natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the President of the Arbeidsrechtbank held that the public statements in question did not constitute acts of discrimination; rather, they were merely evidence of potential discrimination, in that they indicated that persons of a certain ethnic origin would not be recruited by Feryn in the event they should decide to apply.
Vendar je predsednik Arbeidsrechtbank ugotovil, da zadevne javne izjave ne pomenijo diskriminatornih dejanj, ampak da gre le za dokaz o morebitni diskriminaciji, saj izkazujejo, da družba Feryn ne bi zaposlila oseb določene narodnosti, če bi se te odločile kandidirati za ta delovna mesta.
The CGKR had neither claimed nor demonstrated that Feryn had ever actually turned down a job application on grounds of the applicant’s ethnic origin.
CGKR ni niti navedel niti dokazal, da naj bi družba Feryn kadar koli dejansko izločila pro�njo za zaposlitev zaradi narodnosti kandidata.
For those reasons, the forms of order sought by CGKR were denied by order of 26 June 2006.
Na podlagi te obrazložitve so bili predlogi CGKR zavrnjeni s sklepom z dne 26. junija 2006.
The CGKR brought an appeal against that order before the Arbeidshof te Brussel, which has made the present reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
CGKR je vložil pritožbo zoper ta sklep pred Arbeidshof te Brussel, ki je Sodi�ču predlagalo sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
‘[W]e have many of our representatives visiting customers … Everyone is installing alarm systems and these days everyone is obviously very scared.
„[V]eliko na�ih zastopnikov obi�če na�e stranke […]. Danes vsi vgrajujejo alarmne sisteme in vse je zelo strah.
It is not just immigrants who break in.
Ne vlamljajo le priseljenci.
I won’t say that, I’m not a racist.
Ne trdim tega, saj nisem rasist.
Belgians break into people’s houses just as much.
V domove vlamljajo prav tako Belgijci.
But people are obviously scared.
Vendar so ljudje očitno prestra�eni.
So people often say: “no immigrants”. … I must comply with my customers’ requirements.
Tako pogosto rečejo: ‚nobenih imigrantov‘.[…] Izpolniti moram zahteve svojih strank.
If you say “I want a particular product or I want it like this and like that”, and I say “I’m not doing it, I’ll send these people”, then you say “I don’t need that door.”
Če mi rečete: ‚Hočem tak proizvod oziroma hočem to ali ono‘, in če vam rečem: ‚Jaz tega ne delam, pripeljal vam bom te ljudi‘, mi vi odgovorite: ‚Nočem va�ih vrat‘.
Then I’m putting myself out of business.
Tako lahko končam posel z vrati.
We must meet the customers’ requirements.
Mi moramo izpolniti zahteve strank. To ni moja stvar.
I didn’t create this problem in Belgium.
Jaz nisem ustvaril tega problema v Belgiji.
I want the firm to do well and I want us to achieve our turnover at the end of the year, and how do I do that? I must do it the way the customer wants it done!’
Jaz hočem, da moja družba posluje dobro in da je na koncu leta promet realiziran, in kako to dosežem? […] To moram doseči tako, da se ravnam po željah stranke!“
The Arbeidshof te Brussel asks a number of very precise questions relating to the Directive and to the specific circumstances that are at issue in the main proceedings.
Arbeidshof te Brussel zastavlja več zelo natančnih vpra�anj o Direktivi in posebnih okoli�činah, ki so sporne v postopku v glavni stvari.
3These questions essentially concern the concept of direct discriminationb (first and second questions), the burden of proof (third, fourth and fifth questions) and the issue of appropriate remedies (sixth question).
3Ta vpra�anja se nana�ajo zlasti na pojem neposredne diskriminacije (prvo in drugo vpra�anje), na dokazno breme (tretje, četrto in peto vpra�anje) in na vpra�anje ustreznih popravnih ukrepov (�esto vpra�anje).
I shall address these questions bearing in mind that, under Article 234 EC, the Court has no power to apply rules of Community law
Ta vpra�anja bom obravnaval ob upo�tevanju, da na podlagi člena 234 ES Sodi�če v obravnavani zadevi ni pristojno uporabiti pravil Skupnosti, ampak lahko
The CGKR was established by a Law of 15 February 1993.
CGKR je bil ustanovljen z zakonom z dne 15. februarja 1993.
That law was amended by a Law of 25 February 2003 (‘the Law Against Discrimination’).
Ta zakon je bil spremenjen z zakonom z dne 25. februarja 2003 (zakon proti diskriminaciji).
The Law Against Discrimination transposed Direct- ive 2000/43 into Belgian law.
Z zakonom proti diskriminaciji je bila Direktiva 2000/43 prenesena v belgijsko pravo.
FERYN to a particular case, but may only provide a national court with information on the interpretation of Community law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of a provision of national law.
FERYN nacionalnemu sodi�ču le pojasni razlago prava Skupnosti, kar bi bilo koristno pri presoji učinkov določbe nacionalnega prava.
discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin’.
diskriminacije na podlagi rase ali narodnosti“.
Article 2(2)(a) provides that ‘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 grounds of racial or ethnic origin’.
Člen 2(2)(a) določa, da „se za neposredno diskriminacijo �teje, če se ena oseba obravnava manj ugodno, kakor se obravnava, se je obravnavala ali pa bi se obravnavala druga oseba v primerljivem položaju na podlagi rase ali narodnosti“.
The first question that falls to be decided by this Court is essentially the following: does it constitute direct discrimination for the purposes of the Directive if an employer publicly states, in the context of a recruitment drive, that applications from persons of a certain ethnic origin will be turned down?
Prvo vpra�anje, na katerega mora odgovoriti Sodi�če, je v bistvu tole: ali dejstvo, da delodajalec v okviru zaposlovanja javno izjavi, da bodo pro�nje oseb določene narodnosti izločene, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo za namene Direktive?
The notion of direct discrimination
Pojem neposredne diskriminacije
The aim of the Directive is ‘to lay down a framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment’.
Namen Direktive je „določiti okvir za boj proti diskriminaciji na podlagi rase ali narodnosti, da bi v državah članicah uveljavili načelo enakega obravnavanja“.
4The Directive applies in both the public and private sectors, in relation to, inter alia, ‘conditions for access to employment … including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy …’. 5
4Direktiva se uporablja tako v javnem kot v zasebnem sektorju, zlasti glede „pogojev za dostop do zaposlitve […], vključno z izbirnimi merili in pogoji zaposlovanja ne glede na vrsto dejavnosti in na vseh ravneh poklicne hierarhije […]“. 5
The national court that dealt with the case at first instance took the view that, so long as an employer has not acted upon his own discriminatory statements, the discrimination is only hypothetical and does not come within the ambit of the Direct- ive.
Nacionalno sodi�če, ki je obravnavalo zadevo na prvi stopnji, je ugotovilo, da je diskriminacija, dokler delodajalec ni ravnal v smislu svojih diskriminatornih izjav, zgolj hipotetična in ne spada na področje Direktive. Združeno kraljestvo in Irska sta izrazila podobna stali�ča.
They argue that, in the absence of an identifiable complainant who has become the victim of discrimination, the Directive does not apply.
Navajata, da se Direktiva ne uporabi, če ni določenega pritožnika, ki je bil žrtev diskriminacije.
As a result, bodies such as the CGKR cannot, in such circumstances, bring legal proceedings before the national courts alleging direct discrimination within the meaning of the Directive.
Zato organi, kot je CGKR, v takih okoli�činah ne morejo vložiti tožbe pred nacionalnimi sodi�či s sklicevanjem na neposredno diskriminacijo v smislu Direktive.
According to Aricle 2(1) of the Directive ‘the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect
Na podlagi člena 2(1) Direktive „‚načelo enakega obravnavanja‘ pomeni, da ne sme biti nobene neposredne ali posredne
4 — Article 1 of the Directive.5 — Article 3(1)(a) of the Directive.
4 – Člen 1 Direktive.5 – Člen 3(1)(a) Direktive.
The CGKR takes the opposite view and argues that the prohibition on direct discrimination concerns the recruitment process as
CGKR zatrjuje nasprotno in navaja, da se prepoved neposredne diskriminacije nana�a tako na postopek zaposlovanja kot
According to the CGKR, the substantive scope of the Directive has to be determined independently from the question of who is entitled to bring legal action.
CGKR meni, da mora biti dejansko področje uporabe Direktive določeno neodvisno od vpra�anja, kdo ima pravico sprožiti sodni postopek.
In other words, the issue of the locus standi of the CGKR has no bearing on the question whether direct discrimination has occurred.
Z drugimi besedami, vpra�anje o procesnem upravičenju CGKR ne vpliva na vpra�anje, ali je pri�lo do neposredne diskriminacije.
The Commission and the Belgian Government share the view of the CGKR.
Komisija in belgijska vlada se strinjata s stali�čem CGKR.
On the contrary, the Directive expressly provides that ‘Member States may introduce or maintain provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment than those laid down in this Directive’ 8and that ‘[t]he implementation of this Directive shall under no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of protection against discrimination already afforded by Member States in the fields covered by this Directive’.
Nasprotno, Direktiva izrecno določa, da „države članice lahko uvedejo ali ohranijo določbe, ki so ugodnej�e za za�čito načela enakega obravnavanja kakor tiste, ki jih določa ta direktiva“ 8in da „[i]zvajanje te direktive nikakor ne predstavlja temelja za znižanje ravni za�čite pred diskriminacijo, ki jo države članice na področjih, zajetih s to direktivo, že zagotavljajo“ 9.
9 Thus, in principle, it is a matter of domestic law whether or not an equal treatment body such as the CGKR may bring legal action if it is not acting on behalf of a specific complainant.
Vpra�anje, ali tak organ, kot je CGKR, ki zagotavlja spo�tovanje enakega obravnavanja, lahko vloži tožbo, kadar ne ukrepa v imenu določenega tožnika, načeloma torej sodi v nacionalno pravo.
The Directive allows Member States to choose different methods of enforcement, provided that appropriate judicial or administrative procedures are available to persons who claim to have been discriminated against, as well as to public interest bodies that represent victimcomplainants.
Direktiva državam članicam dovoljuje, da izberejo različne načine izvr�evanja, če je tako osebam, ki zatrjujejo, da so bile diskriminirane, kot organom javnega interesa, ki zastopajo diskriminirane tožnike, zagotovljen dostop do ustreznega sodnega ali upravnega postopka.
In this respect, I agree with the United Kingdom and Ireland that the Directive does not require Member States to ensure that public interest bodies are recognised as having locus standi to bring judicial proceedings in the absence of a complainant who claims to have been the victim of discrimination.
Glede na to se strinjam z Združenim kraljestvom in Irsko, da Direktiva ne zahteva od držav članic, da zagotovijo, da se organom javnega interesa prizna procesno upravičenje glede sprožitve sodnega postopka, če ni tožnika, ki bi navajal, da je bil žrtev diskriminacije.
There appears to be a degree of confusion as to the connection between the concept of direct discrimination and the question whether a public interest body is entitled to seek legal redress where the principle of equal treatment has been infringed.
Zdi se, da zveza med pojmom neposredne diskriminacije in vpra�anjem, ali imajo organi javnega interesa pravico zahtevati sodno popravo krivice v primeru kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja, povzroča nekaj zmede.
As the United Kingdom and Ireland have emphasised, the Directive was not intended to make it possible, under the laws of the Member States, for public interest bodies to bring an action in the nature of an actio popularis.
Kot sta poudarila Združeno kraljestvo in Irska, ni namen Direktive, da se organom javnega interesa omogoči, da po zakonih držav članic vložijo popularno tožbo.
They refer, in that regard, to Article 7 of the Directive.
V zvezi s tem se sklicujeta na člen 7 Direktive.
That provision requires Member States to ensure that judicial procedures are available ‘to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them’ 6and to public interest bodies acting ‘on behalf or in support of the complainant’. 7
Ta določba zahteva, da države članice zagotovijo, da so sodni postopki na voljo „vsem osebam, ki menijo, da jim je bila storjena krivica, ker ni bilo uporabljeno načelo enakega obravnavanja“ 6in organom javnega interesa, ki „ukrepajo ‚v imenu ali v podporo tožnika‘“. 7
However, it does not follow from that provision that Member States are precluded from granting additional possibilities for legal
Vendar ta določba ne prepoveduje državam članicam, da zagotavljajo dodatne možnosti za izvr�itev ali sodno popravo
However, that does not mean that the scope of the Directive is limited to cases in which there are identifiable victimcomplainants.
To pa ne pomeni, da je področje Direktive omejeno na zadeve, v katerih je mogoče določiti tožnike, ki so bili žrtve diskriminacije.
The forms of discrimination covered by the Directive must be inferred, above all, from its wording and its purpose, not from the remedies which the Member States are, as a minimum, required to ensure.
Oblike diskriminacije, ki jih pokriva Direktiva, morajo biti izvedene predvsem iz njenega besedila in cilja, ne pa iz pravnih sredstev, ki jih morajo države članice zagotavljati kot minimum. Obseg diskriminatornih
6 — Article 7(1) of the Directive (emphasis added).7 — Article 7(2) of the Directive (emphasis added).
6 – Člen 7(1) Direktive (poudarek dodan).7 – Člen 7(2) Direktive (poudarek dodan).
8 — Article 6(1) of the Directive.9 — Article 6(2) of the Directive.
8 – Člen 6(1) Direktive.9 – Člen 6(2) Direktive.
FERYN scope of the Directive to cases of identifiable complainants who have applied for a particular job would risk undermining the effectiveness of the principle of equal treatment in the employment sector.
Direktive na primere, ko je mogoče določiti tožnike, ki so kandidirali za določeno delovno mesto, zmanj�ala učinkovitost načela enakega obravnavanja na zaposlovalnem področju.
In any recruitment process, the greatest ‘selection’ takes place between those who apply, and those who do not.
V vsakem zaposlovalnem postopku se največja „selektivnost“ izvaja med tistimi, ki kandidirajo, in tistimi ki ne.
Nobody can reasonably be expected to apply for a position if they know in advance that, because of their racial or ethnic origin, they stand no chance of being hired.
Od nikogar ni mogoče razumno pričakovati, da bo kandidiral za položaj, če vnaprej ve, da zaradi svoje rase ali narodnosti nima nobenih možnosti, da bo dobil to delovno mesto.
Therefore, a public statement from an employer that persons of a certain racial or ethnic origin need not apply has an effect that is anything but hypothetical.
Zato je učinek javne izjave delodajalca, da naj osebe določene rase ali narodnosti ne kandidirajo, daleč od hipotetičnega.
To ignore that as an act of discrimination would be to ignore the social reality that such statements are bound to have a humiliating and demoralising impact on persons of that origin who want to participate in the labour market and, in particular, on those who would have been interested in working for the employer at issue.
Če tega ne bi opredelili kot diskriminatorno ravnanje, bi to pomenilo zanemarjanje družbene realnosti, da imajo take izjave zagotovo poniževalen in nemoralen vpliv na osebe te narodnosti, ki želijo sodelovati na trgu dela, zlasti na tiste, ki bi želeli delati za zadevnega delodajalca.
The range of discriminatory behaviour prohibited by the Directive is one thing; the range of enforcement mechanisms and remedies which the Directive specifically imposes is quite another.
ravnanj, ki so prepovedana z Direktivo, je eno, obseg načinov izvajanja in pravnih sredstev, ki jih izrecno določa Direktiva, pa nekaj povsem drugega.
Indeed, the Direct- ive must be understood in the framework of a wider policy ‘to foster conditions for a socially inclusive labour market’ 10and ‘to ensure the development of democratic and tolerant societies which allow the participation of all persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin’.
Direktivo je treba dejansko razlagati v okviru �ir�e politike, ki vztraja pri „potrebi po vzpostavljanju ugodnej�ih pogojev za trg delovne sile, ki temelji na družbenih integracijah“, 10„da bi zagotovili razvoj demokratičnih in strpnih družb, ki omogočajo sodelovanje vseh oseb ne glede na njihovo raso ali narodnost“.
11Furthermore, as I have argued in my recent Opinion in Coleman, when a directive is adopted on the basis of Article 13 EC, it must be interpreted in the light of the broader values underlying that provision.
11 Poleg tega, kot sem navedel v nedavnih sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Coleman, je treba direktivo, če je sprejeta na podlagi člena 13 ES, razlagati v smislu �ir�ih vrednot, ki so podlaga za ta člen.
12Admittedly, the Directive lays down minimum measures, but that is no reason to construe its scope more narrowly than a reading in the light of those values would warrant.
12 Res je, da Direktiva določa minimalne ukrepe, vendar to ni razlog, da bi se njen obseg moral razlagati ožje kot razumevanje v smislu, ki ga te vrednote upravičujejo.
A minimum standard of protection is not the same as a minimal standard of protection.
Minimalni standard varstva ni isto kot najnižji standard varstva.
Community rules for protection against discrimination may leave a margin for the Member States to ensure even greater protection, but from that we cannot conclude that the level of protection offered by the Community rules is the lowest conceivable. 13
Pravila Skupnosti glede varstva pred diskriminacijo lahko dopu�čajo možnost državam članicam, da zagotovijo celo večje varstvo, vendar iz tega ni mogoče sklepati, da je raven varstva, ki ga zagotavljajo pravila Skupnosti, najnižja sprejemljiva raven. 13
Against this background, it seems to me that an interpretation that would limit the
Glede na navedeno se mi zdi, da bi razlaga, ki bi omejila področje uporabe
10 — 8th recital in the preamble to the Directive.11 — 12th recital in the preamble to the Directive.
10 – Osma uvodna izjava Direktive.11 – Dvanajsta uvodna izjava Direktive.
12 — See my Opinion in Case C-303/06 Coleman, currently pending before this Court, point 7 et seq.
12 – Glej moje sklepne predloge v zadevi Coleman (C-303/06), ki �e teče pred Sodi�čem, točka 7 in naslednje.
That case concerns Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Ta zadeva se nana�a na Direktivo Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splo�nih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu (UL L 303, str. 16).
Yet, in cases such as these it may be very difficult to identify individual victims, since the persons affected may not even apply for a position with that employer in the first place.
Vendar se v takih zadevah, kot je ta, lahko izkaže, da je zelo težko določiti posamične žrtve, ker je mogoče, da prizadete osebe niti ne kandidirajo za zadevno delovno mesto.
At the hearing, the United Kingdom and Ireland conceded that the notion of victim should cover persons who would be interested in applying and are qualified for the job.
Združeno kraljestvo in Irska sta na obravnavi priznala, da bi pojem žrtve moral vključevati osebe, ki so morebiti zainteresirane kandidirati za to delovno mesto in so usposobljene za zadevno delo.
However, that hardly solves the problem, given the difficulties in identifying such persons individually and the low incentive for them to come forward.
Vendar to komajda re�i problem glede na težavnost posamične določitve takih oseb in nizke spodbude, da se predstavijo.
By publicly stating his intention not to hire persons of a
Delodajalec je z javno izjavo o svojem namenu, da ne bo
13 — Ibid., at paragraph 24.
13 – Prav tam, točka 24.
certain racial or ethnic origin, the employer is, in fact, excluding those persons from the application process and from his workfloor.
zaposlil oseb določene rase oziroma narodnosti, te osebe v bistvu izključil iz postopka zaposlovanja in iz svojega delovnega okolja.
He is not merely talking about discrimin -ating, he is discriminating.
Delodajalec ni le govoril o diskriminaciji, on diskriminira.
He is not simply uttering words, he is performing a ‘speech act’.
Ne izgovarja le besed, ampak „govori“.
14 The announcement that persons of a certain racial or ethnic origin are unwelcome as applicants for a job is thus itself a form of discrimination.
14Razgla�anje, da osebe določene rase oziroma narodnosti niso dobrodo�le kot kandidati za delovno mesto, je torej samo po sebi diskriminatorno.
The contention made by Mr Feryn that customers would be unfavourably disposed towards employees of a certain ethnic origin is wholly irrelevant to the question whether the Directive applies.
Zatrjevanje P. Feryna, naj stranke ne bi bile naklonjene zaposlenim določene narodnosti, je popolnoma neupo�tevno za vpra�anje uporabe Direktive.
Even if that contention were true, it would only illustrate that ‘markets will not cure discrimination’ 15and that regulatory intervention is essential.
Tudi če bi bilo to zatrjevanje resnično, to zgolj ilustrira, da „trg ne bo odpravil diskriminacije“ 15in da je zakonska intervencija bistvena.
Moreover, the adoption of regulatory measures at Community level helps to solve a collective action problem for employers by preventing the distortion of competition that — precisely because of that market failure — could arise if different standards of protection against discrimination existed at national level.
Poleg tega sprejetje regulativnih ukrepov na ravni Skupnosti pomaga pri re�itvi problema kolektivnega ukrepa za delodajalce s preprečevanjem vsakega izkrivljanja konkurence, ki bi nastalo – ravno zaradi te pomanjkljivosti trga –, če bi na nacionalni ravni obstajali različni standardi varstva pred diskriminacijo.
It would lead to awkward results if discrimination of this type were for some reason to be excluded altogether from the scope of the Directive, because by implication Member States would be permitted, under the Directive, to allow employers to differentiate very effectively between candidates on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, simply by publicising the discriminatory character of their recruitment policy as overtly as possible beforehand.
Če bi bila diskriminacija take vrste iz kakr�nega koli razloga izključena s področja uporabe Direktive, bi to povzročilo neprijetne posledice, ker bi bilo na podlagi Direktive državam članicam implicitno omogočeno, da delodajalcem dovolijo zelo učinkovito razlikovanje med kandidati na podlagi njihove rase oziroma narodnosti zgolj z vnaprej�njo in naj�ir�o objavo diskriminatorne narave svoje zaposlovalne politike.
Thus, the most blatant strategy of employment discrimination might also turn out to be the most ‘rewarding’.
Tako bi se najočitnej�a strategija zaposlovalne diskriminacije lahko izkazala za najbolj „donosno“.
That would clearly undermine — rather than promote — conditions for a socially inclusive labour market.
To bi očitno bolj �kodilo, kot koristilo ugodnej�im razmeram za trg delovne sile, ki temelji na družbenem vključevanju.
In short, it would defeat the very purpose of the Directive if public statements made by an employer in the context of a recruitment drive, to the effect that applications from persons of a certain ethnic origin
Na kratko torej, če javna izjava delodajalca v okviru postopka zaposlovanja, katere namen je izključiti kandidature oseb določene rase oziroma