natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of
Brez poseganja v druge določbe te pogodbe in v mejah pristojnosti Skupnosti po
7 the powers conferred by it on the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
ter da je v smernicah o zaposlovanju za leto 2000, o katerih se je dogovoril Evropski svet v Helsinkih 10. in 11. decembra 1999, poudarjena potreba, da se nameni posebna pozornost pomoči za starej�e delavce. 7
Recital 25 deals specifically with the possibility of justifying differences of treatment in connection with age.
Uvodna izjava 25 posebej obravnava možnost utemeljitve različnega obravnavanja v zvezi s starostjo.
It reads:
V njej je navedeno:
The preamble to Directive 2000/78 cites Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union 4and lists a number of international instruments recognising the universal right of all persons to equality before the law and protection against discrimination.
Preambula Direktive 2000/78 navaja člen 6(1) in (2) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji 4in na�teva več mednarodnih dokumentov, ki priznavajo univerzalno pravico vseh oseb do enakosti pred zakonom in do za�čite pred diskriminacijo.
5In respect of age discrimination, it notes that
5Glede starostne diskriminacije ugotavlja, da je cilj Listine Skupnosti
‘The prohibition of age discrimination is an essential part of meeting the aims set out in the Employment Guidelines and encouraging diversity in the workforce.
„Prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti je bistven del izpolnjevanja ciljev, opredeljenih v smernicah o zaposlovanju, in spodbujanja raznovrstnosti delovne sile.
However, differences in treatment in connection with age may be justified under certain circumstances and therefore require specific provisions which may vary in accordance with the situation in Member States.
Vendar je v dolo -čenih okoli�činah različno obravnavanje v zvezi s starostjo lahko upravičeno in so v zvezi s tem potrebni posebni predpisi, ki so glede na položaj v državah članicah lahko med seboj različni.
It is therefore essential to distinguish between differences in treatment which are justified, in particular by legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and discrimination which must be prohibited.’
Bistveno je torej razlikovanje med upravičeno različnim obravnavanjem, zlasti tistim na podlagi legitimnih ciljev zaposlovalne politike, trga delovne sile in poklicnega usposabljanja, in diskriminacijo, ki mora biti prepovedana.“
3 — Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
3 – Direktiva Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splo�nih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu (UL L 303, str. 16).
Direct- ive 2000/78 is one of a pair of implementing directives adopted under Article 13 EC, the other being Council Dir -ective 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p.
Direktiva 2000/78 je ena od izvedbenih direktiv, ki sta bili sprejeti na podlagi člena 13 ES; druga pa je Direktiva Sveta 2000/43/ES z dne 29. junija 2000 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost(UL L 180, str. 22) (v nadaljevanju: Direktiva o rasni diskriminaciji).
Article 1 states that the purpose of the directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds covered as regards employment and
V členu 1 je določeno, da je namen Direktive opredeliti splo�ni okvir boja proti diskriminaciji zaradi v njej določenih razlogov pri
6 — Adopted at the Strasbourg European Council on 9 December 1989.
5 – Uvodna izjava 4, ki navaja Splo�no deklaracijo človekovih pravic, ki jo je sprejela in razglasila Generalna skup�čina Združenih narodov 10. decembra 1948 z resolucijo �t.
5 — Recital 4, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the European Convention on Human Rights’) and Convention No 111 of the International Labour Organisation on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), adopted on 25 June 1958.
217 A (III);Evropsko konvencijo o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin (v nadaljevanju: Evropska konvencija o človekovih pravicah) in Konvencijo �t. 111 Mednarodne organizacije dela o diskriminaciji (zaposlovanje in delo), sprejeto 25. junija 1958.
BARTSCH occupation, with a view to putting into effect the principle of equal treatment.
BARTSCH kar zadeva […] (c) zaposlitev in delovne pogoje, vključno s […] plačilom“.
relation to … (c) employment and working conditions, including … pay’.
zaposlovanju in delu, zato da bi uresničevali načelo enakega obravnavanja.
Article 6(1) addresses justifications for differences of treatment on grounds of age:
Člen 6(1) ureja upravičenost različnega obravnavanja zaradi starosti:
Article 2(1) provides: ‘For the purposes of this Directive, the “principle of equal treatment” shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1.’
V členu 2(1) je določeno: „V tej direktivi ‚načelo enakega obravnavanja‘ pomeni, da ne obstaja nikakr�na neposredna ali posredna diskriminacija zaradi katerega od razlogov iz člena 1.“
‘Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.’
„Ne glede na člen 2(2) lahko države članice predvidijo, da različno obravnavanje zaradi starosti ne predstavlja diskriminacije, če ga v kontekstu nacionalnega prava objektivno in razumno utemeljujejo z legitimnim ciljem, vključno z legitimnimi cilji zaposlovalne politike, delovnega trga in poklicnega usposabljanja, in če so načini uresničevanja tega cilja primerni in nujni.“
According to Article 2(2)(a), ‘direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation …’.
V skladu s členom 2(2)(a) „se �teje, da gre za neposredno diskriminacijo, kadar je, je bila ali bi bila oseba obravnavana manj ugodno kakor neka druga v primerljivi situaciji […]“.
Under Article 2(2)(b), ‘indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having … [inter alia] a particular age … at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless: (i) that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary …’.
Na podlagi člena 2(2)(b) „se �teje, da gre za posredno diskriminacijo, kadar je zaradi kak�ne navidez nevtralne določbe, merila ali prakse neka oseba […] [med drugim] določene starosti […] v primerjavi z drugimi v slab�em položaju, razen če: (i) tako določbo, merilo ali prakso objektivno upravičuje legitimni cilj in je način uresničevanja tega cilja primeren in nujen […]“.
Article 3(1) applies the directive to ‘all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in
Na podlagi člena 3(1) se Direktiva „uporablja za vse osebe, bodisi v javnem bodisi v zasebnem sektorju, vključno z javnimi telesi,
Subparagraphs (a) to (c) give examples of such differences in treatment.
V pododstavkih od (a) do (c) so navedeni primeri takega različnega obravnavanja.
They include, in specified circumstances, the setting of special conditions for young people and older workers, the fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority, and the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment.
V posebnih okoli�činah vključujejo določitev posebnih pogojev za mlade osebe in starej�e delavce, določitev minimalnih pogojev glede starosti, delovnih izku�enj ali delovne dobe in določitev najvi�je starosti za zaposlitev.
Article 6(2) permits Member States, notwithstanding Article 2(2), to provide that the fixing of certain age-related conditions for occupational social security schemes and the use, in the context of such schemes, of age criteria in actuarial calculations does not constitute age discrimination, provided it does not result in sex discrimination.
Člen 6(2) državam članicam omogoča, da ne glede na člen 2(2) predvidijo, da določitev nekaterih s starostjo povezanih pogojev za sisteme poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja in uporaba merila starosti pri izračunu tveganja v okviru teh sistemov ne pomeni starostne diskriminacije, pod pogojem, da nima za posledico spolne diskriminacije.
Guidelines’) sets out the conditions governing retirement pensions.
9V točki 6 smernic sistema (v nadaljevanju: Smernice) so določeni pogoji za starostno pokojnino.
Paragraph 6(4) provides for a pension to be paid to the widow(er) of an employee who has died during his or her employment relationship, if certain conditions have been met.
V točki 6(4) je določeno izplačilo pokojnine vdovi (vdovcu) zaposlenega, ki je umrl med trajanjem delovnega razmerja, če so izpolnjeni določeni pogoji.
However, payments will not be made if ‘the widow/widower is more than 15 years younger than the former employee …’ (‘the age-gap clause’).
Izplačilo dajatev pa se ne opravi, če je „vdova (vdovec) več kot 15 let mlaj�a od nekdanjega zaposlenega […]“ (v nadaljevanju: klavzula o starostni razliki).
Article 18 stipulates that Member States should transpose Directive 2000/78 by 2 December 2003.
V členu 18 je določeno, da morajo države članice prenesti Direktivo 2000/78 do 2. decembra 2003.
However, Member States were permitted to extend that period by three years in respect of the provisions in the directive covering age and disability discrimination.
Dovoljeno pa jim je bilo, da podalj�ajo ta rok za tri leta glede določb Direktive, ki urejajo diskriminacijo zaradi starosti in invalidnosti.
Germany exercised that option and therefore had until 2 December 2006 to transpose those provisions into national law.
Nemčija je izkoristila to možnost in je morala te določbe zato prenesti v nacionalno pravo do 2. decem- bra 2006.
She is the widow of Mr Bartsch, who was born in 1944 and who died in 2004 whilst employed by BSH.
Bartscha, ki je bil rojen leta 1944 in umrl leta 2004, medtem ko je bil zaposlen v družbi BSH.
Apart from the age-gap clause, the conditions in Paragraph 6(4) of the Guidelines for her to receive a widow’s pension were met.
Izpolnjevala je vse pogoje iz točke 6(4) Smernic za pridobitev vdovske pokojnine, razen klavzule o starostni razliki.
The contested guidelines
Izpodbijane smernice 8
The defendant in the main proceedings runs the occupational pension scheme of
Tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari izvaja sistem poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja družbe Bosch-Siemens Hausgeräte
8 — Guidelines of Bosch-Siemens Hausgeräte Altersfürsorge GmbH dated 1 January 1984 in the version of 1 April 1992.
9 – V teh sklepnih predlogih bom uporabljala okraj�avo BSH za toženo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari (Bosch-Siemens Hausgeräte Altersfürsorge GmbH) in družbo Bosch-Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH .
BARTSCH discrimination on grounds of age identified by the Court in Mangold.
BARTSCH diskriminacije zaradi starosti, ki ga je določilo Sodi�če v sodbi Mangold.
gericht (Labour Court) was rejected, and the Landesarbeitsgericht (Regional Labour Court) dismissed her appeal.
(delovno sodi�če) je zavrnilo njeno zahtevo, Landesarbeitsgericht (regionalno delovno sodi�če) pa njeno pritožbo.
The referring court is unclear, on the basis of Mangold, whether the general principle prohibiting age discrimination is applicable to situations regardless of whether they have a connection to Community law.
Predložitvenemu sodi�ču ni jasno, ali se splo�no načelo prepovedi starostne diskriminacije na podlagi sodbe Mangold uporablja ne glede na to, ali so položaji povezani s pravom Skupnosti.
If not, the court seeks clarification as to whether such a connection arises either from Article 13 EC or from Directive 2000/78, albeit that the events leading to the reference occurred before the deadline for transposing that directive. 11
Če je odgovor nikalen, želi pojasnilo, ali taka povezava izhaja iz člena 13 ES ali Direktive 2000/78, čeprav so dogodki, ki so pripeljali do vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje, nastali pred iztekom roka za prenos te direktive. 11
The referring court considers that Mrs Bartsch cannot succeed under domestic law.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da B. Bartsch ne more uspeti na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje.
In particular, although German employment law incorporates the general principle of equal treatment, the age-gap clause is based on a fair reason, namely the limitation of risks assumed by voluntary pension schemes and the aim to make those risks more quantifiable.
Čeprav nem�ka delovna zakonodaja vsebuje splo�no načelo enakega obravnavanja, klavzula o starostni razliki zlasti temelji na utemeljenem razlogu, namreč omejitvi tveganj, ki se prevzamejo s prostovoljnim sistemom pokojninskega zavarovanja, in cilju količinsko bolj opredeliti ta tveganja.
10Those considerations are closely connected to the age-gap clause.
10 Ti preudarki so tesno povezani s klavzulo o starostni razliki.
However, the referring court wonders whether the qualifications to the general principle of equal treatment that are enshrined in German employment law can survive in the light of the principle of non-
Predložitveno sodi�če pa spra�uje, ali omejitve splo�nega načela enakega obravnavanja v nem�ki delovni zakonodaji lahko vzdržijo ob upo�tevanju načela prepovedi
The referring court notes that, since Mangold arose out of proceedings between private individuals, it would appear that the principle is applicable ‘horizontally’ to such disputes.
Predložitveno sodi�če ugotavlja, da ker je bila sodba Mangold posledica spora med osebami zasebnega prava, se zdi, da se načelo uporablja „horizontalno“ za take spore.
Mangold, however, involved national legislation which provided for an exception to the prohibition on age discrimination.
Vendar se je sodba Mangold nana�ala na nacionalno zakonodajo, ki je zagotavljala izjemo od prepovedi starostne diskriminacije.
The referring court asks whether the principle applies horizontally only in respect of such derogating provisions.
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali se načelo uporablja horizontalno samo glede takih določb o odstopanju.
10 — At point 107 of this Opinion, I offer a slight reinterpretation of the justification suggested by the referring court.
10 – V točki 107 teh sklepnih predlogov bom predlagala nekoliko drugačno razlago utemeljitve, ki jo je predlagalo predložit -veno sodi�če.
11 — I reformulate that question at point 27 below.
11 – To vpra�anje bom preoblikovala v točki 27 spodaj.
If the principle is applicable, the referring court considers that it applies to the deceased employee, not the survivor.
Po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča, če se načelo uporablja, velja za umrlega zaposlenega, ne za preživelega družinskega člana.
It believes that the age-gap clause could give rise to indirect age discrimination, on the basis that the probability of an employee being affected increases with his or her age.
Meni, da lahko klavzula o starostni razliki povzroči posredno starostno diskriminacijo, ker verjetnost, da lahko �koduje zaposlenemu, nara�ča z njegovo starostjo.
If that is the case, then the referring court considers that the justifications for such a clause available under German law are also appropriate under Community law.
Če gre za tak primer, potem predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je utemeljitev take klavzule, ki velja na podlagi nem�ke zakonodaje, tudi ustrezna na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
(b) If question (a) is answered in the negative, does such a connection to Community law arise from Article 13 EC or — even before the timelimit for transposition has expired — from [Directive 2000/78]?
Če bo odgovor na vpra�anje (a) nikalen, ali taka zveza s pravom Skupnosti izhaja iz člena 13 ES ali – tudi pred iztekom roka za prenos – iz [Direktive 2000/78/ES]?
Finally, in view of the nature of occupational pension schemes and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the referring court questions the extent to which the general principle prohibiting age discrimination should have retroactive effect.
Nazadnje glede na naravo sistemov poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja in načela varstva pravno upravičenih pričakovanj predložitveno sodi�če dvomi o obsegu retroaktivne veljavnosti splo�nega načela prepovedi starostne diskriminacije.
(2) Is any prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age arising from the answer to question 1 also applicable between private employers on the one hand and their employees or pensioners and their survivors on the other hand?
Ali se prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti, ki izhaja iz odgovora na vpra�anje 1, uporablja tudi med zasebnimi delodajalci na eni strani in njihovimi zaposlenimi ali upokojenci ter njihovimi preživelimi družinskimi člani na drugi strani?
(a) Does the primary law of the European Communities contain a prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age, protection under which must be guaranteed by the
Ali primarno pravo Evropskih skupnosti vsebuje prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti, katere varstvo morajo države članice
(3) If question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
Če bo odgovor na vpra�anje 2 pritrdilen:
At the United Kingdom’s request, the case was assigned to the Grand Chamber.
Na zahtevo Združenega kraljestva je bila zadeva dodeljena velikemu senatu.
(a) Does a provision of an occupational pension scheme, which provides that a survivor’s pension will not be granted to a surviving spouse in the event that the survivor is more than 15 years younger than the deceased former employee, fall within the scope of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age?
ali določba sistema poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja, v skladu s katero se vdovska pokojnina ne prizna preživelemu zakoncu, če je več kot 15 let mlaj�i od umrlega nekdanjega zaposlenega, spada na področje uporabe prepovedi diskriminacije zaradi starosti?
(b) If question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative, can such a provision be justified by the fact that the employer has an interest in limiting the risks arising from the occupational pension scheme?
Če bo odgovor na vpra�anje 3(a) pritrdilen, ali je tako določbo mogoče upravičiti z dejstvom, da ima delodajalec interes omejiti tveganja, ki izhajajo iz sistema poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja?
Question 1(a) asks essentially whether Community law contains a prohibition on age discrimination which applies even if the allegedly discriminatory treatment is not connected to Community law.
Predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anjem 1(a) v bistvu spra�uje, ali pravo Skupnosti vsebuje prepoved starostne diskriminacije, ki velja tudi, kadar domnevno diskriminatorno obravnavanje ni povezano s pravom Skupnosti.
(c) If question 3(b) is answered in the negative, does the possible prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age have unlimited retroactive effect as regards the law relating to occupational pension schemes or is it limited as regards the past, and if so in what way?’
Če bo odgovor na vpra�anje 3(b) nikalen, ali ima morebitna prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti neomejen retroaktivni učinek glede zakonodaje v zvezi s sistemi poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja ali je omejena za nazaj, in če je tako, na kak�en način?“
First, is there a general principle of Community law specifically prohibiting age discrimination?
Prvič, ali obstaja splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti, ki posebej prepoveduje starostno diskriminacijo?
Second, if there is, can it apply even if the situation giving rise to the reference does not fall within the scope of Community law (question 1(a))?
Drugič, če obstaja, ali se lahko uporablja, tudi kadar položaj, ki je pripeljal do vpra�anj, predloženih v predhodno odločanje, ne spada na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti (vpra�anje 1(a))?
Third, does the situation giving rise to the reference fall within the scope of Community law (question 1(b))?
Tretjič, ali položaj, ki je pripeljal do vpra�anj, predloženih v predhodno odločanje, spada na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti (vpra�anje 1(b))?
Mangold and its progeny the principle of equal treatment in the field of employment and occupation.
Sodba Mangold in njene predhodnice enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu.
Rather, it establishes a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds covered by the directive, ‘the source of the actual principle underlying the prohibition of those forms of discrimination being found, as is clear from the [first] and fourth recitals in the preamble to the directive, in various international instruments and in the constitutional traditions common to the Member States’.
Opredeljuje prej splo�ni okvir boja proti diskriminaciji zaradi katerega od razlogov iz Direktive, „pri čemer splo�na prepoved teh oblik diskriminacije, kot to izhaja iz prve in četrte uvodne izjave direktive, izhaja iz različnih mednarodnih pogodb in ustavnih tradicij, skupnih državam članicam“.
12 The Court continued:
12Sodi�če je nadaljevalo:
The order for reference makes it clear that the referring court’s questions are based on the premiss, derived from the Court’s judgment in Mangold, that there is a general principle in Community law prohibiting age discrimination.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa jasno izhaja, da vpra�anja predložitvenega sodi�ča temeljijo na predpostavki, ki izhaja iz sodbe Sodi�ča v zadevi Mangold, da v pravu Skupnosti obstaja splo�no načelo, ki prepoveduje starostno diskriminacijo.
The United Kingdom challenges that premiss.
Združeno kraljestvo izpodbija to predpostavko.
It argues that neither international instruments nor the constitutional traditions of Member States provide an adequate basis for recognition of such a principle.
Trdi, da niti mednarodni dokumenti niti ustavne tradicije držav članic ne zagotavljajo ustrezne podlage za priznavanje takega načela.
The evident intention of the drafters of Article 13 EC to allow the Community legislator to determine measures to combat, inter alia, age discrimination implies that no such principle exists.
Očitni namen pripravljavcev osnutka člena 13 ES, omogočiti zakonodajalcu Skupnosti, da določi ukrepe za boj proti, med drugim, starostni diskriminaciji, pomeni, da tako načelo ne obstaja.
BSH similarly questions the existence of sufficient sources to found a general principle prohibiting age discrimination.
Družba BSH podobno dvomi o obstoju ustreznih virov za ugotovitev splo�nega načela prepovedi starostne diskriminacije.
Germany submits that such a general principle would render the enactment and implementation of Directive 2000/78 superfluous.
Nemčija trdi, da bi sprejetje in izvajanje Direktive 2000/78 ob obstoju takega splo�nega načela postalo odvečno.
At the hearing, the Netherlands endorsed the written observations of Germany and the United Kingdom.
Nizozemska je na obravnavi zagovarjala pisna stali�ča Nemčije in Združenega kraljestva.
made to the Court for a preliminary ruling, the Court must provide all the criteria of interpretation needed by the national court to determine whether those rules are compatible with such a principle ….
Ko nacionalna ureditev kot ukrep prenosa Direktive 1999/70[ 13] […] preide na področje uporabe tega načela, kar je primer pri [zadevni nacionalni določbi,] mora Sodi�če, če mu je bilo predloženo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, predložitvenemu sodi�ču posredovati vse elemente razlage, ki jih to potrebuje za presojo združljivosti te ureditve s takim načelom […].
12 — Paragraph 74.
12 – Točka 74.