natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘The Wages Guarantee Fund, in the cases referred to in the previous paragraph, shall pay the compensation fixed by a judgment or administrative decision in favour of workers on account of their dismissal or of the termination of their contracts in accordance with Articles 50, 51 and 52(c) of this Law, up to a maximum of one year’s pay, it being understood that the daily wage, taken as the basis for that computation, may not exceed twice the minimum inter-professional wage.
„Jamstveni sklad v primeru, določenem v prej�njem odstavku, delavcem izplača od�kodnino, priznano s sodbo ali upravno odločbo, zaradi odpovedi ali prenehanja pogodbe v skladu s členi 50, 51 in 52(c) tega zakona, v okviru najvi�jega letnega plačila, pod pogojem, da dnevna plača, ki je podlaga za izračun, ne presega dvakratne minimalne plače za vse poklice.
Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute, in the version resulting from Law 43/2006 of 29 December 2006 for improving growth and employment (BOE No 312 of 30 December 2006, p.
Člen 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih v različici zakona 43/2006 z dne 29. decembra 2006 za izbolj�anje in rast zaposlovanja (BOE �t. 312 z dne 30. decembra 2006, str.
46586), resulting from Legislative Royal Decree No 5/2006 (Real Decreto Ley 5/2006) of 9 June 2006 (BOE No 141 of 14 June 2006, p.
46586), ki izhaja iz kraljeve uredbezakona 5/2006 (Real Decreto Ley 5/2006) z dne 9. junija 2006 (BOE �t. 141 z dne 14. junija 2006, str.
22670), which came into force on 15 June 2006, states:
22670), ki je začel veljati 15. junija 2006, določa:
‘In the cases referred to in the previous paragraph, the Wages Guarantee Fund shall pay the compensation fixed by a judgment, an order, a judicial conciliation settlement or an administrative decision in favour of workers because of dismissal or termination of contracts in accordance with Articles 50, 51 and 52 of this Law, and in accordance with Article 64 of Law 22/2003 of 9 July 2003 on insolvency …’
„Jamstveni sklad v primerih, določenih v prej�njem odstavku, delavcem izplača od�kodnino, priznano s sodbo, sklepom, sporazumom o sodni poravnavi ali upravno odločbo, zaradi odpovedi ali prenehanja pogodbe v skladu s členi 50, 51 in 52 tega zakona in členom 64 zakona 22/2003 z dne 9. julija 2003 o stečaju […]“
Under Article 56 of the Workers’ Statute, an unfair dismissal, recognised as such by the employer in a judicial or extrajudicial conciliation settlement or laid down in a judicial decision, gives rise for the employer to the obligation to pay the employee concerned, first, the ‘salarios de tramitación’, namely the salaries which fell due during the proceedings challenging the dismissal, and, second, compensation for termination of the contract of employment.
V skladu s členom 56 zakona o delovnih razmerjih nastane zaradi nezakonite odpovedi delovnega razmerja, ki jo je delodajalec kot tako priznal v sporazumu o izvensodni ali sodni poravnavi ali v sodni odločbi, obveznost delodajalca, da zadevnemu delavcu izplača „salarios de tramitación“, in sicer plače, ki so zapadle med postopkom ugovora zoper odpoved delovnega razmerja, in od�kodnino za prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
Legislative Royal Decree 2/1995 approving the amended text of the Law on Employment Procedure (Ley de Procedimiento laboral) of 7 April 1995 (BOE No 86 of 11 April 1995, p.
Kraljeva zakonska uredba (Real Decreto Legislativo) 2/1995 z dne 7. aprila 1995 o potrditvi spremenjenega besedila zakona o delovnopravnem postopku (Ley de Procedimiento laboral, BOE �t. 86 z dne 11. aprila 1995, str.
10695, the ‘LPL’) lays down the rules for extrajudicial and prelitigation conciliation.
10695, v nadaljevanju: LPL) določa zlasti pravila za izvensodno ali predhodno poravnavo.
Article 67 of the LPL, which lays down rules for challenging a conciliation agreement, provides:
Člen 67 LPL, ki ureja pravila za izpodbijanje sporazuma o poravnavi, določa:
Conciliation agreements may be challenged, by the parties and by those to whom they may cause a detriment, before the court with jurisdiction to hear the case which is the subject of the conciliation by bringing an action for nullity based on grounds capable of vitiating contracts.
Sporazum o poravnavi lahko stranke in osebe, ki bi lahko zaradi njega utrpele �kodo, izpodbijajo pred sodi�čem, pristojnim za odločanje o zadevi, ki je predmet poravnave, z vložitvijo tožbe za razglasitev ničnosti iz razlogov, ki povzročijo neveljavnost pogodb.
The action shall become time-barred 30 days after the adoption of the agreement.
Rok za vložitev tožbe je 30 dni po sklenitvi sporazuma.
For any parties adversely affected, the timelimit shall run from the day that they became aware of the agreement.’
Za stranke, ki bi bile morebiti o�kodovane, začne rok teči z dnem, ko se seznanijo s sporazumom“.
The operation of the conciliation services is governed by the Royal Decree 2756/1979 of 23 November 1979 (BOE No 291 of 5 December 1979, p.
Delovanje storitev poravnave je urejeno s kraljevim dekretom 2756/1979 z dne 23. novembra 1979 (BOE �t. 291 z dne 5. decembra 1979, str.
28015), which governs the role of the Instituto de Mediación, Arbitraje y Conciliación (Centre for Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation).
28015), ki določa vlogo Instituto de Mediación, Arbitraje y Conciliación (v nadaljevanju: Center za mediacijo, arbitražo in poravnavo).
Articles 5, 8, 10 and 11 of the Royal Decree provide:
Členi 5, 8, 10 in 11 navedenega kraljevega dekreta določajo:
Conciliation settlements shall be concluded before the Centre for Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation of the place of performance of the services or the place of residence of the interested parties, at the applicant’s choice.
Sporazum o poravnavi se sklepa pred organi Centra za mediacijo, arbitražo in poravnavo na kraju opravljanja storitev ali prebivali�ča zadevnih oseb, po izbiri predlagatelja.
Conciliation settlements shall take place before the Director, the President of the Arbitration Tribunal, the Secretary or any other official of the Centre, on condition that they hold a degree (‘Licenciatura’) in law.
Sporazum o poravnavi se sklene pred direktorjem, predsednikom arbitražnega sodi�ča, sekretarjem ali drugim uradnikom Centra pod pogojem, da imajo visoko�olsko pravno izobrazbo (‚Licenciatura‘).
The parties to the conciliation procedure must have the same legal capacity as that required for parties to court proceedings in employment law matters.
Stranke v postopku poravnave morajo biti enako sposobne, kot se to zahteva za stranke v postopku delovnopravnih razmerij.
Once the application is received and registered, it shall be examined to determine whether it complies with the requirements.
Po prejetju in registraciji predloga se ta preuči, da bi se odločilo, ali so zahtevani pogoji izpolnjeni.
Details shall, if necessary, be requested to ensure that the summonses of the interested parties are correct.
Če je potrebno, se zahtevajo podrobnej�e informacije, da bi bile navedbe zadevnih oseb podane pravilno.
A copy, duly dated and stamped, shall be delivered by personal service with signed confirmation of receipt to the person who is to appear, who shall be informed of the place, day and time of the conciliation, which must take place within the legally prescribed timelimits.
Stranki, pozvani pred sodi�če, se izda pravilno datirana in žigosana kopija s podpisom ter se jo obvesti o kraju, dnevu in uri poravnave, ki mora potekati v zakonskem roku.
Where the person being summoned is not the applicant and refuses to accept the summons, he shall be notified in the same way as the other interested parties.
V primeru, da stranka, pozvana pred sodi�če, ni predlagatelj in poziv pred sodi�če zavrne, se ga vroči enako kot drugim zadevnim strankam.
Once the hearing is open, after calling the parties, who may appear accompanied by an intermediary, the conciliator shall verify their identity, capacity and authority to represent their principals and, after the applicant has given his agreement, he shall
Po začetku obravnave in pozivu strank, ki jih lahko spremlja zaupnik, posrednik v sporu preveri njihovo istovetnost, poslovno sposobnost in pooblastilo za zastopanje
ROBLEDILLO NÚÑEZ allow them to speak in order for them to set out their claims and their pleas in law. The production of documents and other evidence is optional.
ROBLEDILLO NÚÑEZ in jim po privolitvi predlagatelja da besedo za navedbo svojih zahtev in tožbenih razlogov, pri čemer je predložitev dokumentov in drugih dokazil prepu�čena osebni presoji.
Next, he shall invite the interested parties to reach an agreement, assisted, where appropriate, by the intermediaries, permitting them to speak as often as is necessary and suggesting equitable solutions to them.
Zadevne osebe, ki jim po potrebi pomagajo zaupniki, nato pozove, naj sklenejo sporazum, pri čemer jim da besedo tolikokrat, kot je potrebno, in jim morebiti predlaga pravične re�itve.
He shall keep order during the discussion which he shall be empowered to suspend in the case of disruption or if it proves impossible to reach an agreement: in both cases the procedure shall then be treated as concluded without agreement.
Med razpravo ohranja red in ima pravico prekiniti razpravo, če je red moten ali če se izkaže, da sporazuma ni mogoče skleniti: v obeh primerih se �teje, da je postopek končan brez sklenitve sporazuma.
The conciliator shall keep a minute of the hearing and record as clearly as possible the content of the agreements concluded by the interested parties.
Posrednik sestavi zapisnik o obravnavi in čim jasneje zapi�e vsebino sporazumov, ki so jih sklenile zadevne osebe.
If no agreement is concluded, he shall expressly state this.
Če sporazum ni bil sklenjen, to izrecno ugotovi.
The official record shall be signed by the interested parties and by the conciliator and if one of them does not know how to sign or is unable to sign, this shall be noted and the intermediary shall be able to sign in his stead.
Sporazum podpi�ejo zadevne osebe in posrednik, če pa je kateri izmed njih nepismen oziroma ne more pisati, se to navede, pri čemer lahko podpis v njegovem imenu izvr�i zaupnik.
Similarly, the refusal to sign shall be expressly noted along with the grounds for the refusal, if known, and the procedure shall then be treated as concluded without an agreement.
Izrecno se navede tudi zavrnitev podpisa in razlogi za zavrnitev, če so znani, s tem da se torej �teje, da je postopek končan brez sklenitve sporazuma.
Immediately after the conciliation settlement, the conciliator shall deliver a certified copy of the minute to the interested parties.
Posrednik takoj po postopku poravnave zadevnim osebam po�lje overjen prepis zapisnika.
What has been decided upon at the conciliation before the Centre for Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation constitutes final judgment, and may be enforced in courts with employment law jurisdiction.
Odločitev v postopku poravnave pri Centru za mediacijo, arbitražo in poravnavo je izvr�ljiva, za izvr�bo je pristojno delovno sodi�če.
Judicial conciliation
Sodna poravnava
Judicial conciliation is governed by Article 84 of the LPL, which reads as follows:
Sodna poravnava je urejena v členu 84 LPL, ki določa:
The judicial body, adjudicating at a public hearing, shall attempt conciliation by indicating to the parties their rights and obligations without prejudice to the content of any possible judgment.
Sodni organ, ki odloča na javni obravnavi, začne poravnavo s tem, da strankam navede njihove pravice in obveznosti, ne da bi s tem vplival na vsebino morebitne sodbe.
If the judicial body considers that the content of the conciliation agreement constitutes a serious detriment to one of the parties, evasion of the law or a misuse of rights, it shall not approve it.
Če sodni organ meni, da vsebina sporazuma o poravnavi bistveno �koduje eni od strank ali da pomeni goljufijo ali zlorabo pravice, sporazuma ne potrdi.
It may approve the agreement at any moment before giving judgment.
Sporazum lahko odobri v vsakem trenutku pred izdajo sodbe.
Regarding Fogasa’s participation in the judicial employment Law proceedings, Article 23 of the LPL provides:
Člen 23 LPL v zvezi s sodelovanjem Fogase v postopku delavnopravnih razmerij določa:
The Wages Guarantee Fund may appear as a party at any stage in proceedings which may lead to payment by the Wages Guarantee Fund of salaries or compensation to workers, without such intervention causing the delay or suspension of the proceedings.
Jamstveni sklad za plače lahko v vsakem trenutku nastopi kot stranka v postopku, v katerem bi lahko bilo odločeno, da mora navedeni jamstveni sklad za plače delavcem izplačati plače ali od�kodnine; postopek se zaradi njegovega posredovanja ne �teje za zamudnega in se ne prekine.
Fogasa’s rights and obligations
Pravice in obveznosti Fogase
Under Articles 274 and 275 of the LPL, which govern Fogasa’s participation in the procedure for declaring undertakings insolvent:
Člena 274 in 275 LPL, ki urejata sodelovanje Fogase pri sprožitvi postopka zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti podjetij, določata:
‘Article 274
„Člen 274
Prior to the declaration of insolvency, if the Wages Guarantee Fund has not already been called, it shall be heard within a maximum period of fifteen days, so that it may seek adoption of appropriate measures and designate the assets of the principal person liable which are known to it.
Pred ugotovitvijo plačilne nesposobnosti se jamstveni sklad za plače, če ni bil pozvan prej, zasli�i v roku največ petnajst dni, da bi lahko predlagal sprejetje ustreznih ukrepov in določil premoženje glavnega dolžnika, za katerega ve, da obstaja.
In the thirty days following the adoption of the measures sought by the Wages Guarantee Fund, the court to which the matter has been referred shall deliver an order which declares, where necessary, the total or partial insolvency of the employer and fixes, in that case, the value at which the goods seized are assessed.
Sodi�če, ki odloča, v trideset dneh po sprejetju ukrepov, ki jih je predlagal jamstveni sklad za plače, sprejme sklep, v katerem odloči, ali je �lo za popolno ali delno plačilno nesposobnost delodajalca, in torej določi vrednost, na katero je bilo ocenjeno zaseženo blago.
The insolvency shall be considered for all purposes to be provisional until the assets of the employer are known or until the assets which have been seized are sold.
Plačilna nesposobnost se v vsakem primeru �teje za začasno, dokler ni premoženje delodajalca znano ali zaseženo premoženje prodano.
Where the goods liable to be seized are deployed in the production process of the debtor undertaking and the activity of that undertaking is continuing, the Wages Guarantee Fund may request a suspension of execution for a period of thirty days …
Če na premoženje, ki bi ga bilo mogoče zaseči, vpliva proizvodni proces podjetja, ki je dolžnik, in če ta svojo dejavnost nadaljuje, lahko jamstveni sklad za plače zahteva prekinitev izvajanja za obdobje trideset dni […]
Once the Wages Guarantee Fund has found that it is impossible to pay the salaries owed, … it shall make this known, stating the grounds in support, by requesting a declaration of insolvency for the sole purpose of affording the benefit of the wages guarantee.’
Ko jamstveni sklad za plače ugotovi nezmožnost plačila terjatev plač, […] to navede, pri čemer poda razloge in zahteva izjavo o plačilni nesposobnosti zgolj za namene priznanja prejemkov jamstva za plače.“
Article 28(3) of Royal Decree 505/1985, of 6 March 1985, governing the organisation and operation of the Wages Guarantee Fund (BOE No 92, of 17 April 1985, p.
Člen 28(3) kraljevega dekreta 505/1985 z dne 6. marca 1985 o organizaciji in delovanju jamstvenega sklada za plače (BOE �t. 92 z dne 17. aprila 1985, str.
10203), lays down the rules concerning the treatment of requests for benefits from Fogasa in the following terms:
10203) določa pravila v zvezi z obravnavanjem predlogov, ki jih krije Fogasa, kot sledi:
‘At the end of any period of investigation referred to at subparagraph 2 above, the General Secretariat shall, within five days, deliver a decision in which it upholds totally or partially or rejects the claims.
„Po izteku obdobja za preiskavo iz točke 2 spodaj, če se ta izvede, generalni sekretariat v roku pet dni izda sklep, v katerem predloge popolnoma ali delno sprejme oziroma zavrne.
Abusive and fraudulent claims, along with those in respect of which payment is unjustified because of the existence of a common interest of the employees and employers in creating the appearance of legal insolvency with the purpose of obtaining provision from the Wages Guarantee Fund, must be rejected.’
Predloge za izplačilo prejemkov, ki pomenijo zlorabo ali goljufijo, in tiste, katerih izplačilo ni utemeljeno, ker obstaja skupen interes zaposlenih in delodajalcev za vzpostavitev navidezno zakonite plačilne nesposobnosti z namenom pridobitve prejemkov jamstvenega sklada za plače, je treba zavrniti.“
On 26 November 2004, on the basis of that decision Ms Robledillo Núñez requested that Fogasa pay her the benefit corresponding to the compensation for dismissal which Linya Fish had not yet paid her.
Robledillo Núñez je 26. novembra 2004 na podlagi zadnjenavedene sodbe od Fogase zahtevala plačilo prejemka, ki ustreza od�kodnini zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, ki ji ga ta družba ni izplačala.
By a decision of 21 January 2005, Fogasa dismissed that application in its entirety on the basis that the compensation for dismissal had not been awarded by a judgment or administrative decision.
Fogasa je z odločbo z dne 21. januarja 2005 to zahtevo v celoti zavrnila, ker od�kodnina zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja ni bila priznana niti s sodbo niti z upravno odločbo.
She challenged the latter’s refusal to pay her the compensation for dismissal provided for in that conciliation agreement.
Ugovarja zavrnitvi Fogase, da bi ji izplačala od�kodnino zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, ki je določena v sporazumu o poravnavi.
In the grounds of its order for reference, the national court states that, at Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute in the versions in force before 15 June 2006, Spanish law provides for payment of compensation due by reason of the termination of an employment relationship, but only where that compensation is recognised by a judgment or administrative decision in favour of employees by reason of dismissal or termination of contract.
Nacionalno sodi�če v obrazložitvi predložitvene odločbe podrobno navaja, da �pansko pravo v členu 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih, v različici, ki je veljala pred 15. junijem 2006, določa izplačilo od�kodnin, dolgovanih zaradi prenehanja delovnega razmerja – vendar le, če so priznane s sodbo ali upravno odločbo – delavcem zaradi odpovedi ali prenehanja delovnega razmerja.
As they are not mentioned in that provision of the Workers’ Statute, compensation recognised in an extrajudicial conciliation procedure is not therefore, according to the national court, among those for which Fogasa is responsible.
Od�kodnine, ki niso omenjene v navedeni določbi zakona o delovnih razmerjih in so priznane v postopku izvensodne poravnave, po mnenju tega sodi�ča torej ne �tejejo za tiste, ki jih krije Fogasa.
Referring to the order in C-177/05 Guerrero Pecino [2005] ECR I-10887, concerning compensation fixed in a judicial conciliation procedure, the national court notes the difference between extrajudicial conciliation and judicial conciliation, in that judicial conciliation takes place before a court which can refuse to approve it, in application of Article 84(1) of the LPL, whilst extrajudicial conciliation takes place before a body specifically entrusted with that task, which is not invested with any power to review the content of the agreement nor any jurisdiction to approve or disapprove that agreement.
Predložitveno sodi�če – s tem da navaja sklep z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Guerrero Pecino (C-177/05, ZOdl., str. I-10887) v zvezi z od�kodnino, določeno v postopku sodne poravnave – podrobno navaja razliko med izvensodno in sodno poravnavo v tem smislu, da sodna poravnava poteka pred sodi�čem, ki lahko na podlagi člena 84(1) LPL njeno odobritev zavrne, medtem ko izvensodna poravnava poteka pred organom, posebej odgovornim za to nalogo, ki nima niti pravice nadzora nad vsebino sporazuma niti pristojnosti za potrditev ali zavrnitev navedenega sporazuma.
That legal distinction between those two methods of conciliation seeks to operate as a break on possible fraudulent behaviour.
Namen tega zakonitega razlikovanja med dvema vrstama sporazumov naj bi bil zaviranje možnosti goljufivega ravnanja.
However, according to the same court, Fogasa was entitled to refuse completely to pay the compensation for dismissal fixed according to the extrajudicial conciliation procedure, by basing itself on the fraud found in the procedure to be followed in order to obtain benefits from that body where the employer is insolvent.
Po mnenju tega sodi�ča bi Fogasa lahko vsekakor zavrnila plačilo od�kodnine zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, določene v postopku izvensodne poravnave, s tem da bi se oprla na goljufijo, ugotovljeno v okviru postopka, ki ga je treba izvesti za pridobitev prejemkov tega organa v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti delodajalca.
Against that background, the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Having regard to the general principle of equality and nondiscrimination, is there no objective justification for the difference in treatment created by Article 33(2) of the … Workers’ Statute (in its current version and in the previous one which remained in force until 14 June 2004) and, consequently, must compensation for dismissal payable to an employee pursuant to extrajudicial conciliation be included
„Ali različna obravnava na podlagi člena 33(2) Estatuto de los Trabajadores (zakon o delovnih razmerjih), kot trenutno velja in kot je veljal do 14. junija 2006, z vidika splo�nih načel enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije ni objektivno utemeljena in ali zato od�kodnine delavcem zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, priznane v okviru izvensodne poravnave, spadajo na področje uporabe Direktive 80/987/EGS […], v primeru, ko člen 33(1) navedenega zakona o delovnih razmerjih dovoljuje to vrsto
ROBLEDILLO NÚÑEZ in the ambit of Council Directive 80/987 … on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in the version amended by Directive 2002/74 …, given that Article 33(1) of the Workers’ Statute recognises this type of conciliation in relation to the payment by the guarantee institution of the ‘salarios de tramitación’ which also arise from the dismissal?’
ROBLEDILLO NÚÑEZ poravnav, da bi jamstvena ustanova delavcem plačala ‚salarios de tramitación‘, zapadle zaradi te odpovedi delovnega razmerja?“
By its question, the national court, relying on the order in Guerrero Pecino, asks whether excluding compensation for unfair dismissal from the payment guarantee of the guarantee institutions provided for in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987 is objectively justified as a measure necessary to avoid abuses adopted under Article 10(a) of that directive where the compensation is recognised by an extrajudicial conciliation settlement.
Predložitveno sodi�če se opira na zgoraj navedeni sklep Guerrero Pecino in spra�uje, ali je izključitev od�kodnine zaradi nezakonite odpovedi delovnega razmerja iz jamstva za plačilo, ki ga zagotavljajo jamstvene ustanove iz člena 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987, objektivno utemeljena kot ukrep, potreben za preprečevanje zlorabe, sprejet na podlagi člena 10(a) te direktive, kadar so navedene od�kodnine priznane v sporazumu o izvensodni poravnavi.