natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
17 — Ibid., paragraph 34.18 — Ibid., paragraph 33.19 — Ibid.
17 – Prav tam, točka 34.18 – Prav tam, točka 33.19 – Prav tam.
GYSEN applicability of the Staff Regulations and the CEOS in all the Member States, including Belgium.
GYSEN učinek in na neposredno uporabo samih Kadrovskih predpisov in PZDU v vseh državah členicah, vključno z Belgijo.
On that premise, the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling could be answered by simply pointing out that the Staff Regulations and the CEOS approved by Community regulation have general application, are binding in their entirety and are directly applicable in all the Member States.
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega bi lahko na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki je bilo predloženo Sodi�ču, odgovoril tako, da bi zgolj poudaril, da se Kadrovski predpisi in PZDU, ki so bili potrjeni z uredbo Skupnosti, splo�no uporabljajo, so zavezujoči v celoti in se neposredno uporabljajo v vsaki državi članici.
Instead, or in addition, the question would turn on whether Community law, as a higher ranking legal source, places limits on the interpretation and application of the domestic provision in question.
Vpra�anje bi se namreč nana�alo, oziroma tudi, na obstoj mej, ki jih določa pravo Skupnosti kot vir prava vi�jega ranga, na razlago in uporabo zadevnega notranjega predpisa.
It would therefore be necessary to identify — having regard to the national court’s obligation to interpret the domestic provision as far as possible in conformity with Community law and even, in some circumstances, to disapply it where such a concordant interpretation is not possible — any requirements of Community law that must guide the referring court in defining the scope of that concept of domestic law and, where appropriate, in assessing whether the provision containing that concept is compatible with Community law in the event that the concept may not be construed as covering the Staff Regulations and the CEOS.
Šlo bi torej za določitev – upo�tevajoč obveznost nacionalnega sodi�ča, da razlaga notranji predpis, kolikor je mogoče v skladu s pravom Skupnosti in celo, v določenih pogojih, da je ne uporabi v primerih, ko taka skladna razlaga ni mogoča – mogočih zahtev, ki jih določi pravo Skupnosti, ki bi morale predložitveno sodi�če usmeriti pri opredelitvi obsega zgoraj navedenega nacionalnega zakonskega okvira in, če je potrebno, pri presoji skladnosti določbe, ki vsebuje ta koncept, s pravom Skupnosti, tam, kjer tega ne bi bilo mogoče razumeti v smislu, da v to vključuje tudi Kadrovske predpise in PZDU.
However, the Commission, which is the only party other than Ms Gysen to have submitted written observations in these proceedings for a preliminary ruling, suggests rewording the question in far wider terms than those I have indicated in paragraph 29 above.
Vendar Komisija, ki je poleg S. Gysen edina predložila pisna stali�ča v tem postopku za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, predlaga, naj se vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje preoblikuje s precej �ir�imi izrazi od tistih, ki sem jih navedel zgoraj v točki 29.
22 and where the question did not ring court mention any specific provision of Community law but referred to the EC Treaty or to Community law as a whole.
Skupnosti, ki niso bile upo�tevne v postopku v glavni stvari, 22kot v primerih, v katerih s raz�iritev predmeta vpra�anja, ki ga je zastavilo predložitveno sodi�če, ne presega okvira sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, ki je določen v ureditvi, določeni s členom 234 ES.
23 widening of the subjectmatter of the question from the referring court, does not go beyond the bounds of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts as laid down by the scheme established by Article 234 EC.
predhodnim vpra�anjem ni bila navedena nobena določena določba prava Skupnosti, ampak se je to sklicevalo na Pogodbo ES ali na pravo Skupnosti v celoti 23.
The caselaw provides no shortage of examples in which the Court has broadened the subjectmatter of the question referred to it for a preliminary ruling by deciding on the validity of a provision of Community law when the question had been formulated by the national court in a way that called on the Court to carry out a merely interpretative exercise. 24
V sodni praksi ne manjka primerov, v katerih je Sodi�če raz�irilo predmet zastavljenega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje in se izreklo o veljavnosti besedila prava Skupnosti, ko je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje zastavilo nacionalno sodi�če tako, da je zaprosilo Sodi�če zgolj za razlago 24.
I recall in this regard that, according to settled case-law, it is for the Court, when faced with questions which are not framed in an appropriate manner or which go beyond its jurisdiction under Article 234 EC, to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the order for reference, the points of Community law which require interpretation, having regard to the subjectmatter of the dispute. 20
Glede tega naj spomnim, da mora Sodi�če v skladu s sodno prakso glede vpra�anj, ki niso bila zastavljena na primeren način ali ki presegajo področje njegove pristojnosti iz člena 234 ES, iz vseh dejstev in dokazov, ki jih je predložilo nacionalno sodi�če, zlasti obrazložitve predložitvene odločbe, zbrati elemente prava Skupnosti, ki jih je treba razložiti, upo�tevajoč predmet spora 20.
The Court therefore appears to allow itself considerable leeway to identify the points of Community law which require interpretation for the purposes of resolving the domestic case, in accordance with the need to provide a ‘satisfactory answer’ to the referring court and in a spirit of full cooperation with that court. In judicial cooperation under Article 234 EC — which requires the national court and the Court of
Izkaže se, da si je Sodi�če priznalo velik manevrski prostor pri presoji elementov prava Skupnosti, ki zahtevajo razlago za re�itev postopka v glavni stvari in kar je v skladu z zahtevo, da se da predložitvenemu sodi�ču „ustrezen odgovor“, in v duhu tesnega sodelovanja s tem sodi�čem. Pri
In order to provide a satisfactory answer to a national court which has referred a question to it, the Court of Justice may deem it necessary to consider provisions of Community law to which the national court has not referred in the text of its question.
Za ustrezno pomoč sodi�ču, ki je predložilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, je lahko Sodi�če prisiljeno upo�tevati določbe prava Skupnosti, na katere se nacionalno sodi�če v vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje ni sklicevalo 21.
21This has occurred both where the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling made reference to provisions of Community law that were not relevant to the situation which gave rise to the case before the refer-
Do tega je pri�lo tako v primerih, v katerih se je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki je bilo zastavljeno Sodi�ču, sklicevalo na določbe prava
22 — By way of example, see Case C-315/88 Bagli Pennacchiotti [1990] ECR I-1323; Case C-315/93 Flip and Verdegem [1995] ECR I-913; Teckal; and Bourrasse and Perchicot.
I-1323); z dne 6. aprila 1995 v zadevi Flip in Verdegem (C-315/93, Recueil, str. I-913); in navedene sodbe Teckal ter Bourrasse in Perchicot.
GYSEN participating in the proceedings for a preliminary ruling, that is to say, in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the parties to the dispute in the main proceedings, the Member States, the Commission and, where appropriate, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Central Bank, and, where one of the fields of application of the Agreement on the European Economic Area is concerned, the States, other than the Member States, which are parties to that Agreement, and the Surveillance Authority referred to in that Agreement.
GYSEN pomeni, da je dolžno odgovoriti na vpra�anja, ki jih niso predložila ta sodi�ča, ampak pri teh sodi�čih subjekti, ki sodelujejo v predhodnem postopku – oziroma, na podlagi člena 23 Poslovnika Sodi�ča, stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, države članice, Komisija in, ko je to potrebno, Evropski parlament, Svet in Evropska centralna banka, poleg – tam, kjer gre za eno izmed področij uporabe Evropskega gospodarskega prostora – države članice podpisnice te pogodbe, ki niso države članice, in nadzorni organi, določeni z navedeno pogodbo.
Justice, both keeping within their respective jurisdiction, and with the aim of ensuring that Community law is applied in a unified manner, to make direct and complementary contributions to the working out of a decision — purely formal requirements which would only prolong the procedure are to be excluded.
sodelovanju med sodi�či na podlagi člena 234 ES, za katerega je značilno dejstvo, da morata nacionalno sodi�če in Sodi�če – vsak znotraj meja svojih pristojnosti in z namenom, da se zagotovi enotna uporaba prava Skupnosti – sodelovati neposredno za pripravo odločb in izključiti vsako formalno strogost, ki bi služila le zavlačevanju postopka 25.
The Court’s power to provide the referring court with an interpretation of Community law that goes beyond that requested by the national court must be exercised with care and in accordance with considerations of appropriateness.
Možnost, ki jo ima Sodi�če, da predložitvenemu sodi�ču poda razlago prava Skupnosti, ki presega to, kar je to predložitveno sodi�če zahtevalo, se bo izvedla previdno in glede na upo�tevanje primernosti.
Although the Court is required, under Articles 10 EC and 234 EC, to answer questions relating to the interpretation of Community law referred by national courts which meet the conditions for admissibility laid down in case-law, it cannot be held that it is bound to reply to questions that have been raised not by those courts but, in pleadings before the Court of Justice, by persons
Če mora Sodi�če na podlagi členov 10 ES in 234 ES odgovoriti na vpra�anja razlage prava Skupnosti, ki so jih predložila predložitvena sodi�ča, tako da presoja pogoje dopustnosti, določene v sodni praksi, pa to �e ne
In the present case, I observe that the question raised by the Commission goes well beyond the concerns of the referring court.
V tej zadevi opozarjam, da vpra�anje Komisije presega skrbi predložitvenega sodi�ča.
Nowhere in the order for reference is it evident that the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles entertains doubts as to the compatibility of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976 — the interpretation of which it has yet to sketch
Iz nobenega dela predložitvene odločbe ne izhaja, da Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles dvomi o skladnosti z določbami ali načeli prava Skupnosti iz člena 16(1), prvi pododstavek, kraljevega odloka z dne 8. aprila 1976, določbe, glede katere sicer �e ni
We are therefore in a very different situation from that in which a referring court wonders whether a given national rule, which it interprets, is compatible with a given provision of Community law and in which the Court replies, having regard to the substance of the issue raised by the referring court, that it finds that provision inapplicable to the case in point and provides an interpretation of a different provision of Community law applicable to the case in point and to which that rule is contrary.
Smo torej v položaju, ki se precej razlikuje od tistega, v katerem se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje o skladnosti dane nacionalne ureditve, ki jo je razlagalo, z dano določbo prava Skupnosti in glede katere Sodi�če odgovarja, upoštevajoč bistvo problematike, ki jo je izpostavilo navedeno sodišče, s tem, da je poudarilo nezmožnost uporabe te določbe v obravnavanem primeru in da je podalo razlago druge določbe prava Skupnosti, ki se uporabi v tem primeru in s katero se ta ureditev izkaže za nasprotno 26.
26 national legislation such as that described in the wording of the question proposed by the Commission.
v pravu Skupnosti sku�alo najti določbo, ki bi morebiti nasprotovala nacionalni določbi, kot je ta, ki je opisana v besedilu vpra�anja, ki ga predlaga Komisija.
The Court should at most examine the scope of the only Community provision actually raised by the Commission in its written observations, namely Article 10 EC.
Sodi�če bi moralo zgolj presojati obseg same določbe Skupnosti, ki jo je konkretno navedla Komisija v pisnih stali�čih, torej člena 10 ES.
I take that view by analogy with the recent trend in case-law, which, as far as the admissibility of questions referred for a preliminary ruling is concerned, insists particularly on requiring the national court to state the precise reasons which caused it to question itself as to the interpretation of Community law and to consider that it was necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling and to give at least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions which it requires to be interpreted and of the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute before it. 27
To menim po analogiji z nedavnimi tendencami v sodni praksi, ki glede dopustnosti vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje vztrajajo zlasti pri opredelitvi, s strani predložitvenega sodi�ča, natančnih razlogov, ki so ga vodili do tega, da se je spra�evalo glede razlage prava Skupnosti in da je �telo kot potrebno odločitev Sodi�ča v zvezi z vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje, in tudi minimalna pojasnila o razlogih za izbiro določb Skupnosti, katerih razlaga se zahteva o povezavi, ki jo to določa med navedenimi predpisi in nacionalno ureditvijo, ki se uporablja v sporu, ki ji je predložen 27.
Moreover, the reformulation of the question suggested by the Commission does not seem necessary to safeguard the usefulness of the reference for a preliminary ruling.
Preoblikovanje vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki ga predlaga Komisija, pa se ne izkaže za potrebno za to, da se ohrani ustrezen učinek predhodnega odločanja.
As we have seen, even if the question asked by the referring court is inappropriately formulated, it can be rephrased in the terms I have indicated in paragraph 29 above in order nevertheless to ensure a useful reply from the Court.
Kot se je izkazalo, čeprav je vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, postavljeno protislovno, ga je mogoče postaviti z besedami, ki sem jih navedel v točki 29 zgoraj, da bi se kljub temu zagotovil ustrezen odgovor Sodi�ča.
Finally, I would point out that the Court has a duty to ensure that the possibility for the interested parties within the meaning of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to submit written observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, before those
Nazadnje naj omenim dolžnost Sodi�ča, da nadzira, da se za�čiti možnost, da zainteresirane osebe v smislu člena 23 Poslovnika Sodi�ča predložijo pisna stali�ča, ob upo�te-
Furthermore, I consider it inappropriate for the Court to scour Community law for a provision that may preclude
26 – Glej, na primer, sodbo z dne 16. decembra 2004 v zadevi My (C-293/03, ZOdl., str. I-12013).
27 — Order in Case C-116/00 Laguillaumie [2000] ECR I-4979, paragraph 16; Order in Case C-425/03 Provvidenza Regio, not published in the ECR, paragraph 9; Order in Case C-116/05 Dhumeaux and Others, not published in the ECR, paragraph 21; and Order in Case C-166/06 Eurodomus, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 7 and 8.
27 – Sklepi z dne 28. junija 2000 v zadevi Laguillaumie (C-116/00, Recueil, str.
In the second of these orders on inadmissibility it is stated, in particular, that the referring court had not stated the provisions of Community law of which it was seeking an interpretation (paragraph 12).
I-4979, točka 16); z dne 19. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Provvidenza Regio (C-425/03, neobjavljen ZOdl., točka 9); z dne 1. decembra 2005 v zadevi Dhumeaux in drugi (C-116/05, neobjavljen ZOdl., točka 21), in z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Eurodomus (C-166/06, ZOdl. 2006, str. I-90, točki 7 in 8).
GYSEN observations are lodged, only the orders for reference are notified to them.
GYSEN vanju dejstva, da se jim pred predložitvijo teh stali�č vročijo le predložitvene odločbe 28.
28 proceedings (French).
njihovem izvirniku v jeziku postopka (franco�čina).
Furthermore, it is also the possibility of submitting written observations that must be safeguarded.
Po drugi strani je treba varovati tudi možnost predstavitve pisnih stali�č.
A broadening of the subjectmatter of the question for a preliminary ruling along the lines suggested by the Commission would therefore appear to require that the Member States and the parties to the main proceedings be given the opportunity to make written submissions on the question raised by the Commission.
Kot kaže, bi raz�iritev predmeta vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, kot je tista, ki jo je predlagala Komisija, zato zahtevala, naj se državam članicam in strankam postopka v glavni stvari da možnost, da v zvezi z vpra�anjem, ki ga je postavila Komisija, podajo pisna stali�ča.
It seems particularly important, in my view, that above all the Belgian Government be invited to submit observations, since that question could indirectly cast doubt on the compatibility of a provision of Belgian legislation with Community law.
Zlasti bi se mi zdelo pomembno spodbuditi stali�ča belgijske vlade, glede na to, da bi navedeno vpra�anje lahko neposredno omajalo skladnost predpisa belgijske ureditve s pravom Skupnosti.
It is of course still possible to obtain the observations in question, but this would delay the present proceedings.
Pridobitev navedenih stali�č je seveda �e vedno mogoča, vendar bi upočasnila čas re�itve tega postopka.
Precisely for the reasons indicated in paragraph 47 above, the possibility for the interested parties within the meaning of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to submit written observations on the possible existence of provisions of Community law precluding a national provision such as the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976 (interpreted according to the wishes of the Caisse) was, although not entirely excluded, nevertheless very theoretical.
Prav zaradi razlogov, navedenih v točki 47 zgoraj, je bila možnost za zainteresi -rane osebe v skladu s členom 23 Poslovnika Sodi�ča, da podajo pisna stali�ča o morebitnem obstoju določb prava Skupnosti, ki bi nasprotovale nacionalni ureditvi, kot je tista iz člena 16(1), prvi pododstavek, kraljevega odloka z dne 8. aprila 1976, pojasnjena v skladu z željami zavoda, čeprav gotovo ni bila povsem izključena, vendarle zelo teoretična.
It is true that such parties — to whom the Commission’s written observations were notified in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — could have stated their views in that regard by applying for a hearing to be held and thus presenting oral observations.
Res je, da bi se navedene osebe – ki so jim bila v skladu s členom 104(4) Poslovnika Sodi�ča vročena pisna stali�ča, ki jih je predložila Komisija – lahko glede tega opredelile s tem, da bi zahtevale določitev obravnave in torej podale ustne navedbe.
However, it should not be forgotten that it is only the order for reference that is notified to the parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in particular the Member States, accompanied by a translation into the official language of each State 29), whereas the written observations submitted by the Commission in these proceedings for a preliminary ruling were notified to the parties only in their original version in the language of the
Vendar, po eni strani, ne smemo pozabiti, da je subjektom iz člena 23 Poslovnika Sodi�ča, zlasti državam članicam, vročena le predložitvena odločba, katere del je prevod v uradni jezik posamezne države 29, medtem ko so bila pisna stali�ča Komisije v tem postopku za sprejetje predhodne odločbe vročena tem subjektom le v
In my opinion, the above considerations make it inadvisable to broaden the scope of the examination to be carried out by the Court in the present proceedings to include the question suggested by the Commission.
Predstavljene ugotovitve se mi zdijo take, da bi lahko odsvetovale raz�iritev obsega presoje, ki jo mora Sodi�če opraviti v tem postopku na vpra�anje, ki ga je predložila Komisija.
The subjectmatter of the question for a preliminary ruling should therefore, in my view, remain within the limits I have sketched out in paragraph 29 above.
Predmet vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje bi torej, po mojem mnenju, moral ostati v mejah, ki sem jih predstavil v točki 29 zgoraj.
Moreover, I would point out that the Commission can at any time refer to the Court the question of the compatibility of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal
Po drugi strani naj spomnim, da ima Komisija vedno možnost, da Sodi�ču postavi vpra�anje glede skladnosti člena 16(1), prvi pododstavek, kraljevega odloka z dne
29 — See the Order in Laguillaumie, paragraph 24.
29 – Glej sklep Laguillaumie, naveden v točki 24.
Decree of 8 April 1976 with Community law by bringing infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC.
8. aprila 1976 s pravom Skupnosti, tako da sproži postopek zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti v skladu s členom 226 ES.
In My, the Court observed that Article 10 EC requires the Member States to facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks and in fact held that that article, read in conjunction with the Staff Regulations, prohibited such national legislation. 31
V navedeni sodbi je Sodi�če, potem ko je opozorilo, da člen 10 ES nalaga državam članicam, da za Skupnost olaj�ajo izpolnjevanje njenih nalog, dejansko ugotovilo, da naj bi navedeni člen, v povezavi s Kadrovskimi predpisi, nasprotoval tak�ni nacionalni ureditvi 31.
It is therefore only in the alternative and in cursory terms that I shall now proceed to examine the substance of the question whether Article 10 EC precludes national legislation under which, in the context of the payment by the competent national body of family allowances for the dependent children of a selfemployed worker, the child of that worker who receives family allowances paid under the Staff Regulations or the CEOS is not taken into account for the purposes of determining the ranking of that worker’s other children, which under that legislation influences the amount of the family allowances payable for those children.
V nadaljevanju bom le podredno in v glavnih obrisih vsebinsko preučil vpra�anje, ali člen 10 ES nasprotuje ali ne nacionalni zakonodaji, na podlagi katere se v okviru izplačila otro�kih dodatkov za vzdrževane otroke za samozaposlene s strani pristojnega nacionalnega organa otrok tistega delavca, ki je upravičen do otro�kih dodatkov, izplačanih na podlagi Kadrovskih predpisov ali PZDU, ne upo�teva za določitev reda otrok tega delavca, reda, ki v skladu s to ureditvijo vpliva na znesek otro�kega dodatka, ki ga je treba izplačati za te otroke.
However, I am bound to note that the Court reached that conclusion after finding that such national legislation ‘is likely to impede and therefore to discourage employment within an institution of the European Union, inasmuch as, by accepting employment with such an institution, a worker who was formerly a member of a national pension scheme risks losing the right to benefit under that scheme from an old-age pension to which he would have been entitled had he not accepted that employment’. 32
Vendar pa ni možno ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če pri�lo do tega sklepa, potem ko je ugotovilo, da taka nacionalna ureditev „lahko ovira in tako odvrača od izvr�evanja poklicne dejavnosti pri instituciji Evropske unije, kolikor [delavec], ki sprejme zaposlitev v tak�ni instituciji in je pred tem zanj veljal nacionalni pokojninski sistem, tvega izgubo možnosti, da bi na podlagi tega sistema koristil dajatve za starost, do katerih bi bil upravičen, če ne bi sprejel te zaposlitve“ 32.
31 — Ibid., paragraphs 48 and 49.32 — Ibid., paragraph 47.
31 – Prav tam, točki 48 in 49.32 – Prav tam, točka 47.
30 — Cited above.
30 – Navedena zgoraj.
Community to recruit national employees with a certain length of service, thereby impeding the functioning of the Community institutions.
GYSEN bencev, ki imajo že veliko let delovne dobe, in na ta način ovirala delovanje institucij Skupnosti.