natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Admittedly, that criterion cannot be regarded as exclusive, inasmuch as pensions paid under statutory social security schemes may reflect, wholly or in part, pay in respect
To merilo res ne bi moglo biti izključno, ker se lahko pri pokojninah, ki jih izplačajo zakoniti sistemi socialne varnosti, v celoti ali delno upo�teva plačilo za delo (glej
2008 — CASE C-267/06 of work (Beune, paragraph 44; Evrenopoulos, paragraph 20; Griesmar, paragraph 29; Niemi, paragraph 46; and Schönheit and Becker, paragraph 57).
2008 – ZADEVA C-267/06 zgoraj navedene sodbe Beune, točka 44; Evrenopoulos, točka 20; Griesmar, točka 29; Niemi, točka 46, ter Schönheit in Becker, točka 57).
However, considerations of social policy, of State organisation, of ethics, or even the budgetary concerns which influenced or may have influenced the establishment by the national legislature of a scheme cannot prevail if the pension concerns only a particular category of workers, if it is directly related to the period of service completed and if its amount is calculated by reference to the last salary (Beune, paragraph 45; Evrenopoulos, paragraph 21; Griesmar, paragraph 30; Niemi, paragraph 47; and Schönheit and Becker, paragraph 58).
Vendar preudarki socialne politike, organiziranosti države, etike in celo skrbi, povezane s proračunom, ki so ali so lahko imeli vlogo pri sprejetju sistema s strani nacionalnega zakonodajalca, ne morejo prevladati, če se pokojnina nana�a le na določeno kategorijo delavcev, če je ta pokojnina neposredno odvisna od opravljenega časa zaposlitve in je njen znesek izračunan na podlagi zadnje plače (zgoraj navedene sodbe Beune, točka 45; Evrenopoulos, točka 21; Griesmar, točka 30; Niemi, točka 47, ter Schönheit in Becker, točka 58).
As regards the compulsory occupational pension scheme managed by the VddB, it must be observed, first, that it originates in the Collective Agreement which, according to the information provided by the referring court, was designed to supplement the social security benefits payable under national legislation of general scope.
V zvezi s sistemom obveznega poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja, ki ga upravlja VddB, je treba poudariti, prvič, da je njegova pravna podlaga kolektivna pogodba, katere cilj je glede na podatke, ki jih je predložilo predložitveno sodi�če, oblikovati dodatek k socialnim izplačilom, ki se izplačajo na podlagi splo�ne nacionalne ureditve.
Secondly, it is common ground that that scheme is financed exclusively by the workers and employers of the sector concerned, without any financial involvement by the State.
Drugič, ni sporno, da navedeni sistem financirajo izključno zaposleni in delodajalci zadevnega sektorja, brez vsakr�nega javnega financiranja.
Thirdly, it is clear from the documents submitted to the Court that the scheme is aimed, according to Paragraph 1 of the Collective Agreement, at theatrical professionals employed in theatres operated in Germany.
Tretjič, iz spisa izhaja, da je v skladu s členom 1 kolektivne pogodbe ta sistem namenjen umetni�kemu osebju, zaposlenemu v enem od nem�kih gledali�č.
As the Advocate General has stated in point 70 of his Opinion, recognition of entitlement to the survivor’s benefit requires the spouse of the person who is to receive the pension to have been a member of the VddB before dying.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 70 sklepnih predlogov, se za priznanje pravice zahteva, da je bil partner upravičenca do tega izplačila pred smrtjo zavarovan pri VddB.
That membership is compulsory for theatrical professionals employed by the German theatres.
To zavarovanje je obvezno za umetni�ko osebje, zaposleno v nem�kih gledali�čih.
That membership is also held by a number of persons who decide voluntarily to become members of the VddB, such membership being possible provided that the persons concerned can demonstrate that they were previously employed by a theatre in Germany for a certain number of months.
Nana�a se tudi na osebe, ki se odločijo prostovoljno zavarovati se pri VddB, pri čemer je tako zavarovanje mogoče, če lahko zadevne osebe upravičijo, da so bile prej določeno �tevilo mesecev zaposlene pri nem�kem gledali�ču.
Those compulsory and voluntary members therefore form a particular category of workers.
Navedeni obvezni in prostovoljni zavarovanci torej sestavljajo posebno kategorijo delavcev.
Further, as regards the criterion that the pension must be directly related to the period of service completed, it must be observed that, under Paragraph 30(5) of the VddB regulations, the amount of the retirement pension, by reference to which the survivor’s benefits are calculated, is determined by reference to the period of the worker’s membership, that being the logical consequence of the structure of the occupational pension scheme at issue which covers two types of membership, as has been stated in paragraphs 52 and 53 of this judgment.
Poleg tega je treba v zvezi z merilom, v skladu s katerim mora biti pokojnina neposredno odvisna od opravljenega časa zaposlitve, opozoriti, da je v skladu s členom 30(5) statuta VddB znesek starostne pokojnine, na podlagi katerega se izračuna izplačilo za preživelo osebo, določen glede na trajanje zavarovanja delavca in je ta re�itev logična posledica strukture sistema zadevnega poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja, ki zajema dve vrsti zavarovanj, kot je bilo poudarjeno v točkah 52 in 53 te sodbe.
Nor is the amount of that retirement pension fixed by statute; rather, pursuant to Paragraph 30(5) of the VddB Regulations, it is calculated by reference to the total amount of the contributions paid throughout the worker’s membership, to which an indexing factor is applied.
Znesek starostne pokojnine pa ni določen z zakonom, temveč je v skladu s členom 30(5) statuta VddB izračunan na podlagi zneska vseh prispevkov, ki jih je plačal delavec v zavarovalni dobi in za katere se uporabi diskontni količnik.
It follows that, as the Advocate General has pointed out in point 72 of his Opinion, the survivor’s pension in the main proceedings is derived from the employment relationship of Mr Maruko’s life partner and must therefore be classified as ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 141 EC.
Iz tega sledi, kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 72 sklepnih predlogov, da izhaja zadevno izplačilo za preživelo osebo v postopku v glavni stvari iz delovnega razmerja življenjskega partnerja T. Maruka in ga je treba zato opredeliti kot „plačilo“ s smislu člena 141 ES.
That conclusion is not affected by the fact that the VddB is a public body (see, to that effect, Evrenopoulos, paragraphs 16 and 23) or by the fact that membership in the scheme giving entitlement to the survivor’s benefits at issue in the main proceedings is compulsory (see, to that effect, Case C-50/99 Podesta [2000] ECR I-4039, paragraph 32).
Tej ugotovitvi ne nasprotujeta položaj javnega organa, ki ga ima VddB (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Evrenopoulos, točki 16 in 23), in obveznost zavarovanja pri sistemu, iz katere izhaja pravica do zadevnega izplačila za preživele osebe v postopku v glavni stvari (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 25. maja 2000 v zadevi Podesta, C 50/99, Recueil, str. I 4039, točka 32).
As regards the significance of Recital 22 of the preamble to Directive 2000/78, that recital states that the Directive is without prejudice to national laws on marital status and the benefits dependent thereon.
Glede področja uporabe uvodne izjave 22 Direktive 2000/78 ta uvodna izjava določa, da navedena direktiva ne vpliva na nacionalne predpise glede zakonskega stanu in ugodnosti, ki temeljijo na njem.
Admittedly, civil status and the benefits flowing therefrom are matters which fall within the competence of the Member States and Community law does not detract from that competence.
Zakonski stan in izplačila, ki iz njega izhajajo, so res področja, ki so v pristojnosti držav članic, in pravo Skupnosti na to pristojnost ne vpliva.
Since survivor’s benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings has been identified as ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 141 EC and falls within the scope of Directive 2000/78, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 49 to 57 of this judgment, Recital 22 of the preamble to Directive 2000/78 cannot affect the application of the Directive.
Ker je bilo izplačilo za preživele osebe, kot je to v postopku v glavni stvari, opredeljeno kot „plačilo“ v smislu člena 141 ES in ker se iz razlogov, navedenih v točkah od 49 do 57 te sodbe, zanj uporablja Direktiva 2000/78, uvodna izjava 22 Direktive 2000/78 ne bi mogla povzročiti pomisleka o uporabi te direktive.
In those circumstances, the answer to the first, second and fourth questions must be that a survivor’s benefit granted under an occupational pension scheme such as that managed by the VddB falls within the scope of Directive 2000/78.
V teh okoli�činah je treba na prvo, drugi in četrto vpra�anje odgovoriti, da se za izplačilo za preživele osebe, ki je dodeljeno v okviru sistema poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja, kot je ta, ki ga upravlja VddB, uporablja Direktiva 2000/78.
By its third question, the referring court seeks to know whether the combined provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2000/78 preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which, after the death of his life partner, the surviving partner does not receive a survivor’s benefit equivalent to that granted to a surviving spouse, even though, like spouses, the life partners have been living in a union of mutual support and assistance which had been formally constituted for life.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem spra�uje, ali določbe člena 1 v povezavi s členom 2 Direktive 2000/78 nasprotujejo ureditvi, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, v skladu s katero preživeli partner po smrti svojega življenjskega partnerja ne prejme izplačila za preživele osebe, enakega izplačilu, ki ga prejme preživeli zakonec, čeprav sta življenjska partnerja, tako kot zakonci, živela v formalno sklenjeni dosmrtni skupnosti medsebojne pomoči in podpore.
In their opinion, spouses and life partners are in a comparable legal situation which justifies the granting of that benefit to surviving life partners.
Po njunem mnenju so zakonci in življenjski partnerji v primerljivih pravnih položajih, kar upravičuje dodelitev navedenega izplačila preživelim partnerjem.
According to the VddB, there is no constitutional obligation to treat marriage and life partnership identically, so far as concerns the law of social security or pensions.
Po mnenju VddB ne obstaja obveznost ustavnega reda, da je treba zakonsko zvezo in življenjsko partnersko skupnost obravnavati enako z vidika socialnega prava ali socialnega zavarovanja.
Life partnership is an institution sui generis and represents a new form of civil status.
Življenjska partnerska skupnost naj bi bila institut sui generis in nov zakonski stan.
It cannot be inferred from the German legislation that there is any obligation to grant equal treatment to life partners, on the one hand, and spouses, on the other.
Iz nem�ke zakonodaje naj ne bi bilo mogoče izlu�čiti kakr�ne koli obveznosti enakega obravnavanja življenjskih partnerjev in zakoncev.
In accordance with Article 1 thereof, the purpose of Directive 2000/78 is to combat, as regards employment and occupation, certain forms of discrimination including that on grounds of sexual orientation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment.
V skladu s členom 1 je cilj Direktive 2000/78 boriti se proti določenim oblikam diskriminacije na področju zaposlovanja in dela, med katere spada diskriminacija na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti, s tem da v državah članicah uveljavlja načelo enakega obravnavanja.
Under Article 2 of Directive 2000/78, the ‘principle of equal treatment’ means that there is to be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of the Directive.
„Načelo enakega obravnavanja“ v skladu s členom 2 navedene direktive pomeni, da ne obstaja nikakr�na neposredna ali posredna diskriminacija zaradi katerega od razlogov iz člena 1 te direktive.
According to Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78, direct discrimination occurs where one person is treated less favourably than another person who is in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of the Directive.
V skladu s členom 2(2)(a) Direktive 2000/78 gre za neposredno diskriminacijo, kadar je oseba obravnavana manj ugodno kakor druga v primerljivi situaciji zaradi katerega od razlogov iz člena 1 te direktive.
Article 2(2)(b)(i) states that indirect discrimination occurs where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
Člen 2(2)(b)(i) določa, da gre za posredno diskriminacijo, kadar je zaradi kak�ne navidez nevtralne določbe, merila ali prakse oseba določene vere ali prepričanja, ki ima določen hendikep ali je določene starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti, v primerjavi z drugimi v slab�em položaju, razen če tako določbo, merilo ali prakso objektivno upravičuje legitimni cilj in je uresničevanje tega cilja primerno in nujno.
It is clear from the information provided in the order of reference that, from 2001 — the year when the LPartG, in its initial version, entered into force — the Federal Republic of Germany altered its legal system to allow persons of the same sex to live in a union of mutual support and assistance which is formally constituted for life.
Iz podatkov, vsebovanih v predložitveni odločbi, izhaja, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija po letu 2001, ko je začel veljati prvotni LPartG, prilagodila svoj pravni red, da bi omogočila osebam istega spola živeti v formalno sklenjeni dosmrtni skupnosti medsebojne pomoči in podpore.
Having chosen not to permit those persons to enter into marriage, which remains reserved solely to persons of different sex, that Member State created for persons of the same sex a separate regime, the life partnership, the conditions of which have been gradually made equivalent to those applicable to marriage.
Ob tem, ko se je navedena država odločila, da tem osebam ne ponudi možnosti skleniti zakonsko zvezo, ki je ostala pridržana osebam različnega spola, je za osebe istega spola sprejela drugačno ureditev, in sicer življenjsko partnersko skupnost, katere položaj se je postopoma izenačil s položajem zakonske zveze.
The referring court observes that the Law of 15 December 2004 contributed to the gradual harmonisation of the regime put in place for the life partnership with that applicable to marriage.
Predložitveno sodi�če pri tem opozarja, da je zakon z dne 15. decembra 2004 prispeval k postopnemu približanju ureditve, določene za življenjsko partnersko skupnost, z ureditvijo, ki velja za zakonsko zvezo.
By that law, the German legislature introduced amendments to Book VI of the Social Security Code — statutory old age pension scheme, by adding inter alia a fourth paragraph to Paragraph 46 of that Book, from which it is clear that life partnership is to be treated as equivalent to marriage as regards the widow’s or widower’s pension referred to in that provision.
Nem�ki zakonodajalec je s tem zakonom sprejel spremembe zakonika o socialnem varstvu VI – zakonsko pokojninsko zavarovanje, s tem da je predvsem členu 46 navedenega dela dodal odstavek 4, iz katerega izhaja, da za obstoj pravice do vdovske pokojnine iz te določbe življenjska partnerska skupnost �teje za zakonsko zvezo.
Analogous amendments were made to other provisions of Book VI.
Analogne spremembe so bile sprejete za druge določbe tega dela VI.
The referring court considers that, in view of the harmonisation between marriage and life partnership, which it regards as a gradual movement towards recognising equivalence, as a consequence of the rules introduced by the LPartG and, in particular, of the amendments made by the Law of 15 December 2004, a life partnership, while not identical to marriage, places persons of the same sex in a situation comparable to that of spouses so far as concerns the survivor’s benefit at issue in the main proceedings.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da ob upo�tevanju tega približevanja med zakonsko zvezo in življenjsko partnersko skupnostjo, ki ga �teje za postopno izenačenje in ki po njegovem mnenju izhaja iz ureditve, sprejete z LPartG, in predvsem sprememb sprejetih z zakonom z dne 15. decembra 2004, življenjsko partnerstvo, ne da bi bilo enako zakonski zvezi, postavlja osebe istega spola v položaj, ki je primerljiv položaju zakoncev, kar zadeva zadevno izplačilo za preživele osebe v postopku v glavni stvari.
However, the referring court finds that entitlement to that survivor’s benefit is restricted, under the provisions of the VddB Regulations, to surviving spouses and is denied to surviving life partners.
Ugotavlja, da je pravica do tega izplačila za preživele osebe ob uporabi določb statuta VddB omejena le na preživele zakonce in se jo zavrne preživelim življenjskim partnerjem.
That being the case, those life partners are treated less favourably than surviving spouses as regards entitlement to that survivor’s benefit.
V tem primeru so ti partnerji torej obravnavani manj ugodno kot preživeli zakonci, kadar gre za pravico do omenjenega izplačila za preživele osebe.
If the referring court decides that surviving spouses and surviving life partners are in a comparable situation so far as concerns that survivor’s benefit, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings must, as a consequence, be considered to constitute direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78.
Če predložitveno sodi�če odloči, da so preživeli zakonci in preživeli življenjski partnerji v primerljivem položaju, kar zadeva to izplačilo za preživele osebe, je treba �teti, da ureditev, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo na podlagi spole usmerjenosti v smislu členov 1 in 2(2)(a) Direktive 2000/78.
It follows from the foregoing that the answer to the third question must be that the combined provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2000/78 preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which, after the death of his life partner, the surviving partner does not receive a survivor’s benefit equivalent to that granted to a surviving spouse, even though, under national law, life partnership places persons of the same sex in a situation comparable to that of spouses so far as concerns that survivor’s benefit.
Iz navedenega sledi, da je treba na tretje vpra�anje dogovoriti, da določbe člena 1 v povezavi s členom 2 Direktive 2000/78 nasprotujejo ureditvi, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, v skladu s katero preživeli partner po smrti svojega življenjskega partnerja ne prejme izplačila za preživele osebe, enakega izplačilu, ki ga prejme preživeli zakonec, čeprav življenjska partnerska skupnost v skladu z nacionalnim pravom postavlja osebe istega spola v položaj, ki je primerljiv položaju zakoncev kar zadeva omenjeno izplačilo za preživele osebe.
It is for the referring court to determine whether a surviving life partner is in a situation comparable to that of a spouse who is entitled to the survivor’s benefit provided for under the occupational pension scheme managed by the VddB.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora preveriti, ali je življenjski partner v položaju, ki je primerljiv s položajem zakonca, ki je upravičen do izplačila za preživele osebe, ki ga določa sistem poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja, ki ga upravlja VddB.
The fifth question
Peto vprašanje
By its fifth question, the referring court seeks to know whether, in the event that the Court were to rule that Directive 2000/78 precludes legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, entitlement to the survivor’s benefit at issue in the main proceedings must be restricted in time and in particular to periods subsequent to 17 May 1990 on the basis of the caselaw in Barber.
Predložitveno sodi�če s petim vpra�anjem spra�uje, ali je treba – če Sodi�če presodi, da Direktiva 2000/78 nasprotuje ureditvi, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari – časovno omejiti pravico do zadevnega izplačila za preživele osebe v postopku v glavni stvari in zlasti na čas po 17. maju 1990 na podlagi sodne prakse v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Barber.
The VddB considers that the case which led to the judgment in Barber differs, on its facts and in law, from the case in the main proceedings and that Directive 2000/78 cannot be given retroactive effect by means of a decision that the Directive applied at a date prior to the date of expiry of the period allowed to Member States for its transposition.
VddB meni, da se zadeva, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Barber, dejansko in pravno razlikuje od zadeve v glavni stvari in da Direktivi 2000/78 ne more dati retroaktivnega učinka, s tem da odloči, da se ta direktiva uporablja za čas pred dnevom izteka roka, do katerega so jo morale države članice prenesti.
It considers that the case which led to the judgment in Barber differs, on its facts and in law, from the case in the main proceedings and notes that Directive 2000/78 contains no provision which derogates from the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Meni, da se zadeva, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Barber, dejansko in pravno razlikuje od zadeve v glavni stvari in poudarja, da Direktiva 2000/78 ne vsebuje nobene določbe, ki razveljavlja načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti.
The Commission states that, as distinct from the present case, in the case which led to the judgment in Barber attention was drawn to the financial consequences of a fresh interpretation of Article 141 EC.
Opozarja, da je bila pozornost v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Barber, v nasprotju z zadevo v glavni stvari usmerjena na finančne posledice, ki bi jih lahko imela nova razlaga člena 141 ES.
The Commission states that, in so far as the LPartG did not come into force until 1 August 2001 and since the German legislature introduced, from 1 January 2005, equal treatment as between life partnership and marriage, as regards the social security rules, occupational pension schemes are not placed in financial difficulty through having to take such equality into account.
V zvezi s tem navaja, da ker je LParG začel veljati �ele 1. avgusta 2001 in ker je nem�ki zakonodajalec po 1. januarju 2005 na področju sistema socialnih zavarovanj sprejel enako obravnavanje med življenjsko partnersko skupnostjo in zakonsko zvezo, upo�tevanje take enakost v sistemih poklicnih socialnih zavarovanj teh sistemov ne postavlja v finančne težave.
It is clear from the caselaw that the Court may, exceptionally, taking account of the serious difficulties which its judgment may create as regards events in the past, be moved to restrict the possibility for all persons concerned of relying on the interpretation which the Court gives to a provision in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling,.
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da lahko Sodi�če izjemoma, ob upo�tevanju resnih težav, ki bi jih lahko povzročila njegova sodba za preteklost, omeji možnost vseh zainteresiranih oseb, da se sklicujejo na razlago določbe, ki jo da Sodi�če v okviru predhodnega odločanja.
A restriction of that kind may be permitted only by the Court, in the actual judgment ruling upon the interpretation sought (see inter alia Barber, paragraph 41, and Case C-292/04 Meilicke and Others [2007] ECR I-1835, paragraph 36).
Tako omejitev lahko določi samo Sodi�če v sodbi, s katero je odločeno o zapro�eni razlagi (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Barber, točka 41, in sodbo z dne 6. marca 2007 v zadevi Meilicke in drugi, C-292/04, ZOdl., str. I-1835, točka 36).