientation, as alleged in the main proceedings subject of fierce debate, 96or to rule on the effects which the legislation of each Member State attributes to the registration of such partnerships.
B – Diskriminacija zaradi spolne usmerjenosti v postopku v glavni stvari odloča o posledicah, ki jih posamezna zakonodaja pripisuje registraciji takih razmerij; 97 kot sem zapisal v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi, v kateri je bila razgla�ena sodba K.B., „[n]e gre za oblikovanje ‚evropskega družinskega prava‘, temveč za to, da se zagotovi polna učinkovitost načela prepovedi diskriminacije“ (točka 76).
The main proceedings concern the inequality between married couples and people who form partnerships governed by different legal arrangements.
Spor v glavni stvari se nana�a na neenakost med poročenimi pari in pari, oblikovanimi na podlagi druge pravne določbe.
Accordingly, the dispute does not turn on access to marriage but rather on the effects of the two types of union.
Zato se razprava ne osredotoči na možnost sklenitve zakonske zveze, temveč na posledice obeh možnosti.
It is therefore necessary to establish whether those two types of union warrant equal treatment, for which purpose the national court must determine whether the legal situation of spouses is akin to that
Treba je torej ugotoviti, ali si ta dva tipa zvez zaslužita enako obravnavanje, pri čemer je treba poudariti, da mora nacionalni sodnik ugotoviti, ali je pravni položaj zakoncev podoben pravnemu položaju partnerjev v
However, the Directive also prohibits indirect discrimination, which occurs where an apparently neutral provision puts persons having a particular sexual orientation at a disadvantage, unless that discrimination is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
Poleg tega ta direktiva prepoveduje tudi posredno diskriminacijo, do katere pride, kadar očitno nepristranska določba osebe z določeno spolno usmerjenostjo postavi v slab�i položaj, razen če ločevanje sledi legitimnemu cilju, je objektivno upravičeno in so sredstva, ki se uporabijo, ustrezna in potrebna.
96 — In D and Sweden v Council the Court observed that the word ‘marriage’ generally means a heterosexual union and that, since 1989, an increasing number of Member States have introduced other statutory arrangements for unions between persons of the same sex or of the opposite sex, which confer on such unions certain effects which, both between the partners and as regards third parties, are the same as or comparable to those of marriage (paragraphs 35 and 36). Moliner Navarro, R.M., op. cit., p.
96 – S sodbo D in Kraljevina Švedska proti Svetu je bilo odločeno, da beseda „zakonska zveza“ v splo�nem pomeni heteroseksualno zvezo in da od leta 1989 nara�ča �tevilo držav članic, ki so sprejele različne ureditve za zveze med osebami istega spola ali različnega spola, ki jim pripisujejo določene pravne posledice, ki veljajo tako med partnerjema kot do tretjih oseb, ki so enake ali primerljive s tistimi, ki jih pripisujejo zakonski zvezi (točki 34 in 35). Moliner Navarro, R.
221 et seq., classifies countries into four main groups according to how they regulate same-sex unions: countries which do not regulate such unions; countries which have adopted legislation governing registered partnerships — containing minimum and maximum models (like the German legislation); countries which have enacted provisions governing same-sex civil unions; and countries which have opened up the institution of marriage.
221 in naslednje, razvr�ča države v �tiri velike skupine glede na ureditev homoseksualnih zvez: tiste, ki teh zvez ne urejajo; tiste, ki so sprejele zakone o dejanskih partnerskih skupnostih – in sicer na dva načina, z določitvijo najmanj�ega ali največjega obsega pravic (kot nem�ki predpis); – tiste, ki so sprejele predpise o homoseksualnih zunajzakonskih skupnostih, in tiste, ki so homoseksualcem dovolile sklepanje zakonskih zvez.
103 et seq., describes the differences between the systems in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and France.
103 in naslednje, pojasnjuje razlike med �vedsko, norve�ko, dansko, nizozemsko in francosko ureditvijo.
The national legislation precludes marriage in the situation in issue in the present case.
V obravnavanem primeru obstaja zakonska nezmožnost za sklenitev zakonske zveze.
However, it is not for the Court to define emotional relationships between persons of the same sex, a matter which is the
Vendar Sodi�če ni pristojno, da opredeli dejanska razmerja med osebami istega
K.B. concerned a transsexual who was not permitted to marry, thereby giving rise to a very specific dispute.
B. pa je zadevala transseksualca, ki ni mogel skleniti zakonske zveze, kar je povzročilo poseben spor. 99
On that premiss, refusal to grant a pension on the grounds that a couple has not married, where two persons of the same sex are unable to marry and have entered into a union which produces similar effects, constitutes indirect discrimination based on sexual orientation, contrary to Article 2 of Directive 2000/78.
Ker je bila postavljena ta predpostavka, pomeni zavrnitev pokojnine zaradi nesklenitve zakonske zveze, kadar je dve osebi istega spola ne moreta skleniti, sta pa sklenili zvezo, ki ima podobne posledice, posredno diskriminacijo zaradi spolne usmerjenosti iz člena 2 Direktive 2000/78.
Barber concerned equal pay for men and women.
Zadeva Barber se je nana�ala na enako plačilo za mo�ke in ženske delavce.
The Court confirmed the direct
Sodi�če je opozorilo na neposreden učinek člena 119 Pogodbe ES, predhodnika člena 141 ES, vendar je navedlo, da se za uveljavljanje
99 — In paragraph 25 of the Opinion in that case, I stated that transsexualism ‘is clearly different from the various conditions associated with sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality), where the individual unequivocally accepts his or her sex’.
99 – V točki 25 sklepnih predlogov k tej zadevi potrjujem, da se ta okoli�čina „[…] jasno razlikuje od okoli�čin, povezanih s spolno usmerjenostjo (heteroseksualnost, homoseksualnost ali biseksualnost), v katerih posameznik jasno sprejema svoj spol“.
98 — Point 4.3 of Section II of the order for reference.
98 – Točka 4.3, del II, predložitvenega sklepa.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-267/06 on the basis of rules considered to be validly in force.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-267/06 na podlagi ureditve, ki se upravičeno �teje za veljavno.
102 effect of Article 119 of the EC Treaty, the precursor to Article 141 EC, with the qualification that such direct effect could not be relied upon in order to claim entitlement to a pension arising before the date of the judgment, except in the case of individuals who had before that date initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim under the applicable national law, since otherwise the financial balance of many pension schemes would be jeopardised. 100
102 pravice do pokojnine pred dnevom razglasitve sodbe ni bilo treba sklicevati na ta učinek, razen za tiste, ki so vložiti tožbo ali sprožili enakovreden postopek po veljavnem nacionalnem pravu, saj bi se v nasprotnem primeru ogrozilo „ekonomsko ravnovesje“ �tevilnih pokojninskih shem. 100
The assessment of the risk calls for a number of different factors to be taken into account, such as the number of persons affected, the sums to be paid, and the effect on the viability of the paying agency.
Ocena nevarnosti zahteva preudarek glede spremenljivih dejavnikov, kot so �tevilo prizadetih oseb, zneski, ki jih je treba plačati, ali učinkovitost podjetja, ki ga bremeni plačilo.
In the present proceedings there is no information confirming the existence of such a risk.
V tem postopku za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ni podatkov, ki bi kazali na obstoj opisane nevarnosti.
103In such circumstances, the Court has two options: it can either expressly rule against limiting the temporal effects or not reply to the question.
103V teh okoli�činah ima Sodi�če dve možnosti: da izrecno zavrne omejitev časovnih učinkov ali da ne odloči o vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje.
Having thus defined the parameters of the proceedings, caselaw permits a restriction of the right to rely on a provision only in exceptional circumstances, 101 where there is a risk of serious economic repercussions owing in particular to the large number of legal relationships entered into in good faith
Ker je razprava tako naravnana, sodna praksa le izjemoma dovoljuje omejitev, 101 in sicer le ko se izkaže veliko premoženjsko tveganje, ki je posledica predvsem �tevilnih pravnih razmerij, vzpostavljenih v dobri veri
The second option, which is preferred by the Commission and which I also favour, appears more prudent, since it would enable a new reference for a preliminary ruling to be submitted containing the information which is currently missing. 104
Druga možnost, ki ji je Komisija bolj naklonjena in za katero se zavzemam tudi sam, se zdi previdnej�a, saj bi omogočila novo predložitev, ki bi vsebovala manjkajoče elemente. 104
102 — Bidar, paragraph 69, and Richards, paragraph 42.
102 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi Bidar, točka 69; in Richards, točka 42.
103 — The German Government, which could have shed light on the matter, did not participate in the proceedings.
103 – Nem�ka vlada, ki bi lahko pojasnila zadevo, se ni udeležila postopka.
Nor has the VddB provided any figures, although it objected to the application of the Barber caselaw to the main proceedings.
Tudi VddB ni navedel nobene �tevilke, čeprav je nasprotoval uporabi sodbe Barber v sporu v glavni stvari.
100 — After the Barber judgment, the Treaty of Maastricht inserted into the EC Treaty, in 1992, Protocol No 17 concerning Article 141, which, for the purposes of applying Article 141, does not regard benefits paid under an occupational social security scheme as pay where those benefits may be attributed to periods of employment before 17 May 1990, unless the workers concerned or those claiming under them had already commenced legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim under national law.
100 – Po sodbi Barber je Maastrichtska pogodba leta 1992 k Pogodbi ES dodala Protokol �t. 17 o členu 141, ki za namene uporabe tega člena dodatkov iz poklicnega sistema socialne varnosti ne �teje za osebne prejemke, kolikor se nana�ajo na obdobja zaposlitve pred 17. majem 1990, razen kadar so delavci ali tisti, ki omenjene dodatke zahtevajo, vložili tožbo ali sprožili enakovreden postopek po veljavnem nacionalnem pravu.
101 — Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, paragraph 67; Case C-292/04 Meilicke and Others [2007] ECR I-1835, paragraph 35; and Richards, paragraph 40.
104 – V obeh primerih ni potreben ponoven ustni del postopka, kot je na obravnavi zahteval zastopnik Združenega kraljestva, da bi se drugim državam članicam omogočilo, da se izjavijo o časovnih učinkih sodbe v tej zadevi.
2008 — CASE C-267/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-267/06
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany), made by decision of 1 June 2006, received at the Court on 20 June 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-267/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 1. junija 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 20. junija 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 19 June 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 19. junija 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Netherlands Government, by C. Wissels, acting as Agent,
– za nizozemsko vlado C. Wissels, zastopnica,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by J. Enegren and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 September 2007,
Enegren in I. Kaufmann-Bühler, zastopnika, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 6. septembra 2007
2008 — CASE C-267/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-267/06 izreka naslednjo
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1, Article 2(2)(a) and (b)(i), and Article 3(1)(c) and (3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 1, 2(2)(a) in (b)(i) ter 3(1)(c) in (3) Direktive Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splo�nih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu (UL L 303, str. 16).
The reference was made in proceedings between Mr Maruko and the Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen (the German Theatre Pension Institution, the ‘VddB’) relating to the refusal by the latter to recognise Mr Maruko’s entitlement to a widower’s pension as part of the survivor’s benefits provided for under the compulsory occupational pension scheme of which his deceased life partner had been a member.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v postopku med T. Marukom in Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen (pokojninski zavod nem�kih gledali�č, v nadaljevanju: VddB), ker je slednji prvemu zavrnil podelitev vdovske pokojnine kot izplačila za preživele osebe, določene s sistemom obveznega poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja, pri katerem je bil zavarovan njegov pokojni življenjski partner.
Recitals 13 and 22 of the preamble to Directive 2000/78 state:
V uvodnih izjavah 13 in 22 Direktive 2000/78 je določeno:
This Directive does not apply to social security and social protection schemes whose benefits are not treated as income within the meaning given to that
Ta direktiva se ne uporablja v zvezi s sistemi socialnega zavarovanja in socialnega varstva, katerih ugodnosti ne �tejejo za dohodek v smislu opredelitve tega pojma, ki velja pri uporabi člena 141 Pogodbe o Evropski skupnosti, niti
MARUKO term for the purpose of applying Article 141 of the EC Treaty, nor to any kind of payment by the State aimed at providing access to employment or maintaining employment.
MARUKO za kakr�na koli izplačila države, katerih cilj je dostop do zaposlitve ali ohranitev zaposlitve.
This Directive is without prejudice to national laws on marital status and the benefits dependent thereon.’
Ta direktiva ne vpliva na nacionalne predpise glede zakonskega stanu in ugodnosti, ki temeljijo na njem.“
Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 provides:
Člen 1 Direktive 2000/78 določa:
‘The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment.’
„Namen te direktive je opredeliti splo�ni okvir boja proti diskriminaciji zaradi vere ali prepričanja, hendikepiranosti, starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti pri zaposlovanju in delu, zato da bi v državah članicah uresničevali načelo enakega obravnavanja.“
Under Article 2 of the Directive:
Člen 2 navedene direktive določa:
For the purposes of this Directive, the “principle of equal treatment” shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1.
V tej direktivi ‚načelo enakega obravnavanja‘ pomeni, da ne obstaja nikakr�na neposredna ali posredna diskriminacija zaradi katerega od razlogov iz člena 1.
(a) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1;
(a) se �teje, da gre za neposredno diskriminacijo, kadar je, je bila ali bi bila oseba obravnavana manj ugodno kakor neka druga v primerljivi situaciji zaradi katerega od razlogov iz člena 1;
(b) indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons unless:
(b) se �teje, da gre za posredno diskriminacijo, kadar je zaradi kak�ne navidez nevtralne določbe, merila ali prakse neka oseba določene vere ali prepričanja, ki ima določen hendikep ali je določene starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti, v primerjavi z drugimi v slab�em položaju, razen če:
(i) that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, …
(i) tako določbo, merilo ali prakso objektivno upravičuje legitimni cilj in je način uresničevanja tega cilja primeren in nujen; […]
Article 3 of the Directive is worded as follows:
Člen 3 iste direktive določa:
Within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the Community, this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to:
V mejah pristojnosti, ki so prenesene na Skupnost, se ta direktiva uporablja za vse osebe, bodisi v javnem bodisi v zasebnem sektorju, vključno z javnimi telesi, kar zadeva:
(c) employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay;
(c) zaposlitev in delovne pogoje, vključno z odpustitvijo in plačilom;
Under the first paragraph of Article 18 of Directive 2000/78, Member States were to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 2 December 2003 at the latest or, so far as provisions concerning collective agreements were concerned, they could entrust implementation of the Directive to the social partners.
V skladu s členom 18, prvi odstavek, Direktive 2000/78 so morale države članice sprejeti zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo, najpozneje do 2. decembra 2003 ali pa zaupati, kar zadeva določbe v zvezi s kolektivnimi pogodbami, izvajanje te direktive socialnim partnerjem.
However, in that event, Member States were to ensure that, no later than 2 December 2003, the social partners had introduced the necessary measures by agreement, the Member States concerned being required to take any necessary measures to enable them at any time to be in a position to guarantee the results imposed by the Directive.
Vendar so morale v takih primerih države članice zagotoviti, da so socialni partnerji najpozneje do 2. decembra 2003 sporazumno uvedli potrebne ukrepe, države članice pa so morale sprejeti vse ukrepe, ki so potrebni, da lahko v vsakem trenutku jamčijo za rezultate, ki jih nalaga ta direktiva.
In addition, they were forthwith to inform the Commission of the European Communities of those measures.
Poleg tega so morale o teh ukrepih takoj obvestiti Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti.
The Law on registered life partnerships
Zakon o registrirani življenjski partnerski skupnosti
266), as amended by the
266), kot je
2008 — CASE C-267/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-267/06 bil spremenjen z zakonom z dne 15. decembra 2004 (BGBl. 2004 I, str.
3396, the ‘LPartG’), provides:
3396, v nadaljevanju: LPartG), določa:
‘(1) Two persons of the same sex establish a partnership when they each declare, in person and in the presence of the other, that they wish to live together in partnership for life (as life partners).
„(1) Osebi istega spola skleneta življenjsko partnersko skupnost, ko obojestransko, osebno in v prisotnosti drug drugega izjavita, da želita skupaj tvoriti dosmrtno partnersko skupnost (življenjski partnerici ali življenjska partnerja).
The declarations cannot be made conditionally or for a fixed period.
Izjavi ne moreta biti pogojni ali časovno omejeni.
Declarations are effective when they are made before the competent authority.
Izjavi imata posledice, če sta podani pred pristojnim organom.
(2) A partnership cannot be validly established:
(2) Življenjska partnerska skupnost ne more biti veljavno sklenjena:
1. with a person who is a minor or who is married or who already lives in partnership with a third person;
1. z osebo, ki je mladoletna ali poročena ali že tvori življenjsko partnersko skupnost s tretjo osebo;
2. between relatives in the ascending and descending lines;
2. med sorodniki v ravni črti;
4. when, at the time of establishment of the partnership, the partners refuse to accept the duties under Paragraph 2.
4. če se življenjska partnerja pri sklepanju življenjske partnerske skupnosti strinjata, da ne želita prevzeti obveznosti iz člena 2.
Paragraph 2 of the LPartG provides:
Člen 2 LPartG določa:
‘The life partners must support and care for one another and commit themselves mutually to a lifetime union.
„Življenjska partnerja sta dolžna skrbeti drug za drugega, si medsebojno pomagati in ustvariti skupno življenje.
They shall each accept responsibilities with regard to the other.’
Drug do drugega imata odgovornost.“
Under Paragraph 5 of that Law:
Člen 5 omenjenega zakona določa:
‘The life partners are each required to contribute adequately to the common needs of the partnership by their work and from their property.
„Življenjska partnerja sta dolžna z delom in s svojim premoženjem primerno vzdrževati življenjsko skupnost.