natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although, in a situation such as that in the present case, the person who is subject to direct discrimination on grounds of disability is not herself disabled, the fact remains that it is the disability which, according to Ms Coleman, is the ground for the less favourable treatment which she claims to have suffered.
Čeprav v primeru, kot je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, oseba, ki je bila neposredno diskriminirana na podlagi invalidnosti, ni invalidna, je bila vendarle invalidnost po mnenju S. Coleman razlog za njeno manj ugodno obravnavanje, ki ga navaja.
As is apparent from paragraph 38 of this judgment, Directive 2000/78, which seeks to combat all forms of discrimination on grounds of disability in the field of employment and occupation, applies not to a particular category of person but by reference to the grounds mentioned in Article 1.
Kot izhaja iz točke 38 te sodbe, se Direktiva 2000/78, katere namen je boj proti vsem oblikam diskriminacije na podlagi invalidnosti pri zaposlovanju in delu, ne uporablja za skupino določenih oseb, ampak na podlagi razlogov iz njenega člena 1.
Where it is established that an employee in a situation such as that in the present case suffers direct discrimination on grounds of disability, an interpretation of Directive 2000/78 limiting its application only to people who are themselves disabled is liable to deprive that directive of an important element of its effectiveness and to reduce the protection which it is intended to guarantee.
Če se ugotovi, da je bil zaposleni v tak�nem primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, neposredno diskriminiran na podlagi invalidnosti, bi lahko zaradi razlage Direktive 2000/78, na podlagi katere bi se njena uporaba omejila le na osebe, ki so invalidne, ta direktiva izgubila pomemben del polnega učinka in bi se lahko varstvo, ki naj bi bilo z njo zagotovljeno, zmanj�alo.
As to the burden of proof which applies in a situation such as that in the present case, it should be observed that, under Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78, Member States are required to take such measures as are necessary, in accordance with their national judicial systems, to ensure that, when persons who consider themselves wronged because the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it is for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of that principle.
V zvezi z dokaznim bremenom, ki se uporabi v primeru, kot je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba spomniti, da morajo v skladu s členom 10(1) Direktive 2000/78 države članice sprejeti primerne ukrepe, da se v skladu z njihovim sodnim sistemom zagotovi, da je dokazno breme, da načelo enakega obravnavanja ni bilo kr�eno, naloženo toženi stranki, kadar oseba, ki meni, da glede nje ni bilo spo�tovano navedeno načelo, pred sodi�čem ali drugim pristojnim organom dokaže dejstva, na podlagi katerih je mogoče domnevati, da je �lo za neposredno ali posredno diskriminacijo.
According to Article 10(2), Article 10(1) does not prevent Member States from introducing rules on the burden of proof which are more favourable to plaintiffs.
V skladu z odstavkom 2 navedenega člena njegov odstavek 1 ne preprečuje državam članicam, da sprejmejo za tožeče stranke ugodnej�a pravila o dokaznem bremenu.
In the case before the referring tribunal, it is therefore for Ms Coleman, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78, to establish, before that tribunal, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct discrimination on grounds of disability contrary to the directive.
V postopku v glavni stvari mora torej S. Coleman v skladu s členom 10(1) Direktive 2000/78 pri predložitvenem sodi�ču dokazati dejstva, na podlagi katerih se lahko domneva, da je �lo za neposredno diskriminacijo na podlagi invalidnosti, ki je prepovedana s to direktivo.
In accordance with Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78 and recital 31 in the preamble thereto, the rules on the burden of proof must be adapted when there is a prima facie case of discrimination.
V skladu s to določbo Direktive 2000/78 in njeno uvodno izjavo 31 je treba prilagoditi pravila o dokaznem bremenu, ko se domneva, da je �lo za diskriminacijo. Če S.
In the event that Ms Coleman establishes facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct discrimination, the effective application of the principle of equal treatment then requires that the burden of proof should fall on the respondents, who must prove that there has been no breach of that principle.
Coleman dokaže dejstva, na podlagi katerih se lahko domneva, da je �lo za neposredno diskriminacijo, se za učinkovito uporabo načela enakega obravnavanja torej zahteva, da je dokazno breme na strani toženih strank v postopku v glavni stvari, ki morajo dokazati, da navedeno načelo ni bilo kr�eno.
In that context, the respondents could contest the existence of such a breach by establishing by any legally permissible means, in particular, that the employee’s treatment was justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of disability and to any association which that employee has with a disabled person.
V teh okoli�činah lahko navedene tožene stranke izpodbijajo obstoj tak�ne kr�itve, tako da z vsemi pravnimi sredstvi dokažejo zlasti, da je obravnavanje zaposlenega utemeljeno z dejavniki, ki so objektivni in ki niso povezani z diskriminacijo na podlagi invalidnosti niti z razmerjem, ki ga ima ta zaposleni z invalidno osebo.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first part of Question 1 and to Questions 2 and 3 must be that Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev je treba na prvi del prvega vpra�anja ter na drugo in tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba Direktivo 2000/78 in zlasti njena člena 1 ter 2(1) in (2)(a) razlagati tako, da prepoved neposredne diskriminacije, ki je
2008 — CASE C-303/06 direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled.
2008 – ZADEVA C-303/06 z njimi določena, ni omejena le na invalidne osebe.
Where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a).
Če delodajalec obravnava zaposlenega, ki ni invalid, manj ugodno, kakor je, je bil ali bi bil obravnavan drug zaposleni v primerljivem položaju, in če se dokaže, da se tega zaposlenega obravnava manj ugodno zaradi invalidnosti njegovega otroka, kateremu nudi bistveni del oskrbe, ki jo ta potrebuje, se s tak�nim obravnavanjem kr�i prepoved neposredne diskriminacije iz navedenega člena 2(2)(a).
The second part of Question 1, and Question 4
Drugi del prvega vprašanja in četrto vprašanje
By these questions, which should be examined together, the referring tribunal asks, in essence, whether Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as prohibiting harassment related to disability only in respect of an employee who is himself disabled, or whether the prohibition of harassment applies equally to an employee who is not himself disabled but who, as in the present case, is the victim of unwanted conduct amounting to harassment related to the disability of his child, for whom he is the primary provider of the care required by virtue of the child’s condition.
S tema vpra�anjema, ki ju je treba obravnavati skupaj, predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba Direktivo 2000/78 in zlasti njena člena 1 ter 2(1) in (3) razlagati tako, da je nadlegovanje zaradi invalidnosti prepovedano le zoper zaposlenega, ki je invalid, ali pa se nana�a prepoved nadlegovanja tudi na zaposlenega, ki ni invalid, vendar so z njim, kot v postopku v glavni stvari, nezaželeno ravnali, kar je element nadlegovanja, zaradi invalidnosti njegovega otroka, kateremu nudi bistveni del oskrbe, ki jo zahteva njegovo zdravstveno stanje.
Since, under Article 2(3) of Directive 2000/78, harassment is deemed to be a form of discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(1), it must be held that, for the same reasons as those set out in paragraphs 34 to 51 of this judgment, that directive, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as not being limited to the prohibition of harassment of people who are themselves disabled.
Ker se nadlegovanje na podlagi člena 2(3) Direktive 2000/78 �teje za obliko diskriminacije v smislu odstavka 1 tega člena, je treba opozoriti, da je treba iz istih razlogov, kot so bili navedeni v točkah od 34 do 51 te sodbe, to direktivo in njena člena 1 ter 2(1) in (3) razlagati tako, da prepoved nadlegovanja ni omejena le na invalidne osebe.
Where it is established that the unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such conduct is contrary to the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Directive 2000/78 and, in particular, to the prohibition of harassment laid down by Article 2(3) thereof.
Če se dokaže, da je nezaželeno ravnanje, ki je element nadlegovanja, zoper zaposle -nega, ki ni invalid, povezano z invalidnostjo njegovega otroka, kateremu nudi bistveni del oskrbe, ki jo ta potrebuje, se s tak�nim ravnanjem kr�i načelo enakega obravnavanja, ki je določeno z Direktivo 2000/78, in zlasti prepoved nadlegovanja iz člena 2(3) te direktive.
In that regard, it must nevertheless be borne in mind that, according to the actual wording of Article 2(3) of the directive, the concept of harassment may be defined in accordance with the national laws and practice of the Member States.
V zvezi s tem je treba vendarle spomniti, da se lahko v skladu s členom 2(3) navedene direktive pojem nadlegovanja opredeli v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in prakso držav članic.
With regard to the burden of proof which applies in situations such as that in the main proceedings, it must be observed that, since harassment is deemed to be a form of discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/78, the same rules apply to harassment as those set out in paragraphs 52 to 55 of this judgment.
V zvezi z dokaznim bremenom, ki se uporabi v tak�nem primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba opozoriti, da se za nadlegovanje uporabijo ista pravila, kot so navedena v točkah od 52 do 55 te sodbe, ker se nadlegovanje �teje za obliko diskriminacije v smislu člena 2(1) Direktive 2000/78.
Consequently, as is apparent from paragraph 54 of this judgment, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Directive 2000/78 and recital 31 in the preamble thereto, the rules on the burden of proof must be adapted when there is a prima facie case of discrimination.
Kot torej izhaja iz točke 54 te sodbe, je treba v skladu s členom 10(1) Direktive 2000/78 in njeno uvodno izjavo 31 prilagoditi pravila o dokaznem bremenu, ko se domneva, da je �lo za diskriminacijo. Če S.
In the event that Ms Coleman establishes facts from which it may be presumed that there has been harassment, the effective application of the principle of equal treatment then requires that the burden of proof should fall on the respondents, who must prove that there has been no harassment in the circumstances of the present case.
Coleman dokaže dejstva, na podlagi katerih se lahko domneva, da je �lo za nadlegovanje, se za učinkovito uporabo načela enakega obravnavanja torej zahteva, da je dokazno breme na strani toženih strank iz postopka v glavni stvari, ki morajo dokazati, da v obravnavanem primeru ni �lo za nadlegovanje.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second part of Question 1 and to Question 4 must be that Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Ar -ticles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of harassment laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled.
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev je treba na drugi del prvega vpra�anja ter na četrto vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba Direktivo 2000/78 in zlasti njena člena 1 ter 2(1) in (3) razlagati tako, da prepoved nadlegovanja, ki je z njimi določena, ni omejena le na invalidne osebe.
Where it is established that the unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such conduct is contrary to the prohibition of harassment laid down by Article 2(3).
Če se dokaže, da je nezaželeno ravnanje, ki je element nadlegovanja, zoper zaposlenega, ki ni invalid, povezano z invalidnostjo njegovega otroka, kateremu nudi bistveni del oskrbe, ki jo ta potrebuje, se s tak�nim ravnanjem kr�i prepoved nadlegovanja iz navedenega člena 2(3).
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled.
Direktivo Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splošnih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu ter zlasti njena člena 1 ter 2(1) in (2)(a) je treba razlagati tako, da prepoved neposredne diskriminacije, ki je z njimi določena, ni omejena le na invalidne osebe.
Where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a).
Če delodajalec obravnava zaposlenega, ki ni invalid, manj ugodno, kakor je, je bil ali bi bil obravnavan drug zaposleni v primerljivem položaju, in če se dokaže, da se tega zaposlenega obravnava manj ugodno zaradi invalidnosti njegovega otroka, kateremu nudi bistveni del oskrbe, ki jo ta potrebuje, se s takšnim obravnavanjem krši prepoved neposredne diskriminacije iz navedenega člena 2(2)(a).
Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of harassment laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled.
Direktivo 2000/78 in zlasti njena člena 1 ter 2(1) in (3) je treba razlagati tako, da prepoved nadlegovanja, ki je z njimi določena, ni omejena le na invalidne osebe.
Where it is established that the unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such conduct is contrary to the prohibition of harassment laid down by Article 2(3).
Če se dokaže, da je nezaželeno ravnanje, ki je element nadlegovanja, zoper zaposlenega, ki ni invalid, povezano z invalidnostjo njegovega otroka, kateremu nudi bistveni del oskrbe, ki jo ta potrebuje, se s takšnim ravnanjem krši prepoved nadlegovanja iz navedenega člena 2(3).
Case C-347/06
Zadeva C-347/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia)
(Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Concession for a public gas-distribution service — Directive 2003/55 — Early cessation at the end of a transitional period — Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)
„Členi 43 ES, 49 ES in 86 ES – Koncesija za storitev javne službe distribucije plina – Direktiva 2003/55 – Predčasen potek v prehodnem obdobju – Načeli legitimnega pričakovanja in pravne varnosti“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 24. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits (Art. 234 EC)
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Pristojnost Sodišča – Omejitve (člen 234 ES)
Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Pristojnost Sodišča – Omejitve – Pristojnost nacionalnega sodišča
SUMMARY — CASE C-347/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-347/06
Approximation of laws — Directives concerning approximation of law — Common rules for the internal market in natural gas — Directive 2003/55
Približevanje zakonodaj – Ukrepi približevanja – Skupna pravila notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom – Direktiva 2003/55
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/55, Art. 23(1))
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2003/55, člen 23(1))
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide ser -vices — Public service concession granted without a competitive tendering procedure
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Prosto opravljanje storitev – Koncesija za storitve javne službe, podeljena brez predhodnega javnega razpisa
In the context of proceedings brought under Article 234 EC, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the compatibility of a national measure with Community law.
Sodi�če v okviru postopka na podlagi člena 234 ES ne more odločati glede združljivosti nacionalnih določb s pravom Skupnosti.
The Court may, however, extract from the wording of the questions formulated by the national court, and having regard to the facts stated by the latter, those elements which concern the interpretation of Community law for the purpose of enabling the national court to resolve the legal problems before it.
Sodi�če pa lahko iz besedila vpra�anj nacionalnega sodi�ča, ob upo�tevanju podatkov, ki mu jih je to predložilo, razbere elemente v zvezi z razlago prava Skupnosti, da bi temu sodi�ču omogočilo razre�itev pravnega vpra�anja, o katerem odloča.
In the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts under Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
V okviru sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, vzpostavljenega na podlagi člena 234 ES, je le nacionalno sodi�če – ki odloča v sporu in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za sodno odločitev, ki jo je treba sprejeti – pristojno za presojo, glede na posebnosti zadeve, o tem, ali potrebuje predhodno odločbo za to, da izda sodbo, in o pomembnosti vpra�anj, ki jih zastavi Sodi�ču.
Consequently, where the questions submitted for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling.
Ker se zastavljena vpra�anja nana�ajo na razlago prava Skupnosti, Sodi�če načeloma mora odločiti.
On the other hand, it is not for the Court of Justice to rule on the inter -pretation and applicability of provisions of national law or to establish the facts relevant to the decision in the main proceedings.
Poudariti je treba tudi, da ni naloga Sodi�ča presojati o razlagi ali veljavnosti nacionalnih določb ali ugotavljati dejstev, upo�tevnih za re�itev spora o glavni stvari.
The Court must take account, under the division of jurisdiction between the Community Courts and the national courts, of the factual and legislative context, as described in the order for reference, in which the question put to it is set.
Naloga Sodi�ča je namreč, da v okviru porazdelitve pristojnosti med sodi�či Skupnosti in nacionalnimi sodi�či upo�teva dejanski in pravni okvir, v katerega je ume�čeno vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, kot je opredeljeno v predložitveni odločbi.
Directive 2003/55 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30 does not preclude legislation of a Member State from providing for the extension, on conditions which it lays down, of the length of the transitional period at the end of which the early cessation of a concession for the distribution of natural gas granted without a competitive tendering procedure must occur.
Direktiva 2003/55 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom in o razveljavitvi Direktive 98/30 ne nasprotuje temu, da ureditev države članice določa podalj�anje – pod pogoji, ki so določeni v tej ureditvi – prehodnega obdobja, v katerem mora priti do predčasnega poteka koncesije za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, podeljene brez predhodnega javnega razpisa.
In those circumstances, it must also be held
V teh okoli�činah je treba tudi �teti, da člen 10 ES
(see paras 25, 28)
(Glej točki 25 in 28.)
ASM BRESCIA that neither Article 10 EC nor the principle of proportionality precludes such legislation.
ASM BRESCIA in načelo sorazmernosti ne nasprotujeta taki ureditvi.
being necessary to enable the contracting parties to untie their contractual relations on acceptable terms both from the point of view of the requirements of the public service and from the economic point of view.
njihovih pogodbenih razmerij ob sprejemljivih pogojih tako z vidika zahtev javnih služb kot z gospodarskega vidika.
Article 23(1) of that directive sets out the calendar for the opening of the market for the supply of natural gas and provides, in particular, that the Member States must ensure that the eligible customers, that is to say those who are entitled to approach a supplier of their choice, are, from 1 July 2007, all customers.
Člen 23(1) navedene direktive določa časovni razpored dobave zemeljskega plina in zlasti to, da morajo države članice zagotoviti, da so od 1. julija 2007 upravičeni odjemalci, torej tisti, ki se imajo pravico obrniti na dobavitelja po lastni izbiri, vsi odjemalci.
That provision concerns the supply of natural gas and not its distribution.
Ta določba se nana�a na dobavo zemeljskega plina in ne na njegovo distribucijo.
Therefore, no obligation can be inferred from it for the Member States to put an end to distribution contracts granted without any competitive tendering procedure.
Na njeni podlagi torej ni mogoče sklepati o nobeni obveznosti države članice, da odpove pogodbe o distribuciji, podeljene brez javnega razpisa.
Directive 2003/55 contains, moreover, no provision on current concessions for the distribution of natural gas.
Direktiva 2003/55 poleg tega ne zajema nobene določbe o obstoječih koncesijah za distribucijo zemeljskega plina.
(see paras 38-41, operative part 1)
(Glej točke od 38 do 41 in točko 1 izreka.)
Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State to implement the common rules for the internal market in natural gas by means of the early cessation, at the end of a transitional period, of concessions for the distribution of natural gas granted without a competitive tendering procedure, from providing for the extension, on certain conditions, of the length of that transitional period, provided that such an extension can be regarded as
Členi 43 ES, 49 ES in 86(1) ES ne nasprotujejo temu, da ureditev države članice, katere namen je izvajanje skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom s predčasnim potekom koncesij v prehodnem obdobju za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, podeljenih brez predhodnega javnega razpisa, določa, če so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji, podalj�anje prehodnega obdobja, če je mogoče �teti, da je to podalj�anje potrebno, da bi se sopogodbenikom omogočila ureditev