natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, the development of the caselaw as briefly described earlier demonstrates the desire of the Court to extend the protection given to a woman in connection with maternity.
Poleg tega na kratko predstavljen razvoj sodne prakse kaže na željo Sodi�ča, da poveča varstvo ženske v okviru materinstva.
I would therefore invite the Court of Justice to continue down this line of protecting procreation (within the limits of the principle of equality) and advise the Austrian court that if, having studied the relevant factual background, it is of the opinion that the actions of the employer were motivated by Ms Mayr’s particular situ-
Sodi�če torej pozivam, naj gre �e naprej po tej poti varstva razmnoževanja (v okviru meja načela enakosti) in avstrijskemu sodi�ču priporoči, naj odloči, da je odpust diskriminatoren in v nasprotju z Direktivo 76/207,
In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court give the following answer to the question of the Oberster Gerichtshof:
V skladu z zgornjimi razmisleki Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje Oberster Gerichtshof odgovori takole:
2008 — CASE C-506/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-506/06
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 23 November 2006, received at the Court on 14 December 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-506/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Oberster Gerichtshof (Avstrija) z odločbo z dne 23. novembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 14. decembra 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 16 October 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 16. oktobra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-506/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-506/06 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(a) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na Direktivo Sveta 92/85/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o uvedbi ukrepov za spodbujanje izbolj�av na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo (deseta posebna direktiva v smislu člena 16(1) Direktive 89/391/EGS) (UL L 348, str. 1).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Ms Mayr, appellant in the main proceedings, and her former employer Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG (‘Flöckner’), respondent in the main proceedings, following the dismissal of Ms Mayr by Flöckner.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med S. Mayr, tožečo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari, in njenim nekdanjim delodajalcem Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG (v nadaljevanju: družba Flöckner), toženo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari, ker je slednja tožečo stranko odpustila.
Article 2(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
Člen 2(1) Direktive Sveta 76/207/EGS z dne 9. februarja 1976 o izvr�evanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega
MAYR employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p.
MAYR usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev (UL L 39, str.
40) provides that ‘… the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status’.
40) določa, da „[…] načelo enakega obravnavanja pomeni, da ne sme biti nobene diskriminacije na podlagi spola, bodisi posredne ali neposredne, �e zlasti ne glede na zakonski ali družinski status“.
Article 2(3) of Directive 76/207 states that the directive ‘shall be without prejudice to provisions concerning the protection of women, particularly as regards pregnancy and maternity’.
Člen 2(3) določa, da Direktiva 76/207 „ne vpliva na določbe, ki se nana�ajo na varstvo žensk, �e zlasti kar se tiče nosečnosti in materinstva“.
Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207 states:
Člen 5(1) Direktive 76/207 določa:
‘Application of the principle of equal treatment with regard to working conditions, including the conditions governing dismissal, means that men and women shall be guaranteed the same conditions without discrimination on grounds of sex.’
„Uporaba načela enakega obravnavanja v zvezi z delovnimi pogoji, vključno s pogoji, ki uravnavajo odpu�čanje, pomeni, da se mo�kim in ženskam zagotovijo enake možnosti brez diskriminacije na podlagi spola.“
Article 34(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p.
S členom 34(1) Direktive 2006/54/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 5. julija 2006 o uresničevanju načela enakih možnosti ter enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk pri zaposlovanju in poklicnem delu (preoblikovano) (UL L 204, str.
23) repealed Directive 76/207, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).
23) je bila razveljavljena Direktiva 76/207, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/73/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. septembra 2002 (UL L 269, str. 15).
However, Directives 2002/73 and 2006/54 do not apply ratione temporis to the facts in the main proceedings.
Vendar pa se direktivi 2002/73 in 2006/54 ratione temporis ne uporabljata za dejansko stanje v postopku v glavni stvari.
It is apparent from the ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 92/85 that the protection of the safety and health of pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or workers who are breastfeeding should not treat women on the labour market unfavourably nor work to the detriment of directives concerning equal treatment for men and women.
Iz devete uvodne izjave Direktive 92/85 izhaja, da varnost in zdravje nosečih delavk, delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile, ali delavk, ki dojijo, ne bi smela neugodno vplivati na položaj delavk na trgu dela niti delovati v nasprotju z direktivami, ki se nana�ajo na enako obravnavanje mo�kih in žensk.
According to the 15th recital in the preamble to that directive, the risk of dismissal for reasons associated with their condition may have harmful effects on the physical and mental state of pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding, and provision should be made for the dismissal of such women to be prohibited.
Petnajsta uvodna izjava te direktive določa, da lahko tveganje odpusta zaradi razlogov, povezanih z njihovim stanjem, �kodljivo vpliva na fizično in psihično stanje nosečih delavk, delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali ki dojijo, in da je treba storiti vse potrebno za prepoved takega odpusta.
A pregnant worker is defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 92/85 as ‘a pregnant worker who informs her employer of her condition, in accordance with national legislation and/or national practice’.
Noseča delavka je opredeljena v členu 2(a) Direktive 92/85 kot „noseča delavka, ki svojega delodajalca obvesti o svojem stanju v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in/ali nacionalno prakso“.
Article 10 of Directive 92/85 states:
Člen 10 Direktive 92/85 določa:
‘In order to guarantee workers [who are pregnant, who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding], within the meaning of Article 2, the exercise of their health and safety protection rights as recognised under this Article, it shall be provided that:
„Da bi delavkam [nosečim, tistim, ki so pred kratkih rodile, in tistim, ki dojijo] iz člena 2 zagotovili uresničevanje njihovih pravic iz varnosti in zdravja, kot so priznane po tem členu, je treba zagotoviti, da:
2. if a worker, within the meaning of Article 2, is dismissed during the period referred to in point 1, the employer must cite duly substantiated grounds for her dismissal in writing;
2. če je delavka iz člena 2 odpu�čena med obdobjem, navedenim v točki 1, mora delodajalec pisno navesti pravilno utemeljene razloge za njen odpust;
Article 12 of Directive 92/85 provides:
Člen 12 Direktive 92/85 določa:
‘Member States shall introduce into their national legal systems such measures as are necessary to enable all workers who should [consider] themselves wronged by failure to comply with the obligations arising from this Directive to pursue their claims by judicial process (and/or, in accordance with national laws and/or practices) by recourse to other competent authorities.’
„Države članice v svoje nacionalne pravne sisteme uvedejo tak�ne ukrepe, ki so potrebni, da bi vsem delavkam, če bi bile o�kodovane zaradi neizpolnjevanja obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz te direktive, omogočili uveljavljanje njihovih zahtevkov v sodnih postopkih (in/ali v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in/ali prakso), preko postopkov pred drugimi pristojnimi organi.“
Paragraph 10 of the Law on Maternity Protection (Mutterschutzgesetz, ‘MSchG’) states:
Člen 10 zakona o materinskem varstvu (Mutterschutzgesetz, v nadaljevanju: MSchG) določa:
Workers may not be lawfully dismissed during pregnancy or the four months following childbirth, unless the employer has not been informed of the pregnancy or the birth.
Delavk ni mogoče zakonito odpustiti med nosečnostjo in �tiri mesece po porodu, če je bil delodajalec o nosečnosti ali o porodu obve�čen.
Dismissal is also illegal when the employer is informed of the pregnancy or birth within five working days of the oral or written notice of the dismissal.
Odpust je nezakonit, tudi če je bil delodajalec o nosečnosti ali o porodu obve�čen v petih delovnih dneh po obvestilu o odpustu ali vročitvi odločbe o odpustu, kadar je �lo za pisni odpust.
Written notice of pregnancy or childbirth is considered to have been given in good time when it is posted within the five-day period.
Šteje se, da je pisno obvestilo o nosečnosti ali porodu pravočasno, kadar je bilo na po�ti oddano v petih dneh.
Where the worker indicates her pregnancy or the childbirth within the five-day period, she must at the same time prove the pregnancy or the presumption of pregnancy by means of a medical certificate, or by producing the birth certificate of the child …’
Kadar delavka obvesti o nosečnosti ali porodu v roku petih dni, mora hkrati dokazati nosečnost ali domnevo o nosečnosti, tako da predloži zdravni�ko spričevalo ali dokument o rojstvu otroka […]“
Under Paragraph 17(1) of the Law on Reproductive Medicine (Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz, ‘FMedG’), viable cells, namely, according to the legal definition in Paragraph 1(3) of the FMedG, fertilised ova and the cells grown from them, can be kept for up to 10 years.
Člen 17(1) zakona o oploditvi z medicinsko pomočjo (v nadaljevanju: FMedG) določa, da se razvojne celice, in sicer po členu 1(3) FMedG oplojene jajčne celice in celice, ki iz teh izvirajo, lahko hranijo do deset let.
Under Paragraph 8 of the FMedG, medically assisted reproduction can be carried out only with the consent of the partners, and the consent of the woman can be withdrawn until the viable cells are implanted in her body.
V skladu s členom 8 FMedG se lahko oploditev z biomedicinsko pomočjo izvede le, če partnerja sogla�ata, ženska pa lahko svoje soglasje umakne do prenosa razvojnih celic v njeno telo.
In the course of attempted in vitro fertilisation and after hormone treatment lasting for about one and a half months, a follicular puncture was carried out on Ms Mayr on 8 March 2005.
V okviru poskusa oploditve in vitro in po hormonskem zdravljenju, ki je trajalo približno mesec in pol, so S. Mayr 8. marca 2005 opravili punkcijo folikla.
Her general practitioner certified her sick from 8 to 13 March 2005.
Lečeči zdravnik ji je predpisal bolni�ki dopust od 8. do 13. marca 2005.
On 10 March 2005, by telephone, Flöckner informed Ms Mayr that she was dismissed with effect from 26 March 2005.
Družba Flöckner je 10. marca v telefonskem pogovoru S. Mayr obvestila, da bo od 26. marca 2005 odpu�čena.
By letter of the same date, Ms Mayr informed Flöckner that, in the course of in vitro fertilisation treatment, the transfer of the fertilised ova into her uterus was planned for 13 March 2005.
Tega dne je S. Mayr družbi Flöckner poslala dopis, v katerem jo je obvestila, da je v okviru posega umetne oploditve prenos oplojenih jajčec v njeno maternico predviden za 13. marec 2005.
According to the referring court, it is common ground that, at the date Ms Mayr was given notice of her dismissal, on 10 March 2005, the ova taken from her had already been fertilised with her partner’s sperm cells and, therefore, in vitro fertilised ova already existed on that date.
V predložitveni odločbi je navedeno, da so bila jajčeca, odvzeta S. Mayr, na dan, ko je bila odpu�čena, in sicer 10. marca 2005, oplojena s semenčicami njenega partnerja, torej so na ta dan že obstajala jajčeca, oplojena in vitro.
On 13 March 2005, that is three days after Ms Mayr had been informed of her dismissal, two fertilised ova were transferred into her uterus.
13. marca 2005, torej tri dni potem, ko je bila S. Mayr obve�čena o odpustitvi, sta bili dve oplojeni jajčeci preneseni v njeno maternico.
Flöckner rejected the claim on the ground that no pregnancy existed on the date on which notice of the dismissal was given.
Družba Flöckner je ta zahtevek zavrnila, ker naj nosečnost na dan, ko je bila S. Mayr odpu�čena, �e ne bi obstajala.
The Landesgericht Salzburg (Regional Court, Salzburg) — the court at first instance — granted Ms Mayr’s application holding that, according to the caselaw of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria), the protection from dismissal provided for in Paragraph 10 of the MSchG begins with the fertilisation of the ovum.
Landesgericht Salzburg, ki je odločalo o tej zadevi na prvi stopnji, je zahtevku S. Mayr ugodilo, ker je presodilo, da se v skladu s sodno prakso Oberster Gerichtshof varstvo pred odpustom, določeno v členu 10 MSchG, začne z oploditvijo jajčeca.
It is fertilisation, according to that case-law, which is regarded as the starting point of a pregnancy.
V skladu s to sodno prakso naj bi bil to začetek nosečnosti.
The Landesgericht Salzburg thus held that that must also be so in the case of in vitro fertilisation and that, if the transfer of the fertilised ovum is unsuccessful, the protection against dismissal is lost in any event.
Landesgericht Salzburg je torej presodilo, da mora biti tako tudi v primeru oploditve in vitro, in da če se prenos oplojenega jajčeca ponesreči, varstva zoper odpust vsekakor ni več.
However, the Oberlandesgericht Linz (Higher Regional Court, Linz), acting as appellate court for employment and social welfare cases, set aside the judgment of the Landesgericht Salzburg and dismissed Ms Mayr’s application, on the ground that, irrespective of the point at which hormonal changes actually take place in pregnancy, a pregnancy which is independent of the female body is unimaginable and, consequently, in the case of in vitro fertilisation, the pregnancy begins only once the fertilised ovum has been transferred into the woman’s body.
Vendar je Oberlandesgericht Linz, ki odloča o pritožbah na področju delovnega in socialnega prava, razveljavilo sodbo Landesgericht Salzburg in zavrnilo zahtevek S. Mayr, ker neodvisno od vpra�anja, kdaj v nosečnosti dejansko pride do hormonskih sprememb, nosečnosti ni mogoče obravnavati ločeno od ženskega telesa in se zato pri oploditvi in vitro nosečnost začne �ele s prenosom oplojenega jajčeca v žensko telo.
It is therefore only at the moment of that transfer that the protection for a pregnant woman against the termination of employment begins.
Torej naj bi se varstvo nosečnice pred odpovedjo pogodbe o zaposlitvi začelo �ele s tem prenosom.
That judgment on appeal was the subject of an appeal on a point of law (Revision) to the Oberster Gerichtshof.
Ta izpodbijana sodba pa je bila predmet revizije pri Oberster Gerichtshof.
According to the caselaw of that court, the protection ensured by Paragraph 10 of the MSchG arises only if, at the time of the dismissal, a pregnancy has actually begun.
Po sodni praksi tega sodi�ča se varstvo, določeno s členom 10 MSchG, upo�teva le, če se je v trenutku odpusta nosečnost resnično začela.
The objective of maternity protection, from which there can be no derogation, is to safeguard interests relating to the health of the mother and child and, in the case of protection against dismissal and termination of employment, to ensure the mother’s economic existence.
Cilj varstva materinstva, od katerega ni mogoče odstopiti, naj bi bil ohraniti zdravje matere in otroka v interesu obeh in v primeru varstva pred odpustom zagotoviti sredstva za obstoj matere.
The need for protection for the duration of the woman’s altered condition exists independently of whether the implantation of the fertilised ovum in the endometrium (‘nidation’) has already taken place or not, and whether proof of pregnancy can be easily produced is irrelevant in that regard.
Potreba po varstvu med spreminjanjem stanja ženske naj bi obstajala neodvisno od tega, ali je bila že opravljena implantacija oplojenega jajčeca v maternično sluznico (drugače rečeno „vgnezdenje“), in dejstvo, da lahko že poročamo o dokazu nosečnosti, v tem pogledu sploh ni pomembno.
Nidation of the fertilised ovum in the endometrium is only one step in the state of pregnancy which, according to prevailing scientific opinion, exists as of conception, and it cannot, with regard to the scope of the protection against dismissal, arbitrarily be singled out as the point at which pregnancy begins.
Vgnezdenje oplojenega jajčeca v maternično sluznico naj bi bila po mnenju prevladujočega znanstvenega mnenja le faza obstoječega stanja nosečnosti, do katere pride po spočetju, in naj je glede varstva pred odpustom ne bi bilo mogoče samovoljno izbrati, kot da označuje začetek nosečnosti.
However, that caselaw of the Oberster Gerichtshof relating to Paragraph 10 of the MSchG is exclusively based on cases of in utero conception, that is to say natural conception.
Vendar naj bi ta sodna praksa Oberster Gerichtshof glede člena 10 MSchG temeljila izključno na primerih spočetja in utero, torej po naravni poti.
The Oberster Gerichtshof states that this is the first time that it has had to deal with the question of the point from which a pregnant woman is entitled to the protection against dismissal provided for in Paragraph 10 of the MSchG in the case of in vitro fertilisation.
To sodi�če poudarja, da mora tokrat prvič odločati o vpra�anju, od kdaj je noseča ženska upravičena do varstva pred odpustom, določenega s členom 10 MSchG, pri oploditvi in vitro.
Taking the view that the case before it raises a question of interpretation of Community law, the Oberster Gerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Ker je menilo, da je za spor, o katerem odloča, potrebna razlaga prava Skupnosti, je Oberster Gerichtshof prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is a worker, who undergoes in vitro fertilisation, a “pregnant worker” within the meaning of the first part of Article 2(a) of [Directive 92/85] if, at the time at which she was given notice of dismissal, the woman’s ova had already been fertilised with the sperm cells of her partner and “in vitro” embryos thus existed, but they had not yet been implanted within her?’
„Ali je delavka, pri kateri se opravi oploditev in vitro, ‚noseča delavka‘ v smislu prvega dela člena 2(a) Direktive [92/85], če so bile med tem, ko je bila odpu�čena, njene jajčne celice že oplojene s partnerjevimi semenskimi celicami in so torej že obstajali zarodki in vitro, ki pa �e niso bili preneseni v njeno maternico?“
By its question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether Directive 92/85 and, in particular, the prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers provided for in Article 10(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as extending to a worker who is undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment where, on the date she is given notice of her dismissal, her ova have already been fertilised by her partner’s sperm cells, so that in vitro fertilised ova exist, but those ova have not yet been transferred into her uterus.
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je treba Direktivo 92/85 in med drugim prepoved odpusta nosečih delavk, določeno v členu 10, točka 1, te direktive, razlagati tako, da se ne nana�a na delavko, pri kateri se opravi oploditev in vitro, če je na dan, ko je bila odpu�čena, do oploditve njenih jajčnih celic s semenskimi celicami njenega partnerja že pri�lo in so torej že obstajale jajčne celice, oplojene in vitro, vendar �e niso bile prenesene v njeno maternico.
As a preliminary point, it should be noted that in vitro fertilisation describes the fertilisation of an ovum outside a woman’s body.
Najprej je treba povedati, da oploditev in vitro pomeni oploditev jajčeca zunaj telesa ženske.
According to the Commission of the European Communities, that treatment involves a number of stages, such as, inter alia, hormonal stimulation of the woman’s ovaries intended to bring a number
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti meni, da ta poseg vključuje več faz, med drugim hormonsko stimulacijo jajčnikov ženske, da bi nastalo več jajčec hkrati,
MAYR of ova to maturation at the same time; follicular puncture; the removal of the ova; the fertilisation of one or more ova with previously prepared sperm cells; the transfer of the fertilised ovum or ova into the uterus, either on the third day, or on the fifth day following the removal of the ova, except where the fertilised ova are to be frozen, and nidation.
MAYR punkcijo foliklov, odvzem jajčec, oploditev jajčeca ali več jajčec z vnaprej pripravljenimi semenskimi celicami, prenos oplojenega jajčeca ali oplojenih jajčec v maternico – bodisi tretji bodisi peti dan po odvzemu jajčec – razen v primerih ko se oplojena jajčeca ohranijo z zamrznitvijo, in vgnezdenje.
As regards Directive 92/85, it should be borne in mind that its objective is to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding.
Povedati je treba, da je namen Direktive 92/85 spodbujanje izbolj�av na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo.
Before Directive 92/85 came into force, the Court had already held that, under the principle of nondiscrimination and, in particular, Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207, protection against dismissal must be granted to women not only during maternity leave, but also throughout the period of the pregnancy.
Sodi�če je že pred začetkom veljavnosti Direktive 92/85 razsodilo, da je treba na podlagi načela prepovedi diskriminacije in zlasti členov 2(1) in 5(1) Direktive 76/207 ženski priznati varstvo pred odpustom ne le med porodni�kim dopustom, ampak med celotnim trajanjem nosečnosti.
It should also be pointed out that, during that period, Article 10 of Directive 92/85 does not provide for any exception to, or derogation from, the prohibition of dismissing pregnant workers, save in exceptional cases not connected with their condition where the employer justifies the dismissal in writing (Webb, paragraph 22; Brown, paragraph 18; Tele Danmark, paragraph 27; and Paquay, paragraph 31).
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da v navedenem obdobju člen 10 Direktive 92/85 ni določal nobene izjeme ali odstopanja od prepovedi odpusta nosečih delavk, razen v izjemnih primerih, ki niso povezani z njihovim stanjem, in če delodajalec pisno utemelji razloge za ta odpust (zgoraj navedene sodbe Webb, točka 22; Brown, točka 18; Tele Danmark, točka 27, in Paquay, točka 31).