natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The employer requested that the action be dismissed on the ground that at the time it gave notice of the dismissal no pregnancy yet existed.
Tožena družba je predlagala, da se zahteva zavrne, ker v času obvestila o odpustu nosečnosti �e ni bilo.
10 — The reference for a preliminary ruling states that Ms Mayr had already undergone two previous attempts at in vitro fertilisation, although no date is mentioned.
10 – V predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je navedeno, da sta bila pri S. Mayr opravljena dva druga poskusa asistirane reprodukcije, vendar njun datum ni naveden.
Sabine Mayr worked as a waitress for Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG from 3 January 2005.
Sabine Mayr je od 3. januarja 2005 delala kot natakarica za družbo Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG.
‘Is a worker, who undergoes in vitro fertilisation, a ‘pregnant worker’ within the meaning of the first part of Article 2(a) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) if, at the time at which she was given notice of dismissal, the woman’s ova had already been fertilised with the sperm cells of her partner and in vitro embryos thus existed, but they had not yet been implanted within her?’
dela člena 2(a) Direktive Sveta 92/85/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o uvedbi ukrepov za spodbujanje izbolj�av na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo (deseta posebna direktiva v smislu člena 16(1) Direktive 89/391/EGS), če so bile v času, ko je bila odpu�čena, njene jajčne celice že oplojene s partnerjevimi semenskimi celicami, torej ko so zarodki in vitro že obstajali, pa �e niso bili preneseni v maternico?“
IV — The proceedings before the Court of Justice
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem
Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG appealed against this judgment to the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court), Linz, which set aside the judgment at first instance on the basis that, irrespective of the point in pregnancy when hormonal changes start to take place, pregnancy cannot exist separately from the body in which it develops.
Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner se je zoper to sodno odločbo pritožil pri Oberlandesgericht Linz, ki je sodbo prve stopnje razveljavilo z utemeljitvijo, da se nosečnost ne glede na trenutek nosečnosti, ko nastopijo hormonske spremembe, ne more začeti ločeno od telesa, v katerem poteka.
Consequently, in the case of in vitro fertilisation, pregnancy — and therefore the protection against dismissal — will start with the transfer of the fertilised ovum to the uterus.
Zato naj bi se pri oploditvi in vitro nosečnost – in torej varstvo proti odpust -stu – začela s prenosom oplojene jajčne celice v maternico.
The reference for a preliminary ruling was lodged at the Registry of the Court on 14 December 2006.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odloč- be je bil vložen v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča 14. decembra 2006.
The Austrian referring court, being of the view that the outcome of the case depends on the interpretation of provisions of Community law, has referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC:
Ker je avstrijsko sodi�če menilo, da je re�itev spora odvisna od razlage predpisov prava Skupnosti, je Sodi�ču na podlagi člena 234 ES v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
The respondent in the main proceedings, the Commission and the Greek, Italian and Austrian Governments have all submitted written observations.
Pisna stali�ča so predložile tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari na prvi stopnji, Komisija ter gr�ka, italijanska in avstrijska vlada.
At the hearing, held on 16 October 2007, oral observations were presented by the representatives of the Austrian and Greek Governments and of the Commission.
Na obravnavi 16. oktobra 2007 so bili navzoči predstavniki avstrijske in gr�ke vlade ter Komisije, da bi predložili svoja ustna stali�ča.
given birth or who are breastfeeding.
varnost ter zavarovala zdravje nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo.
Thus Article 10 prohibits the dismissal of workers in these circumstances ‘during the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of the maternity leave’.
Tako je v členu 10 prepovedan odpust žensk v takem stanju „med obdobjem od začetka njihove nosečnosti do konca porodni�kega dopusta“.
11 Consequently, from the beginning of the pregnancy, an employer is prevented from dismissing a ‘pregnant worker’, as defined in Article 2(a), which also provides that the employee must have informed her employer of her condition ‘in accordance with national legislation and/or national practice’.
11 Direktiva torej preprečuje odpust „noseče delavke“, ki je opredeljena v členu 2(a), v katerem je dodano, da mora delavka obvestiti delodajalca o svojem stanju „v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in/ali nacionalno prakso“ od začetka obdobja nosečnosti.
V — Analysis of the question referred for a preliminary ruling
V – Analiza vprašanja za predhodno odločanje formalnost: obvestiti
A — Applicability of Directive 92/85
A – Uporaba Direktive 92/85
The concept of ‘pregnant worker’
Pojem „noseča delavka“
Leaving to one side for the moment the crucial question of when pregnancy starts, it is necessary here to address the issue of notice to the employer, given that the respondent in the main proceedings argues in its observations that, even if one were to accept that at the time Ms Mayr was given notice of dismissal she was pregnant in the medical sense of the term, she could not avail herself of the protection offered by the direct ive because she had not disclosed this fact to her employer.
Če za začetek pustimo ob strani vpra�anje – zagotovo pomembno – o trenutku začetka nosečnosti, je treba zdaj preučiti to zahtevo, da se o nosečnosti obvesti podjetje, kajti tožena družba v postopku v glavni stvari v svojih stali�čih trdi, da S. Mayr ni bila upravičena do varstva Direktive, četudi predpostavimo, da je bila v času, ko je bila odpu�čena, noseča v medicinskem smislu, ker o tem dejstvu ni obvestila svojega delodajalca.
The Oberster Gerichtshof’s uncertainty centres on the scope of Directive 92/85 and, in particular, on the definition of a ‘pregnant worker’ for the purposes of the employment protection set out in the directive.
Dvomi Oberster Gerichtshof se nana�ajo na področje uporabe Direktive 92/85 in zlasti na razmejitev tega, kar je treba razumeti pod pojmom „noseča delavka“ za varstvo, ki je predvideno za delavce.
However, Article 2 assigns the determination of the method and timing of that
Vendar zgoraj navedeni člen 2 napoti na predpise posamezne države članice, da
11 — ‘save in exceptional cases not connected with their condition which are permitted under national legislation … and, where applicable, provided that the competent authority has given its consent’ (Article 10(1)).
11 – „[R]azen v izjemnih primerih, dovoljenih po nacionalni zakonodaji in/ali praksi, ki niso povezani z njihovim stanjem, in pod pogojem, da je svoje soglasje dal pristojen organ, kjer je to primerno,“ (člen 10(1)).
The Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 118a of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) with the aim of protecting the safety and health at work of pregnant workers, workers who have recently
Zadevna direktiva temelji na členu 118a Pogodbe (zdaj člen 138 ES), da bi zagotovila
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-506/06 information to Member State legislation and it is for the national court to evaluate such matters.
V skladu z navedeno avstrijsko zakonodajo se ne zdi pretirano trditi, da je bil delodajalec obve�čen pravočasno, kajti v členu 10 MSchG je dopu�čeno, da se delodajalca obvesti v roku petih dni po obvestilu o odpustu delavke, in S. Mayr je �e isti dan, ko je imela telefonski pogovor s podjetjem, poslala dopis, v katerem je pojasnila okoli�čine svoje nosečnosti.
Depending on which moment is taken as the beginning of pregnancy, particular measures are classified as either preventive methods of birth control (contraceptives, for example) or methods of terminating a pregnancy.
Glede na trenutek, ki je določen kot začetek nosečnosti, nekateri ukrepi veljajo za (preventivne) instrumente nadzora rojstev (na primer kontracepcijska sredstva) ali za tehnike prekinitve nosečnosti.
The ethical implications of this debate mean that it is advisable to separate it from the strictly legal question which has been brought before the Court in order to establish when a woman has the protection of Directive 92/85, and not when the biological process leading to the birth of a new human being begins.
To polemiko je zaradi njenih etičnih konotacij priporočljivo ločiti od strogo pravnega vpra�anja, trenutno predloženega Sodi�ču, da se določi, kdaj je ženska deležna varstva Direktive 92/85, in ne kdaj se začne biolo�ki proces, ki se konča z rojstvom novega bitja.
The beginning of pregnancy as a physical condition of the woman capable of being protected
Začetek nosečnosti kot fizično stanje ženske, ki bi lahko bila deležna varstva
Gynaecologists and obstetricians commonly use a range of different timeframes to calculate the gestation period: the date of the woman’s last menstruation, the date of ovulation, the date of fertilisation, the date of implantation or the date when the pregnancy can be detected using chemical tests.
Ginekologi in porodničarji navadno uporabljajo različne kronolo�ke točke za izračun časa nosečnosti: dan zadnje menstruacije ženske, dan ovulacije, datum oploditve, datum ugnezdenja ali datum, ko je nosečnost odkrita kemijsko.
Notwithstanding all these methods, the beginning of pregnancy is traditionally placed at ‘conception’.
Ne glede na vsa ta merila se za začetek nosečnosti običajno �teje „spočetje“.
In 1875, based on his study of the reproduction of sea urchins, Oskar Hertwig discovered that fertilisation starts with the penetration of the sperm into the ovum.
Leta 1875 je Oskar Hertwig na podlagi �tudij o razmnoževanju morskih ježkov odkril, da do oploditve pride zaradi prodora semenčice v jajčece. 12Spočetje je bilo od
The silence of the directive on this issue means that we must turn to medical science for an answer.
Preden nadaljujem, je treba poudariti pomembno točko: spor o začetku nosečnosti
MAYR associated with the process described by this German zoologist; and in the middle of last century it became centred on the idea of implantation, first in connection with the nidation of the fertilised ovum in the uterus wall and later by reference to the blastocyst.
MAYR tedaj povezano s procesom, ki ga je opisal nem�ki zoolog; in sredi preteklega stoletja je bil pojav implantacije opredeljen najprej kot ugnezdenje oplojenega jajčeca v maternično steno in nato blastociste.
which have varying degrees of importance: a) the specialist literature, which inclines to this point of view; b) the actual meaning of the word ‘pregnant’, which does not contradict that scientific approach; c) the principal aim of the directive, which tends towards the protection of the pregnant worker’s health and safety; and d) lastly, the fact that such protection cannot last indefinitely.
pravno varstvo noseče ženske začne z ugnezdenjem blastociste v maternici. Opiram se na �tiri argumente, ki niso enako pomembni: (a) strokovno literaturo, ki gre v tej smeri; (b) sam pomen izraza „nosečnost“, ki ne nasprotuje temu znanstvenemu pristopu; (c) glavni cilj Direktive, ki je zagotoviti varnost in zavarovati zdravje noseče delavke, in nazadnje (d) dejstvo, da to varstvo ne more trajati neomejeno.
A brief summary may be useful here: 13once the ovum has been fertilised by the
Približno pet dni po oploditvi že obstaja notranja skupina celic, iz katere nastane zarodek, in zunanji obroč, ki tvori posteljico.
About five days after fertilisation there already exists a set of inner cells, which develop into the embryo, and an outer ring which forms the placenta.
Ta izbira, ki ni brez predsodkov in praktičnih posledic, 14je �e posebno zapletena, kadar se tako kot pri S. Mayr posku�a opraviti oploditev ob medicinski pomoči.
On about the sixth day this blastocycst adheres to the lining of the uterus and this is known as nidation or implantation.
Ne da bi se opredelil glede teh dveh stali�č na znanstvenem področju, me različne okoli�čine napeljujejo k misli, da se
The most convincing argument here is that of certain international organisations and bodies of indisputable authority which support the moment of nidation.
Pomemben argument na tem področju prihaja od več organov in organizacij na mednarodni ravni, katerih sposobnosti presoje ni mogoče zanikati in ki zagovarjajo čas ugnezdenja.
The Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), for example, in its Cairo declaration of March 1998, described pregnancy as that part of the process of human reproduction ‘that commences with the implantation of the conceptus in a woman, and ends with either the birth of an infant or an abortion’. 15
Tako je na primer Odbor za preučevanje etičnih vidikov člove�kega razmnoževanja pri Svetovnem združenju za ginekologijo in porodni�tvo (FIGO) v deklaraciji iz Kaira, marca 1998, nosečnost opisal kot del procesa člove�kega razmnoževanja, „ki se pri ženski začne z ugnezdenjem produkta spočetja, konča pa z rojstvom novorojenčka ali s splavom“. 15
13 — Information taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry on ‘pregnancy’, p. 675.
13 – Podatki iz Encyclopædia Britannica, članek „pregnancy“, str. 675.
14 — For the reasons already explained and despite the fact that the two events usually take place five or six days apart.
15 – Deklaracija, objavljena v bro�uri Etični vidiki ginekologije in porodništva – Odbor FIGO za preučevanje etičnih vidikov človeškega razmnoževanja, november 2006: http://www.figo.org/about_guidelines.asp.
15 — This declaration was published in ‘Recommendations on Ethical Issues in Obstetrics and Gynecology by the FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction’ (November 2006): http://www.figo.org/about_guidelines.asp.
14 – Zaradi navedenih razlogov, in čeprav med dogodka običajno mine pet ali �est dni.
Therefore, if the FIGO definition referred to above considers the pregnancy to commence only after the implantation of the ‘conceptus’ in a woman, Ms Mayr was not pregnant when the employer gave her notice of dismissal.
Ker se torej na podlagi zgoraj navedene opredelitve FIGO nosečnost začne �ele po ugnezdenju „produkta spočetja“ v organizmu ženske, S. Mayr, ko jo je podjetje obvestilo o odpustu, torej ni bila noseča.
(b) The usual meaning of the term pregnancy
16 b) Običajni pomen izraza „nosečnost“
Continuing with the factual narrative, after hormone treatment lasting for about one and a half months, a follicular puncture was carried out on Ms Mayr on 8 March 2005 and she was certified sick by her general practitioner for five days.
Naj podrobneje navedemo dejstva: pri S. Mayr so po hormonskem zdravljenju, ki je trajalo približno mesec in pol, 8. marca 2005 opravili punkcijo foliklov in njen lečeči zdravnik ji je predpisal pet dni bolni�kega dopusta.
On 10 March, when the ova collected had already been cultured and, according to the information available, had been fertilised, she was dismissed.
Odpu�čena je bila 10. marca, potem ko so bile v laboratoriju že vzgojene odvzete jajčne celice, ki so bile po predloženih podatkih že oplojene.
The resulting embryos were transferred three days later, on 13 March.
Prenos nastalih zarodkov je bil opravljen tri dni pozneje, 13. marca.
That conclusion is consistent with the usual meaning of the word ‘pregnancy’ in medical science, where it is used to designate the process which takes place between conception and birth.
Ta sklep je v skladu z običajnim pomenom izraza „nosečnost“ za medicinsko znanost, ki se uporablja za označitev procesa med spočetjem in rojstvom.
This meaning also appears in that haven against the harshness of reality called the dictionary.
Isti pomen najdemo tudi v pribežali�ču pred neizprosno stvarnostjo, ki ga utele�ajo slovarji.
17 Pregnancy is identified with the development of a new human being in the woman’s womb, a process which had not occurred at the time Ms Mayr was dismissed.
17 Nosečnost se opredeljuje kot razvoj novega bitja v maternici, do česar v času odpusta S. Mayr �e ni pri�lo.
The fact that she later becomes pregnant does not change this and nor does the fact that at the time she lost her job the ova had been fertilised in the labo-
Dejstvo, da je bila noseča pozneje,
17 — Pascual, J.A., La Historia como pretexto, speech made on 10 March 2002 on the occasion of his admission as a member of the Real Academia Española, Madrid, 2002, p. 82.
A., La Historia como pretexto, govor z dne 10. marca 2002 ob njegovem uradnem sprejemu v Real Academia Española, Madrid, 2002, str. 82.
He goes on to say that the Diccionario de la Academia is available to anyone, virtually anywhere, even in Vetusta itself, with the author Leopoldo Alas (known as ‘Clarín’) in his magnificent novel La Regenta even placing a copy of the dictionary in the casino of that [fictional representation of the] city [of Oviedo, which he portrays so negatively] (see Alas, L. La Regenta (vol.1), 5thedition, Sobejano, G (ed.), Castalia, Madrid, 1990, p. 254). In fact the Diccionario de la Real Academia de la Lengua Española defines pregnancy as ‘el estado en que se halla la hembra gestante’ (the condition of a gestating female) and the Dictionnaire de l’Académie Française as ‘l’état d’une femme enceinte; durée de cet état’ (the condition of an expectant woman; the duration of this condition).
Alas „Clarín“ v svojem čudovitem romanu La Regenta, v izdaji G. Sobejana, 5. izd., založbe Castalia, Madrid, 1990, zvezek I, str.
MAYR ratory because, as the respondent suggests, 18the question is not whether the zygote had pregnant at the time she was given notice of dismissal.
Po mojem mnenju so ta razpravljanja odveč in dejstvo, da zarodki �e niso počivali v maternici S. Mayr, zadostuje za izključitev njene nosečnosti v času, ko ji je bil vročen odpust.
become nasciturus (a foetus) in the legal sense, but whether there was a pregnancy.
tu ne spremeni nič, niti dejstvo, da so bile ob odpovedi delovnega razmerja jajčne celice že oplojene v laboratoriju, ker tu ne gre za oceno, kot navaja toženo podjetje, 18ali je bila zigota že „nasciturus“ ali ne v pravnem smislu, temveč za določitev, ali je nosečnost obstajala.
I also disagree with the Greek Government’s submission in paragraph 17 of its written observations that the fact that in the case of in vitro fertilisation the woman can change her mind right up to the moment when the fertilised ovum is transferred does not make her situation any different from that of a natural pregnancy, which can also be terminated voluntarily.
Prav tako je treba nasprotovati gr�ki vladi, ki v točki 17 svojih stali�č trdi, da dejstvo, da si lahko stranka v primeru oploditve in vitro do prenosa oplojenega jajčeca premisli, ne pomeni, da se njen položaj razlikuje od naravne nosečnosti, kjer je prav tako mogoča prostovoljna prekinitev.
Without making moral judgements about either situation, an element can be identified which distinguishes the two cases in law, namely that with in vitro fertilisation there is no new life within the mother until implantation takes place.
Ne da bi ta primera presojali na moralni ravni, je treba poudariti element, ki ju ločuje na pravni ravni, kajti pri oploditvi in vitro ni življenja v materinem telesu, dokler ne pride do ugnezdenja.
The 15threcital in the preamble to the directive explains that the prohibition on dismissing workers aims to avoid the harmful effects that this may have on their physical and mental state.
V petnajsti uvodni izjavi Direktive je pojasnjeno, da naj bi prepoved odpusta delavk preprečila �kodljive učinke, ki bi jih ta odločitev imela na njihovo fizično ali psihično stanje.
This is also the interpretation given by Community caselaw in Brown, 19and Tele Danmark, 20where the Court stated that
Tako je razložena tudi v sodni praksi Skupnosti v sodbah z dne 30. junija 1998 v zadevi Brown 19in z dne 4. oktobra 2001 v zadevi Tele Danmark, 20 v katerih je nave- deno, da je namen zgoraj navedenega člena 10 preprečiti, da bi zaradi grožnje odpusta zadevna oseba prostovoljno prekinila nosečnost.
Furthermore, the Austrian Government relies on the protective purpose of Directive 92/85 to support the argument that while with a natural conception pregnancy originates when the ovum and the sperm unite within the woman’s body, in an in vitro fertilisation it would begin with the transfer of the ova fertilised in the laboratory to the uterus.
Poleg tega se avstrijska vlada opira na za�čitni namen Direktive 92/85 in trdi, da če se nosečnost pri naravnem spočetju začne z združitvijo jajčeca in semenčice v ženskem organizmu, naj bi se pri oploditvi in vitro začela s prenosom jajčnih celic, oplojenih v laboratoriju, v maternico.
21 — A similar approach can be found in the Opinions which I delivered in those cases on 5 February 1998 and 10 May 2001.
21 – Podobna usmeritev izhaja iz sklepnih predlogov, ki sem jih predstavil 5. februarja 1998 in 10. maja 2001 v teh zadevah.
18 — Paragraph 5 of its written observations.
18 – Točka 5 njegovih stali�č.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-506/06 relevant Italian legislation 22to the recent Spanish Ley 14/2006, de 26 de mayo, sobre técnicas de reproducción humana asistida (Law 14/2006, of 26 May, on assisted human reproduction techniques) 23which permits
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-506/06 oplojenih jajčnih celic v italijanski zakonodaji 22do nedavnega �panskega zakona
The legislation which is the subject of the referring court’s question aims to protect the biological condition of the pregnant woman.
14/2006 z dne 26. maja 2006 o tehnikah umetne oploditve pri človeku, 23 ki dovoljuje sodi�če prosi Sodi�če, naj določi področje njene uporabe, je ohraniti biolo�ko stanje noseče ženske.
Protection of the woman’s equally desirable right to procreate (in abstract), to become pregnant and to give birth without her work becoming an insurmountable obstacle seems also to be guaranteed by Community law, but not by Directive 92/85.
Varstvo – prav tako zaželeno – pravice ženske do razmnoževanja (abstraktno), da je lahko noseča in do rojevanja, ne da bi bilo njeno delo nepremagljiva ovira na tej poti, se zdi prav tako zagotovljeno na ravni Skupnosti, vendar zunaj Direk -tive 92/85.
cryopreservation of ova, ovarian tissue and surplus pre-embryos until such time as the doctors involved judge that the receiving woman no longer meets the relevant clinical requirements for assisted reproduction.
podalj�anje zamrzovanja jajčnih celic, tkiva jajčnikov in presežnih predzarodkov, dokler pristojni zdravniki ne postavijo diagnoze, da prejemnica ne izpolnjuje klinično potrebnih pogojev za umetno oploditev.
24The legislation of other Member States permits the storing of viable pre-embryos for a certain maximum period, which in Austria is set at 10 years (Paragraph 17(1) of the FMedG).
24 Druge nacionalne zakonodaje dovoljujejo hranjenje predzarodkov, sposobnih preživetja, največ za določeno obdobje, ki v Avstriji zna�a deset let (člen 17(1) FmedG).