natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the other hand, the Court stated that Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women (56) precludes the dismissal of a female worker who is at an advanced stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment, that is, between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova into her uterus, where it is established that the dismissal is essentially based on the fact that the woman has undergone such treatment.
Nasprotno, Sodišče je navedlo, da določbe Direktive 76/20756 o izvrševanju načela enakega obravnavanja moških in žensk nasprotujejo odpustu delavke, ki je v poznejši fazi oploditve in vitro, torej v fazi punkcije foliklov in takojšnjega prenosa jajčec, oplojenih in vitro, v njeno maternico, če se dokaže, da je razlog za odpust v glavnem to, da je bil stranki opravljen tak poseg.
Since such medical treatment directly affects only women, the dismissal of a female worker essentially because she is undergoing that important stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex.
Ker se tako zdravljenje neposredno nanaša le na ženske, pomeni odpust delavke v glavnem zato, ker je bila pri njej opravljena ta pomembna faza oploditve in vitro, neposredno diskriminacijo na podlagi spola.
Case C-396/07 Juuri (judgment of 27 November 2008) enabled the Court to clarify the effect of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/23 concerning employees’rights in the event of transfers of undertakings (57).
Zadeva Juuri (sodba z dne 27. novembra 2008, C-396/07) je Sodišču omogočila, da natančneje določi obseg členov 3 in 4 Direktive 2001/23 o pravicah delavcev v primeru prenosa podjetij57.
Article 4(2) of that directive provides that, where a contract of employment is terminated as a result of a substantial change in workingconditions due to a transfer of the undertaking, the employer is to be regarded as responsible for the termination.
Člen 4(2) te direktive določa, da če pogodba o zaposlitvi preneha, ker se delovni pogoji zaradi prenosa podjetja bistveno spremenijo, se šteje, da je delodajalec odgovoren za prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
The Court held that, in the absence of any failure on the part of the transferee employer to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Member States are not required by that provision to guarantee the employee a right to financial compensation, for which the transferee employer is liable, in accordance with the same conditions as the right upon which an employee can rely where the contract of employment or the employment relationship is unlawfully terminated by his employer.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da če pridobitelj ni prekršil svojih obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz te direktive, ta določba ne zavezuje držav članic, da bi morale delavcu zagotavljati pravico do denarne odškodnine, ki se naloži temu pridobitelju, pod enakimi pogoji kot pravico, ki jo delavec lahko uveljavlja, čemu delodajalec nezakonito prekine pogodbo o zaposlitvi ali delovno razmerje.
However, in such a case, the national court is required, in a case within its jurisdiction, to ensure that, at the very least, the transferee employer bears the consequences that the applicable national law attaches to termination by an employer of the contract of employment or the employment relationship, such as the payment of the salary and other benefits relating to the notice period.
Vendar mora nacionalno sodišče v okviru svojih pristojnosti zagotavljati vsaj, da v podobnem primeru pridobitelj nosi posledice, ki jih upoštevno nacionalno pravo pripisuje prenehanju pogodbe o zaposlitvi ali delovnega razmerja, za katero je odgovoren delodajalec, kot je plačilo plače in drugih ugodnosti, ki na podlagi tega prava ustrezajo odpovednemu roku.
Moreover, the Court stated that Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23, which provides that, following the transfer, the transferee is to continue to observe the terms and conditions agreed in a collective agreement until the date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement, does not require the transferee to ensure that the workingconditions are observed after that date, even though that date coincides with the date on which the undertaking was transferred.
Poleg tega je Sodišče pojasnilo, da člen 3(3) Direktive 2001/23, v skladu s katerim mora pridobitelj po prenosu še naprej zagotavljati s kolektivno pogodbo dogovorjene delovne pogoje do dneva pre-
CouncilDirective92/85/EECof19October1992ontheintroductionofmeasurestoencourageimprovements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta 92/85/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o uvedbi ukrepov za spodbujanje izboljšav na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo (UL L 348, str. 1).
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 employment, vocational training and promotion, and workingconditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).
Direktiva Sveta 76/207/EGS z dne 9. februarja 1976 o izvrševanju načela enakega obravnavanja moških in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev (UL L 39, str. 40).
Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).
Direktiva Sveta 2001/23/ES z dne 12.marca 2001 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z ohranjanjem pravic delavcev v primeru prenosa podjetij, obratov ali delov podjetij ali obratov (UL L 82, str. 16).
In Case C-268/06 Impact (judgment of 15 April 2008), the Court was required to consider the issue of the Member States’procedural autonomy and the direct effect of Community legislation on fixedterm employment in the public sector.
Sodišče se je moralo v zadevi Impact (sodba z dne 15. aprila 2008, C-268/06) ukvarjati s problemom procesne avtonomije držav članic in neposrednim učinkom zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju zaposlovanja za določen čas v javni upravi.
The Court held that Community law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, requires that a specialised court which is called upon, under the , albeit optional, jurisdiction conferred on it by the legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to hear and determine a claim based on an infringement of that legislation must also have jurisdiction to hear and determine an applicant’s claims arising directly from the directive itself in respect of the period between the deadline for transposing the directive and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force, if it is established that the obligation on that applicant to bring, at the same time, a separate claim based directly on the directive before an ordinary court would involve procedural disadvantages liable to render excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred on him by Communitylaw .
Razsodilo je, da pravo Skupnosti, zlasti načelo učinkovitosti, zahteva, da se mora specializirano sodišče, ki mu je bila zadeva predložena v okviru pristojnosti, čeprav fakultativne, podeljene z zakonodajo, s katero je bila prenesena Direktiva 1999/70 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP, za odločanje o zahtevi zaradi kršitve te zakonodaje, izreči za pristojno za odločanje tudi o zahtevah posameznika, ki temeljijo neposredno na tej direktivi za obdobje po poteku roka za njen prenos in pred začetkom veljavnosti navedene zakonodaje, če se izkaže, da bi obveznost za tega posameznika, da mora vzporedno pri rednem sodišču vložiti ločeno zahtevo, ki temelji neposredno na navedeni direktivi, povzročila takšne postopkovne težave, da bi bilo izvrševanje pravic, ki jih ima na podlagi pravnega reda Skupnosti, pretežko.
Clause 4(1) of that framework agreement, which prohibits any difference in treatment of fixedterm workers in respect of employment conditions which is not objectively justified, is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to be able to rely upon it before a national court; that is not the case as regards Clause 5(1), which assigns to the Member States the general objective of preventing the abusive use of successive fixedterm employment contracts or relationships, while leaving to them the choice as to how to achieve it.
Glede tega je določba 4, točka 1, navedenega okvirnega sporazuma, s katero je v zvezi s pogoji zaposlitve prepovedano vsakršno različno obravnavanje delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas, ki ni objektivno utemeljeno, brezpogojna in dovolj natančna, da se posameznik lahko sklicuje nanjo pred nacionalnim sodiščem, v nasprotju z določbo 5, točka 1, v kateri je za države članice določen splošni cilj preprečevanja zlorab zaporednih pogodbo zaposlitvi za določen čas, ob tem pa jim je prepuščena izbira sredstev za njegovo uresničitev.
An authority of a Member State acting in its capacity as a public employer may not adopt measures which consist in the renewal of fixedterm contracts for an unusually long term in the period between the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70 and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force.
Organ države članice, ki nastopa kot delodajalec javnega sektorja, tako ni pooblaščen za sprejetje ukrepov, ki se nanašajo na obnovitev pogodb za določen čas za nenavadno dolgo obdobje po poteku roka za prenos te direktive in pred začetkom veljavnosti zakona za prenos.
In such circumstances, insofar as the applicable national law contains a rule that precludes the retrospective application of legislation unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary, a national court hearing a claim based on an infringement of a provision of national legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 is required, under Community law, to give that provision retrospective effect to the date by which that directive should have been transposed only if that national legislation includes an indication of that nature capable of giving that provision retrospective effect.
V teh okoliščinah – če je v veljavnem nacionalnem pravu pravilo, ki izključuje retroaktivno uporabo zakona, razen kadar je jasno in nedvoumno navedeno nasprotno –mora nacionalno sodišče, ki mu je bila predložena zahteva zaradi kršitve določbe nacionalnega zakona, s katerim je bila prenesena Direktiva 1999/70, na podlagi prava Skupnosti navedeni določbi priznati retroaktiven učinek od dne poteka roka za prenos te direktive le, če obstaja v nacionalnem pravu takšna navedba, s katero je tej določbi podeljen takšen retroaktiven učinek.
Failed
Okolje
In Case C-188/07 Commune de Mesquer (judgment of 24 June 2008), following the sinking of f the French Atlantic coast of the Erika, a vessel chartered by Total International Ltd, the commune de Mesquer (Municipality of Mesquer) brought proceedings in reliance upon the waste framework directive (58) against companies in the Total group for recovery of the costs incurred on cleaning and anti-pollution measures along its coast.
V zadevi Commune deMesquer (sodba z dne 24. junija 2008, C-188/07) zaradi nesreče tankerja Erika, ki ga je zakupila družba Total International Ltd, ob francoski atlantski obali je občina Mesquer, ki se je oprla na direktivo o„odpadkih“58, tožila podjetji skupine Total za povračilo stroškov za čiščenje in odstranjevanje odpadkov z obalnega ozemlja.
Requested by the French Court of Cassation to interpret that directive, the Court of Justice ruled that heavy fuel oil transported by a ship does not constitute‘waste’where it is exploited or marketed on economically advantageous terms and is capable of actually being used as a fuel without requiring prior processing.
Francosko Cour de cassation je Sodišču predložilo vprašanje razlage določb navedene direktive in to je razsodilo, da težko kurilno olje, ki se prevaža s tankerjem, ni„odpadek“, če se izkorišča
39), as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996 adapting Annexes IIA and IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32).
39), kot je bila spremenjena z Odločbo Komisije z dne 24. maja 1996 o prilagoditvi Prilog IIA in IIB k Direktivi Sveta 75/442/EGS o odpadkih (96/350/ES) (UL L 135, str. 32).
However, such hydrocarbons spilled following a shipwreck, mixed with water and sediment and drifting along the coast of a Member State until being washed upon that coast, are to be regarded as substances which the holder did not intend to produce and which he discards, albeit involuntarily, while they are being transported, so that they must be classified as waste within the meaning of the waste framework directive.
Sodišče ali trži pod ugodnimi gospodarskimi pogoji in če se lahko dejansko uporabi kot gorivo brez predhodnega procesa preoblikovanja. Vendar je treba take ogljikovodike, ki se zaradi nesreče v teh okoliščinah razlijejo v morje, pomešajo z vodo in usedlinami ter se pomikajo vzdolž obale države članice, dokler je ne dosežejo, opredeliti kot snovi, ki jih imetnik ni nameraval pridobiti in ki jih, četudi nehote, zavrže med prevozom, tako da jih je treba obravnavati kot odpadke v smislu te direktive.
Also, for the purpose of determining who had to bear the cost of the Municipality of Mesquer’s disposal of the waste, the Court held, first, that the owner of a ship carrying hydrocarbons, being in possession of them immediately before they become waste, may be regarded as having produced the waste and on that basis be categorised as a‘holder’within the meaning of that directive and, second, that the seller of the hydrocarbons and charterer of the ship carrying them has‘produced’waste if the national court finds that that seller–charterer contributed to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck would occur, in particular if he failed to take measures to prevent such an incident, such as measures concerning the choice of ship.
Poleg tega je Sodišče, da bi lahko določilo, kdo mora nositi stroške, povezane z odstranjevanjem odpadkov, ki ga je izvedla občina Mesquer, menilo, prvič, da je mogoče lastnika ladje, ki prevaža ogljikovodike in jih ima v posesti neposredno pred tem, ko postanejo odpadki, obravnavati kot povzročitelja teh odpadkov in zato kot„imetnika“ v smislu te direktive, in drugič, da sta prodajalec teh ogljikovodikov in zakupnik ladje, ki jih prevaža,„povzročitelja odpadkov“, če nacionalno sodišče ugotovi, dajeta prodajalec zakupnik prispeval k tveganju za nastanek onesnaženja, ki ga je povzročila nesreča, zlasti čeni sprejel ukrepov za preprečitev takega dogodka, na primer ukrepov v zvezi z izbiro ladje.
Finally, the Court held that if the cost of disposing of the waste is not borne or cannot be borne by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund and, in accordance with the limitations and/or exemptions of liability laid down, the national law of a Member State, including the law derived from international agreements, prevents that cost from being borne by the shipowner and the charterer, even though they are regarded as holders, such a national law then has to make provision for the cost of disposing of the waste to be borne by the producer of the product from which the waste thus spread came.
Nazadnje je Sodišče razsodilo, da če Mednarodni sklad za povrnitev škode, nastale zaradi onesnaženja z nafto, ne prevzame ali nemore prevzeti stroškov za odstranjevanje odpadkov in če na podlagi nacionalnega prava, vključno s pravom, ki izhaja iz mednarodnih konvencij, teh stroškov zaradi določenih omejitev in/ali oprostitev odgovornosti ni mogoče naložiti lastniku ladje in zakupniku ladje, čeprav ju je treba obravnavati kot imetnika, mora to nacionalno pravo omogočati, da se stroški odstranjevanja odpadkov naložijo„proizvajalcu izdelka, iz katerega so nastali“ razliti odpadki.
By virtue of the ‘polluter pays’principle, however, such a producer cannot be liable to bear that cost unless he has contributed by his conduct to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck will occur.
Vendar pa se lahko v skladu z načelom plača povzročitelj obremenitve takemu proizvajalcu ti stroški naložijo le, če je s svojim ravnanjem prispeval k tveganju za nastanek onesnaženja, povzročenega zaradi nesreče ladje.
The scope of Directive 85/337 (
V dveh zadevah v zvezi z razlagoDirektive 85/337
), as amended by Directive 97/11 (
, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97 / 11
), was clarified in two cases relating to its interpretation.
, je Sodišče natančneje določilo njeno področje uporabe.
While in Case C-142/07 Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (judgment of 25 July 2008) the association Ecologistas en Acción-CODA challenged the assessment carried out by the city council of Madrid of the environmental effects of projects for refurbishment and improvement of the Madrid urban ring road on the basis that Directive 85/337 as amended had been infringed, in Case C-2/07 AbrahamandOthers [2008] ECR I-1197 individuals who lived near Liège–Bierset Airport complained of noise pollution resulting from the restructuring of that former military airport in an action before the Belgian Court of Cassation concerning liability.
Medtem ko je v zadevi Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (sodba z dne 25. julija 2008, C-142/07) združenje Ecologistas en Acción-CODA izpodbijalo presojo vplivov na okolje projektov prenove in izboljšanja madridske mestne obvoznice, ki jo je izvedel madridski mestni svet in pri tem kršil določbe Direktive 85/337, kot je bila spremenjena, so se v zadevi Abraham in drugi (sodba z dne 28. februarja 2008, C-2/07) v okviru tožbe zaradi odgovornosti stanovalci, ki živijo v bližini letališča Liège-Bierset, pritožili pri belgijskem Cour de cassation zaradi hrupa, ki je posledica prestrukturiranja nekdanjega vojaškega letališča.
In both cases the question arose as to whether the concept of projects as referred to in that directive could encompass projects for the modification, refurbishment, improvement and extension of the infrastructure in question.
V teh zadevah se je zastavilo vprašanje, ali je mogoče pojem projekti iz navedene direktive razširiti na projekte spremembe, prenove, izboljšanja in širitve zadevne infrastrukture.
In Ecologistas en Acción-CODA, the Court ruled that the directive as amended must be interpreted providing for environmental impact assessment of refurbishment and improvement projects for urban roads, either where they are projects covered by point 7(b) or (c) of Annex I to the directive — that is to say, inter alia, the‘construction of motorways and express roads’— or where they are projects covered by point 10(e) of Annex II or the first indent of point 13 of Annex II, which are likely, by virtue of their nature, size or location and, if appropriate, having regard to their interaction with other projects, to have significant effects on the environment. The Court stated that a project for refurbishment of a road which would be
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Ecologistas en Acción-CODA je Sodišče razsodilo, da je treba spremenjeno direktivo razlagati tako, da je treba glede projektov prenove in izboljšanja mestnih cest izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, če gre za projekte iz Priloge I, točka 7(b) ali (c), k tej direktivi, in sicer zlasti za„gradnjo avtocest in hitrih cest“, ali če gre za projekte iz Priloge II, točki 10(e) ali 13, prva alinea, k navedeni direktivi, ki bodo zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije in – če je to potrebno – ob upoštevanju njihovega sovplivanja z drugimi projekti
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).
Direktiva Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje (UL L 175, str. 40).
Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1977 L 73, p. 5).
Direktiva Sveta 97/11/ES z dne 3. marca 1997 o spremembi Direktive 85/337/EGS o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje (UL L 73, str. 5).
Proceedings
Razvoj in dejavnost verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
Court of Justice equivalent, because of its size and the manner in which it is carried out, to construction may be regarded as a construction project for the purposes of Annex I and that it would be contrary to the very purpose of the directive as amended to allow any urban road project to fall outside its scope solely on the ground that the directive does not expressly mention among the projects listed in Annexes I and II those concerning that kind of road.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, prvič, da se projekt prenove ceste, ki bi bil glede na razsežnost in način izvedbe enakovreden gradnji, namreč lahko obravnava kot projekt gradnje v smislu navedene priloge, in drugič, da bi bilo v nasprotju z namenom spremenjene direktive, če se ta direktiva za projekte o mestnih cestah ne bi uporabljala le zato, ker v njej projekti o tej vrsti ceste niso izrecno navedeni med projekti, naštetimi v njenih prilogah I in II.
In AbrahamandOthers, the Court ruled that point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to Directive 85/337, in their original version, also encompasses works to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport, without extension of the runway, where they may be regarded, in particular because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification of the airport itself.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Abraham in drugi je Sodišče razsodilo, da se točka 12 Priloge II v povezavi s točko 7 Priloge Ik Direktivi 85/337 v izvirni različici ravno tako nanaša na spremembe infrastrukture obstoječega letališča brez podaljšanja vzletne in pristajalne steze, če se lahko zaradi narave, pomena in značilnosti štejejo za spremembe samega letališča.
It explained that it would be contrary to the very objective of that directive to exclude works to improve or extend the infrastructure of an existing airport from the scope of Annex II on the ground that Annex I covers the‘construction of airports’and not‘airports’as such.
Pojasnilo je, da bi bilo v nasprotju z namenom te direktive, če bi bilo mogoče dela za izboljšanje ali razširitev infrastrukture že zgrajenega letališča izmakniti področju uporabe Priloge II k tej direktivi z obrazložitvijo, da se njena Priloga I nanaša na„gradnjo letališč“, in ne na„letališča“ kot taka.
No 1882/2003 (62), must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded, persons directly concerned must be in a position to require the competent national authorities to draw up an action plan, even though, under national law, those persons may have other courses of action available to them for requiring those authorities to take measures to combat atmospheric pollution.
V zadevi Janecek (sodba z dne 25. julija 2008, C-237/07) je Sodišče razsodilo, da je treba člen 7(3) Direktive Sveta 96/6261 o ocenjevanju in upravljanju kakovosti zunanjega zraka62, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo št. 1882/2003, razlagati tako, da morajo posamezniki ob obstoju nevarnosti preseganja mejnih ali alarmnih vrednosti, ki jih to neposredno zadeva, pri pristojnih nacionalnih organih imeti možnost zahtevati pripravo načrta ukrepanja, čeprav imajo na podlagi nacionalnih predpisov na voljo druge možnosti za ukrepanje, da od teh organov zahtevajo sprejetje ukrepov za boj proti onesnaževanju zraka.