natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3. (a) Does the concept of “illegal residence” used in the national provisions of [Romanian] Government Decree 825/1995 approving the [Readmission Agreement] (the provision on the basis of which the readmission of the defendant [to Romania] was ordered, his situation being that of ‘illegal residence’), fall within the grounds of “public policy” or “public security” provided for in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38, so that a restriction on the freedom of movement of such a person may be imposed?
3. a) Ali ‚nezakonit položaj‘ v smislu uredbe [romunske] vlade �t. 825/1995 o ratifikaciji sporazuma [o ponovnem sprejemu] (na podlagi katerega je bila v Romunijo vrnjena tožena stranka, ki je bila v ‚nezakonitem položaju‘), spada med razloge ‚javnega reda‘ ali ‚javne varnosti‘ iz člena 27 Direktive 2004/38, tako da lahko država članica sprejme določbe, s katerimi omeji prosto gibanje teh oseb?
(b) If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive [2004/38] be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may impose restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on grounds of “public policy” and “public security” automatically, without that person’s “personal conduct” being examined?’
b) Ali je – če je odgovor na prej�nje vpra�anje pritrdilen – treba člen 27 Direktive [2004/38] razlagati tako, da smejo države članice samodejno in brez presoje ‚osebnega obna�anja‘ določiti omejitve za prosto gibanje ali prebivanje državljana Evropske unije iz razlogov ‚javnega reda‘ ali ‚javne varnosti‘?“
The referring court considered that the above questions called for an urgent answer from the Court in view of the need for Mr Jipa to be able to exercise his right of free movement or to ascertain as quickly as possible whether his exercise of that right is restricted.
Ker je predložitveno sodi�če menilo, da ta vpra�anja zahtevajo nujen odgovor Sodi�ča, glede na to, da mora biti G. Jipu omogočeno, da izvr�uje svojo pravico do prostega gibanja ali da se čimprej ugotovi, ali je G.
It therefore asked the Court to apply the accelerated procedure to the reference for a preliminary ruling in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure.
Jipu izvr�evanje te pravice omejeno, je Sodi�ču predlagalo, naj to vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje preuči po hitrem postopku v skladu s členom 104a, prvi odstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča.
The President of the Court rejected that request by Order of 3 April 2007 on the ground that the conditions laid down in the first paragraph of Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure had not been met.
S sklepom z dne 3. aprila 2007 je predsednik Sodi�ča ta predlog zavrnil, saj je menil, da pogoji iz člena 104a, prvi odstavek, niso bili izpolnjeni.
By its questions, which it is appropriate to deal with together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 preclude national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member State on account of his ‘illegal residence’ there.
Predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anji, ki jih je treba preučiti skupaj, v bistvu spra�uje, ali člen 18 ES in člen 27 Direktive 2004/38 nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, ki dopu�ča omejitev pravice državljana države članice, da potuje na ozemlje druge države članice, predvsem iz razloga, ker je bil predhodno vrnjen iz slednje države članice, ker je v njej bil v „nezakonitem položaju“.
In their written observations before the Court, the Romanian and Greek Governments and the Commission of the European Communities are in agreement that the questions should be answered in the affirmative.
Romunska in gr�ka vlada ter Komisija Evropskih skupnosti v pisnih stali�čih pred Sodi�čem sogla�ajo, da je treba na ta vpra�anja odgovoriti pritrdilno.
Next, it should be made clear that, as the Advocate General has pointed out in point 35 of his Opinion, the right of freedom of movement includes both the right for citizens of the European Union to enter a Member State other than the one of
Dalje je treba opredeliti, kot je to navedel generalni pravobranilec v točki 35 sklepnih predlogov, da pravica do prostega gibanja vključuje tako pravico, da državljani Evropske unije vstopajo v drugo državo članico, kot je njihova država članica izvora,
2008 — CASE C-33/07 origin and the right to leave the State of origin.
2008 – ZADEVA C-33/07 kot tudi pravico slednjo zapustiti.
Moreover, Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38 expressly provides that all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State.
Poleg tega člen 4(1) Direktive 2004/38 izrecno določa, da imajo vsi državljani Unije z veljavno osebno izkaznico ali potnim listom pravico, da zapustijo ozemlje države članice zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico.
It follows that a situation such as that of the defendant in the main proceedings, as described in paragraphs 9 and 10 of this judgment, is covered by the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely in the Member States.
Položaj, kakr�en je položaj tožene stranke v glavni stvari in je opisan v točkah 9 in 10 te sodbe, se torej navezuje na pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja državljanov Unije v državah članicah.
As far as the main proceedings are concerned, those limitations and conditions derive in particular from Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38, which provides that Member States may restrict the freedom of movement of Union citizens and their family members on grounds inter alia of public policy or public security.
V zadevi v glavni stvari navedene omejitve in pogoji izhajajo predvsem iz člena 27(1) Direktive 2004/38, ki državam članicam omogoča, da omejijo prosto gibanje državljanov Unije ali njihovih družinskih članov zlasti zaradi javnega reda ali javne varnosti.
Such restrictions on the derogations from the abovementioned fundamental principle that are capable of being invoked by a Member State imply in particular, as is apparent from Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38, that, in order to be justified, measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned, and justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case in question or that rely on considerations of general prevention cannot be accepted.
Tako uokvirjenje odstopanj od navedenega temeljnega načela, ki jih lahko uveljavlja država članica, vključuje, kot izhaja iz člena 27(2) Direktive 2004/38, predvsem to, da se morajo za namen svoje utemeljitve ukrepi, sprejeti zaradi javnega reda ali javne varnosti, opirati izključno na osebno obna�anje zadevnega posameznika, pri čemer utemeljitve, ki niso neposredno povezane s podrobnostmi posameznega primera ali ki se nana�ajo na splo�no preventivo, niso dovoljene.
It should be added that a measure limiting the exercise of the right of free movement must, as has been rightly pointed out by the Romanian Government and the Commission as well as by the Advocate General in point 43 of his Opinion, be adopted in the light of considerations pertaining to the protection of public policy or public security in the Member State imposing the measure.
Treba je dodati, kot so pravilno navedli romunska vlada, Komisija in generalni pravobranilec v točki 43 sklepnih predlogov, da je treba ukrep, s katerim se omejuje izvr�evanje pravice do prostega gibanja, obravnavati glede na ugotovitve o varstvu javnega reda in javne varnosti države članice, ki sprejme ta ukrep.
Thus it cannot be based exclusively on reasons advanced by another Member State to justify a decision to remove a Community national from the territory of the latter State, as in the main proceedings. That does not however rule out the possibility of such reasons being taken into account in the context of the assessment which the competent national authorities undertake for the purpose of adopting the measure restricting freedom of movement (see, by analogy, Case C-503/03 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-1097, paragraph 53).
Ta ukrep torej ne more temeljiti izključno na razlogih, ki jih navede druga država članica, kot v zadevi v glavni stvari, za utemeljitev odločitve o odstranitvi državljana Skupnosti z ozemlja te države, vendar pa to ne izključuje, da lahko pristojni nacionalni organi take razloge upo�tevajo pri presoji glede sprejetja ukrepa, ki omejuje prosto gibanje (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 31. januarja 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-503/03, ZOdl., str. I-1097, točka 53).
In other words, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the fact that a citizen of the Union has been subject to a measure repatriating him from the territory of another Member State, where he was residing illegally, may be taken into account by his Member State of origin for the purpose of restricting that citizen’s right of free movement only to the extent that his personal conduct constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.
Z drugimi besedami, v položaju, kot je ta v glavni stvari, lahko država članica izvora za namen omejitve pravice do prostega gibanja državljana upo�teva okoli�čino, da za državljana Unije velja ukrep vrnitve z ozemlja druge države članice, kjer je nezakonito prebival, le, če njegovo osebno obna�anje predstavlja resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno nevarnost, ki ogroža temeljne družbene interese.
The situation that has given rise to the main proceedings does not however seem to meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 22 to 26 of the present judgment.
Položaj, zaradi katerega je bil sprožen spor o glavni stvari, pa ne izpolnjuje zahtev, navedenih v točkah od 22 do 26 te sodbe.
In particular, it appears from the file sent to the Court by the referring court and from the written observations of the Romanian Government that the request of the Minister to restrict Mr Jipa’s right of free movement is based solely on the measure repatriating him from the territory of the Kingdom of Belgium to which he was subject on account of his ‘illegal residence’ in that Member State; there was no specific assessment of his personal conduct and no reference to any threat that he might constitute to public policy or public security.
Predvsem je iz dokumentacije, ki jo je predložitveno sodi�če poslalo Sodi�ču, in iz pisnih stali�č romunske vlade razvidno, da zahteva ministrstva za omejitev pravice do prostega gibanja G. Jipa temelji le na ukrepu vrnitve z ozemlja Kraljevine Belgije, ki je bil sprejet zoper njega, ker je bil v „nezakonitem položaju“ v tej državi članici, in ne vsebuje nobene posebne presoje njegovega osebnega obna�anja niti ni v zahtevi omenjeno, da bi kakorkoli predstavljal grožnjo za javni red in javno varnost.
Furthermore, the Romanian Government states in its written observations that the decision of the Belgian authorities ordering the repatriation of Mr Jipa was also not founded on reasons of public policy or public security.
Romunska vlada dalje v pisnih stali�čih navaja, da se tudi odredba belgijskih organov o vrnitvi G. Jipa ne opira na razloge javnega reda ali javne varnosti.
It is nevertheless for the national court to make the necessary findings in this respect, on the basis of the matters of fact and of law justifying, in the main proceedings, the request of the Minister for a restriction on Mr Jipa’s right to leave Romania.
V vsakem primeru je predložitveno sodi�če pristojno, da pride v zvezi s tem do potrebnih ugotovitev na podlagi dejanskih in pravnih okoli�čin, ki so bile v zadevi v glavni stvari podlaga za zahtevo ministrstva za omejitev pravice do izstopa G. Jipa.
When making such an assessment, the national court will have also to determine whether that restriction on the right to leave is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.
Predložitveno sodi�če bo moralo v okviru take presoje prav tako ugotoviti, ali je navedena omejitev pravice do izstopa primerna za zagotovitev uresničevanja zastavljenega cilja in ne gre preko tega, kar je potrebno za doseganje le-tega.
The answer to the questions referred must therefore be that Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38 do not preclude national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member State on account of his ‘illegal residence’ there, provided that the personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and that the restrict- ive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.
Na zastavljena vpra�anja je treba torej odgovoriti, da člen 18 ES in člen 27 Direktive 2004/38 ne nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, ki dopu�ča omejitev pravice državljana države članice, da potuje na ozemlje druge države članice, predvsem iz razloga, ker je bil predhodno vrnjen iz slednje države članice, ker je v njej bil v „nezakonitem položaju“, pod pogojem, da osebno obna�anje tega državljana predstavlja resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno nevarnost, ki ogroža temeljne družbene interese, in da je predviden omejitveni ukrep primeren za zagotovitev uresničevanja zastavljenega cilja in ne gre preko tega, kar je potrebno za doseganje le-tega.
It is for the national court to establish whether that is so in the case before it.
Predložitveno sodi�če je pristojno, da ugotovi, ali je to tako v zadevi, o kateri odloča.
Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC do not preclude national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member State on account of his ‘illegal residence’ there, provided that the personal conduct of that national
Člen 18 ES in člen 27 Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki spreminja Uredbo (EGS) št. 1612/68 in razveljavlja [d]irektive 64/221/EGS, 68/360/EGS, 72/194/EGS, 73/148/EGS, 75/34/EGS, 75/35/EGS, 90/364/EGS, 90/365/EGS in 93/96/EGS, ne nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, ki dopušča omejitev pravice državljana države članice, da potuje na ozemlje druge države članice, predvsem iz razloga, ker je bil predhodno vrnjen iz slednje države članice, ker je v njej bil v „nezakonitem položaju“, pod pogojem, da osebno obnašanje tega
2008 — CASE C-33/07 constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and that the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.
2008 – ZADEVA C-33/07 državljana predstavlja resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno nevarnost, ki ogroža temeljne družbene interese, in da je predviden omejitveni ukrep primeren za zagotovitev uresničevanja zastavljenega cilja in ne gre preko tega, kar je potrebno za doseganje le-tega.
It is for the national court to establish whether that is so in the case before it.
Predložitveno sodišče je pristojno, da ugotovi, ali je to tako v zadevi, o kateri odloča.
Case C-54/07
Zadeva C-54/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo arbeidshof te Brussel)
(Directive 2000/43/EC — Discriminatory criteria for selecting staff — Burden of proof — Penalties)
„Direktiva 2000/43/ES – Diskriminatorna merila za izbiro osebja – Dokazno breme – Sankcije“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 10 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 12. marca 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community law — Principles — Equal treatment — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43
Pravo Skupnosti – Načela – Enako obravnavanje – Enako obravnavanje oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost – Direktiva 2000/43
SUMMARY — CASE C-54/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-54/07
there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment. It can do so by showing that the undertaking’s actual recruitment practice does not correspond to those statements.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora preveriti, ali so očitana dejstva dokazana, in presoditi, ali so dejstva, navedena v utemeljitev trditev tega delodajalca – da ni kr�il načela enakega obravnavanja –, zadostna.
The fact that an employer declares publicly that it will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin, something which is clearly likely to strongly dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market, constitutes direct discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Dir ective 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
To, da je delodajalec javno izjavil, da ne bo zaposlil delavcev določene narodnosti oziroma rase, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo pri zaposlovanju, v smislu člena 2(2)(a) Direktive 2000/43 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost, ker so take izjave tak�ne, da resno odvračajo nekatere kandidate, da bi predložili svoje kandidature, in s tem ustvarjajo oviro za njihov dostop do trga dela.
The existence of such direct discrimination is not dependent on the identification of a complainant who claims to have been the victim of that discrimination.
Obstoj take neposredne diskriminacije ne predpostavlja, da je mogoče določiti tožnika, ki bi zatrjeval, da naj bi bil žrtev take diskriminacije.
(see paras 25, 28, operative part 1)
(Glej točki 25 in 28 ter točko 1 izreka.)
Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin requires that rules on sanctions applicable to breaches of national provisions adopted in order to transpose that directive must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, even where there is no identifiable victim.
Člen 15 Direktive 2000/43 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost zahteva, tudi če ni določljive žrtve, da so pravila o sankcijah, ki se uporabljajo pri kr�itvah nacionalnih določb, sprejetih za prenos te direktive, učinkovita, sorazmerna in odvračilna.
Public statements by which an employer lets it be known that, under its recruitment policy, it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin are sufficient for a presumption of the existence of a recruitment policy which is directly discriminatory within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Direct- ive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
Javne izjave, s katerimi delodajalec naznani, da v okviru svoje zaposlovalne politike ne bo zaposloval delavcev določene narodnosti oziroma rase, zado�čajo za domnevo, v smislu člena 8(1) Direktive 2000/43 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost, o obstoju neposredno diskriminatorne zaposlovalne politike.
It is then for that employer to prove that
Zato mora ta delodajalec dokazati, da ni bilo kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja.
To this end, Feryn placed a large ‘vacancies’ sign on its premises alongside the main road between Brussels and Antwerp.
POIARESA MADURA, predstavljeni 12. marca 2008 1 zemlji�ču ob glavni cesti med Brusljem in Antwerpnom namestila velik oglasni pano o prostih delovnih mestih.
On 28 April 2005, the newspaper De Standaard published an interview with Mr Pascal Feryn, one of the firm’s directors, under the heading ‘Customers do not want Moroccans’.
Časopis De Standaard je 28. aprila 2005 objavil intervju s Pascalom Ferynom, enim od direktorjev družbe, pod naslovom „Stranke nočejo Maročanov“. P.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, words can hurt.
V nasprotju s tem, kar pravi znana modrost, besede lahko prizadanejo.
But can they amount to discrimin -ation?
Vendar, ali so lahko besede tudi diskriminatorne? To je v bistvu glavno vpra�anje v tej zadevi.
The Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium) has asked the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
Arbeidshof te Brussel (delovno sodi�če v Bruslju, Belgija) s svojim predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe spra�uje Sodi�če glede razlage Direktive Sveta 2000/43/ES z dne 29. junija 2000 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost.
2 It seeks guidance on a number of issues that have arisen in the context of proceedings between a body for the promotion of equal treatment and an employer who reportedly stated that he would not recruit persons of Moroccan origin.
2Želi pojasnila glede nekaterih vpra�anj, ki so se pojavila v okviru spora med organom za spodbujanje enakega obravnavanja in delodajalcem, ki naj bi izjavil, da ne zaposluje oseb maro�ke narodnosti.
I — Facts and reference for a preliminary ruling
I – Dejansko stanje in predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
‘Apart from these Moroccans, no one else has responded to our notice in two weeks … but we aren’t looking for Moroccans.
„Razen teh Maročanov se v dveh tednih ni nihče drug odzval na na� oglas […], ampak mi ne i�čemo Maročanov.
Our customers don’t want them.
Na�e stranke jih nočejo.
They have to install up-and-over doors in private homes, often villas, and those customers don’t want them coming into their homes.’
Vgrajevati morajo dvižna vrata v zasebnih domovih, pogosto v vilah, in stranke nočejo, da vstopijo v njihove domove.“
NV Firma Feryn (‘Feryn’) is a firm specialised in the sale and installation of up-and-over and sectional doors.
NV Firma Feryn (v nadaljevanju: Feryn) je družba, specializirana za prodajo in vgradnjo dvižnih ter predelnih vrat.
In early 2005, Feryn was seeking to recruit fitters to install
V začetku leta 2005 je družba Feryn želela zaposliti montažerje za vgradnjo dvižnih vrat v hi�ah svojih strank.
On the evening of 28 April 2005, Mr Feryn participated in an interview on Belgian national television, in which he stated:
Feryn je 28. aprila 2005 zvečer sodeloval v intervjuju na belgijski nacionalni televiziji, v katerem je izjavil:
On 31 March 2006, after a series of exchanges with Feryn, the CGKR brought proceedings against Feryn before the President of the Arbeidsrechtbank Brussels, claiming, inter alia, that the court should declare that Feryn had infringed the Law Against Discrimination and should order Feryn to end its discriminatory recruitment policy.
CGKR je 31. marca 2006, po več izmenjavah mnenj z družbo Feryn, vložil tožbo proti družbi Feryn pri predsedniku Arbeidsrechtbank Brussels, v kateri med drugim navaja, da bi sodi�če moralo ugotoviti, da je družba Feryn kr�ila zakon proti diskriminaciji in da bi moralo družbi Feryn odrediti, naj preneha s svojo diskriminatorno zaposlovalno politiko.