natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As to the second statement, by contrast, the appellant observes that it is not a question here of challenging an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party but only of proving discriminatory treatment between two persons belonging to the same category.
Glede druge navedbe pa pojasnjuje, da njegov predlog ne izpodbija nezakonitosti nekega ravnanja, storjenega v korist drugim, temveč sku�a dokazati, da sta dve skupini subjektov, ki pripadata isti kategoriji, deležni neenakega obravnavanja.
The Commission first repeats the text of Article 1(3)(a) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations to confirm that the new pension scheme makes no provision for any link to the cost of living in Brussels.
Komisija se sklicuje predvsem na besedilo člena 1(3)(a) Priloge XI h Kadrovskim predpisom in poudarja, da v novem pokojninskem sistemu ni predvidena nobena navezava na življenjske stro�ke v Bruslju.
It is common ground, in the caselaw, that one of the conditions for the admissibility of an action is having a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
Iz sodne prakse nedvomno izhaja, da je eden izmed pogojev za dopustnost pravnega sredstva tudi pravni interes.
Moreover, this is a matter of public policy that can be raised of the Court’s own motion.
Poleg tega gre pri tem za procesno predpostavko javnega reda, ki jo lahko sodi�če Skupnosti preizkusi po uradni dolžnosti. 24
However, I consider that the point of departure for the appellant’s position is incorrect.
Vendar menim, da je pritožnik predlog vnovič oblikoval na napačnih izhodi�čih.
It is clear that the appellant did not (and does not) have an interest in contesting the correction coefficient of 100% applied to pensioners living in Belgium (or rather, to be precise, the absence of a correction coefficient in accordance with Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations).
Jasno je, da pritožnikov namen ni bil (in ni) oporekati uporabi korekcijskega koeficienta, enakega 100 %, ki se priznava upokojencem s prebivali�čem v Belgiji (ali, natančneje, neuporabi korekcijskega koeficienta, določeni v skladu s členom 3(5) Priloge XI h Kadrovskim predpisom).
If the arguments he has presented in this regard were accepted, the result could only be a reduction in the pension paid to former officials of the Communities living in Belgium, without any concrete advantage accruing to the appellant.
Morebitna ugoditev njegovim predlogom v tem smislu bi namreč posledično privedla le do znižanja pokojnin, priznanih nekdanjim uradnikom Skupnosti s prebivali�čem v Belgiji, medtem ko sam s tem ne bi pridobil nobene prednosti.
In fact, since, under Article 1(3) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations, the pensions of former officials are adjusted using correction coefficients calculated ‘with reference to Belgium’, it cannot be ruled out that accepting the plea from that point of view could, in the final analysis, lead to a reduction in the appellant’s own pension, calculated by applying to the ‘basic’ pension, which is that paid to pensioners living in Belgium, a specific coefficient of more than 100% for the United Kingdom.
Glede na to, da se v skladu s členom 1(3) Priloge XI k novim Kadrovskim predpisom pokojnine nekdanjih uradnikov prilagajajo ob upo�tevanju korekcijskih koeficientov, izračunanih „glede na Bruselj“, celo ni mogoče izključiti, da bi bila v primeru, če bi bilo njegovemu predlogu v tem smislu ugodeno, znižana tudi njegova pokojnina, izračunana na podlagi „osnovne“ pokojnine – to je tiste, do katere so upravičeni upokojenci s prebivali�čem v Belgiji – in z upo�tevanjem koeficienta za Združeno kraljestvo, ki presega 100 %.
In order for the appellant’s argument to be considered admissible, in that it is
Pogoj pravnega interesa je torej izpolnjen in posledično trditev pritožnika �teta
A brief summary of the factual situation is in order here.
V zvezi s tem naj �e enkrat povzamem dejansko stanje.
There is a basic amount for the pension of each former official of the Communities, which, in the scheme provided for in the new Staff Regulations, can never be reduced, irrespective of the pensioner’s place of residence.
Izračun pokojnine za vsakega nekdanjega uradnika Skupnosti temelji na osnovnem znesku, ki v sistemu, predvidenem z novimi Kadrovskimi predpisi, ne more biti znižan, in sicer ne glede na kraj prebivali�ča upokojenca.
In other words, the minimum correction coefficient is 100% (which obviously means that there is no need for a correction coefficient).
Povedano drugače, minimalen korekcijski koeficient, ki se uporabi, je 100 % (iz česar sledi, da korekcijskega koeficienta pravzaprav ni).
In the other Member States, a correction coefficient calculated on the basis of the difference between the cost of living in the Member State in which they live and the cost of living in Belgium (cf.
31/2005 priznana upokojencem s prebivali�čem na Če�kem, v Estoniji, Grčiji, Španiji, na Cipru, v Latviji, Litvi, na Madžarskem, Malti, Poljskem, Portugalskem, v Sloveniji, na Slova-�kem in – v skladu z določbami Priloge XI h Kadrovskim predpisom – upokojencem s prebivali�čem v Belgiji in v Luksemburgu, to je v dveh državah, za kateri se ne uporabljajo korekcijski koeficienti.
Article 1(3)(a)(ii) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations) is applied to pensioners in the position of the appellant, who acquired their pension rights before the new Staff Regulations came into force, which produces an increase in the amount of pension actually paid.
Pokojnina upokojencev, ki imajo kot pritožnik prebivali�če v drugih državah članicah in ki so pokojninske pravice pridobili pred uveljavitvijo novih Kadrovskih predpisov, se izračuna z upo�tevanjem korekcijskega koeficienta, določenega na podlagi razlike med življenjskimi stro�ki v državi prebivali�ča in življenjskimi stro�ki v Belgiji (prim. člen 1(3)(a)(ii) Priloge XI k novim Kadrovskim predpisom), kar jim zagotavlja dejansko vi�jo pokojnino glede na osnovni znesek.
Under Article 3 of Regulation No 31/2005,
Na podlagi navedenega člena 3
E — Discrimination in relation to pensioners living in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States
Uredbe �t. 31/2005, na primer, se za pokojnine upokojencev s prebivali�čem v Združenem kraljestvu od 1. julija 2004 uporablja korekcijski koeficient 137,5 %.
It is therefore obvious, on the basis of this factual background, that the Court of First Instance correctly stated, at paragraph 117 of the judgment under appeal, that the new pension scheme makes no reference to the cost of living in Brussels.
Iz opisa dejanskega stanja torej izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 117 izpodbijane sodbe pravilno ugotovilo, da življenjski stro�ki v Bruslju v novi pokojninski ureditvi niso nikjer upo�tevani v smislu izhodi�ča za odmero pokojnin.
Simply, for the pensions and the salaries of serving officials for Belgium (and Luxembourg), there is no provision to apply any correction coefficient to the reference amounts.
Določeno je le, da se za pokojnine nekdanjih uradnikov in za plače aktivno zaposlenih uradnikov, ki prebivajo v Belgiji (in v Luksemburgu), ne uporablja noben korekcijski koeficient za prilagoditev izhodi�čnih zneskov.
Finally, the appellant reiterates the fourth argument raised before the Court of First Instance to support his claim of a difference in treatment, an argument based on the advantage allegedly given to pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ Member States by applying a correction coefficient of 100% to them under the new scheme.
Končno, v zadevni pritožbi pritožnik povzema četrto trditev, ki jo je navajal v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje v podporo zatrjevani kr�itvi načela enakega obravnavanja in ki temelji na domnevnem dejstvu, da je upokojencem s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah v novem sistemu priznana prednost, saj se za njihove pokojnine uporablja korekcijski koeficient 100 %.
In particular, he maintains that the Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that he had no interest in bringing proceedings to challenge that alleged advantage.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi po njegovem mnenju zmotno ugotovilo, da za uveljavljanje tak�nega razloga ni izkazoval pravnega interesa.
It is true that, in the changeover from the old to the new Staff Regulations, the reference amount for pensions was not changed.
Res je tudi, da se v prehodnem obdobju, določenem za postopno uvajanje določb novih Kadrovskih predpisov, izhodi�čni znesek za izračun pokojnin ni spreminjal.
Moreover, if that amount had been reduced, the pension actually paid to the appellant would have decreased.
Le če bi bil ta znesek znižan, bi se tudi pokojnina, dejansko izplačana pritožniku, znižala.
The arguments developed by the Court of First Instance in addition to the basic finding mentioned above, in particular at paragraphs 124 and 125, are in my view superfluous for the purpose of ruling on the plea put forward by the appellant, no matter how correct they may be as a matter of principle.
Dodatne trditve, s katerimi je Sodi�če prve stopnje podprlo svojo temeljno ugotovitev, navedene zlasti v točkah 124 in 125, so po mojem mnenju sicer načeloma pravilne, vendar odvečne in nepomembne za odločitev v zvezi s tem pritožbenim razlogom.
The appellant recognises that, according to consistent caselaw, there is a need for a legal interest to justify the admissibility of a complaint.
Pritožnik priznava, da iz sodne prakse izhaja, da je pravno sredstvo dopustno le, če vlagatelj izpolnjuje pogoj pravnega interesa.
He considers, however, in contrast to the view expressed by the Court of First Instance at paragraph 135 of the judgment under appeal, that in his case such an interest exists.
Vendar v nasprotju z ugotovitvami Sodi�ča prve stopnje, navedenimi v točki 135 izpodbijane sodbe, trdi, da je v njegovem primeru pravni interes izkazan.
In particular, his legal interest in bringing proceedings derives from the fact that, once again, the situation of pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ States by comparison with the situation of the appellant testifies to the existence of a discriminatory difference in treatment.
Pravni interes naj bi potrjevala okoli�čina, da je njegov položaj v primerjavi s položajem upokojencev s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah slab�i, kar naj bi dokazovalo, da je podano neenako obravnavanje diskriminatorno.
Moreover, the appellant also challenges the argument of the Court of First Instance that, since the pension scheme for
Pritožnik oporeka tudi razlagi Sodi�ča prve stopnje, v skladu s katero – glede na to, da pokojninski sistem za nekdanje uradnike
I therefore consider that the second argument relied upon by the appellant in connection with the plea should also be dismissed, there being no discriminatory difference in treatment between the appellant and retired former officials of the Communities living in Belgium.
Zato menim, da je treba tudi drugo trditev, ki jo pritožnik navaja v okviru pritožbenega razloga, zavrniti, saj je pritožnik v primerjavi z upokojenci, nekdanjimi uradniki Skupnosti, s prebivali�čem v Belgiji, obravnavan enako in zatrjevana diskriminacija ni podana.
Assessment former officials of the Communities does not operate as a pension fund but is based on the principle of solidarity, any reduction in the pensions paid to former officials living in ‘less expensive’ Member States would confer no advantage on the appellant.
Skupnosti ni organiziran kot pokojninski sklad, temveč na podlagi načela solidarnosti – tudi morebitno znižanje pokojnin, priznanih nekdanjim uradnikom s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah, ne bi vplivalo na izbolj�anje položaja pritožnika.
In particular, he maintains that the saving made in this way would make it possible, for example, to return to the application of the ‘capital method’ (paragraph 78 of the appeal).
Pritožnik namreč meni, da bi prihranek zaradi znižanja pokojnin navedenim upokojencem omogočil, na primer, vnovično uvedbo „metode glavnega mesta“ (točka 78 pritožbe).
Beginning with the Commission’s remark that the argument under examination should have been ruled inadmissible, I consider that the Commission’s position cannot be endorsed.
Naj uvodoma povem, da se z zgoraj navedenim stali�čem Komisije, da bi bilo treba obravnavano trditev zavrniti kot nedopustno, ne strinjam.
Although in the action before the Court of First Instance the appellant did not specifically mention the comparison with pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ Member States when dealing with the alleged infringement of the principle of equal treatment, it is none the less true that the argument in question was inherent, albeit in embryonic form, in the part of the application alleging misuse of powers, infringement of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons.
Čeprav se pritožnik v tožbi, vloženi na Sodi�če prve stopnje, v okviru utemeljevanja kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja ni izrecno skliceval na neenak položaj v primerjavi z upokojenci s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah, je bil namreč ta argument vsebovan, čeprav le v zametkih, v tistem delu tožbe, v katerem je pritožnik zatrjeval prekoračenje pooblastil, kr�itev načel sorazmernosti in obveznosti obrazložitve.
In particular, paragraph 93 of the application lodged with the Court of First Instance reads as follows:
V točki 93 tožbe, s katero je sprožil postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, je navajal:
‘Finally, on the basis of the various principles mentioned, the application of that rule would be contradictory because it applies to pensions a coefficient of 100 for the capitals and Member States where the coefficient is, however, below 100, as is currently the case, in particular, for Athens, Budapest, Lisbon, Prague and Warsaw.’
„Končno, na podlagi navedenih načel bi bilo treba ugotoviti, da je uporaba te določbe protislovna, saj za pokojnine določa upo�tevanje koeficienta 100 za glavna mesta države članic, v katerih je koeficient manj�i od 100, to je, na primer, za Atene, Budimpe�to, Lizbono, Prago in Var�avo […]“.
The Commission and the Council first reaffirm that, in their opinion, the Court of First Instance was correct to rule that the plea was inadmissible.
Komisija in Svet poudarjata predvsem, da je po njunem mnenju presoja Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede nedopustnosti tega razloga pravilna.
Moreover, according to those institutions, no criticism can be levelled at the observations of the Court of First Instance on the broad discretion which the Community legislature enjoys in this regard, the limits of which were not, in their view, exceeded in the present case.
Ti instituciji menita �e, da so neutemeljeni tudi očitki, ki se nana�ajo na ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede �iroke diskrecijske pravice, ki jo ima na tem področju zakonodajalec Skupnosti, in glede tega, da okvirov pooblastil v obravnavanem primeru ni prekoračil.
Bearing in mind the settled caselaw of the Court of Justice according to which, notwithstanding the general prohibition on the submission of new pleas in law, it is possible in the course of proceedings to submit pleas that may be regarded as amplifying a plea put forward previously, whether
Ob upo�tevanju stalne sodne prakse Sodi�ča, v skladu s katero je mogoče kljub splo�ni prepovedi navajanja novih razlogov med postopkom predlagati razloge, ki pomenijo raz�iritev predhodnega razloga, izrecno
The Commission goes on to maintain that the Court of First Instance should also have ruled that argument inadmissible in that it had been raised by the appellant for the first time in his reply in the proceedings at first instance (paragraph 71 of the cross-appeal).
Komisija poleg tega zagovarja stali�če, da bi moralo Sodi�če prve stopnje to trditev pritožnika zavrniti kot neutemeljeno, saj naj bi bila prvič predlagana �ele v repliki v okviru postopka na prvi stopnji (točka 71 odgovora na pritožbo).
26 complaining of a difference in treatment in relation to pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ Member States is admissible.
26 ali posredno podanega v prvi vlogi, 25 menim, da je bila trditev, s katero je pritožnik utemeljeval neenako obravnavanje v primerjavi z upokojenci s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah, dopustna.
I shall now move on to the appellant’s specific complaint in this regard.
Zato bom v nadaljevanju obravnaval tudi ta pritožnikov očitek zoper izpodbijano sodbo.
The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance incorrectly held that he had no interest in bringing proceedings.
Pritožnik trdi, da je ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da ni izkazan pravni interes, napačna.
It seems clear to me that, here, the only object of the argument put forward by the appellant is to highlight the fact that the legislature decided to apply the rules set out in the new Staff Regulations on the abolition of correction coefficients for pensions with immediate effect to pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ Member States.
Jasno je, da je edina okoli�čina, na katero se v tej trditvi sklicuje pritožnik, dejstvo, da se je zakonodajalec odločil, da se bodo za upokojence s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah takoj začele uporabljati določbe novih Kadrovskih predpisov v zvezi z opustitvijo korekcijskih koeficientov za izračun pokojnine.
By contrast, the appellant will never be subject to that new system (which would be particularly disadvantageous for him, as we have seen), since he will continue to benefit from the application of a correction coefficient of significantly more than 100%.
Ta novi sistem (ki naj bi bil za pritožnika, kot smo videli, neugoden) pa se za pritožnika ne bo nikoli uporabljal, saj se bo za izračun njegove pokojnine �e naprej upo�teval korekcijski koeficient, ki znatno presega 100 %.
To that end, in particular, the appellant disputes the findings made by the Court of First Instance at paragraph 133 et seq. of the judgment under appeal, where it stated that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that he could have benefited in some way from removal of the advantage conferred by the new Staff Regulations on pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ Member States.
V tem smislu nasprotuje predvsem navedbam Sodi�ča prve stopnje iz točke 133 in naslednjih izpodbijane sodbe, v katerih je to sodi�če ugotovilo, da pritožnik ni na noben način dokazal, da bi z odpravo ugodnosti, ki so v skladu z novimi Kadrovskimi predpisi priznane upokojencem s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah, posledično pridobil kakr�no koli prednost.
It does not appear to me that the appellant’s arguments are so convincing as to bring into question the correctness of the reasoning of the Court of First Instance.
Vendar menim, da razlaga pritožnika ni prepričljiva in da ne more omajati pravilnosti ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
Since it is clear that any reduction in the pensions paid to former officials living in ‘less expensive’ Member States, which would be the consequence of finding the decision of the legislature unlawful, would bring the appellant no obvious advantage, the reasoning followed by the Court of First Instance in finding the argument inadmissible is not, in my view, open to criticism.
Očitno je, da morebitno znižanje pokojnin, odmerjenih nekdanjim uradnikom s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah, kar bi bila posledica razglasitve nezakonitosti navedene zakonodajalčeve odločitve, pritožniku ne bi prineslo nobene prednosti, zato menim, da utemeljitvi Sodi�ča prve stopnje in ugotovitvi, da je ta trditev nedopustna, ni mogoče nasprotovati.
It is undisputed in the caselaw that, in order to contest the legality of a Community act, either directly or by way of an objection, the legal interest in bringing proceedings
Iz sodne prakse namreč nedvomno izhaja, da je mogoče zakonitost akta Skupnosti tako neposredno kot s predložitvijo ugovora izpodbijati le, če je pravni
I therefore consider that this final argument put forward by the appellant must also be rejected.
Zato ugotavljam, da je treba tudi zadnjo pritožnikovo trditev zavrniti.
Furthermore, the appellant would also have no interest in bringing proceedings if his complaint were to be interpreted as being directed, in general terms, against the decision of the legislature to abolish correction coefficients, since, as we have seen, their abolition does not affect the appellant personally.
Poleg tega pravni interes pritožnika ne bi bil izkazan niti v primeru, če bi njegov očitek razlagali v smislu, da želi z njim doseči razglasitev neveljavnosti odločitve zakonodajalca, da odpravi korekcijske koeficiente. Saj, kot smo videli, pritožnika ta odločitev osebno sploh ne prizadeva.
Under the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision on costs.
Če je pritožba zavrnjena, Sodi�če v skladu s členom 122, prvi odstavek, Poslovnika odloči tudi o stro�kih.
Pursuant to Article 69(2) of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance did in any case also briefly examine the substance of the argument in question observing that, even in that case, it cannot be held that the Community legislature exceeded the discretion it enjoys.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je na kratko preučilo to trditev tudi z vidika temelja in vnovič ugotovilo, da ni mogoče �teti, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti prekoračil svoja diskrecijska pooblastila.
These observations of the Court of First Instance, despite being succinct (having, it should be noted, been made merely in the alternative), also seem, in my opinion, to be above any possible reproach.
Menim, da tudi te ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje, čeprav niso ob�irno razložene (saj so bile podane le v zvezi s podrednim predlogom), ne morejo biti predmet upravičenih očitkov.
On the other hand, the second paragraph of the Article 122 provides that, in appeals brought by officials or other ser -vants of an institution, the Court may order the parties to share the costs where equity so requires.
Po drugi strani je v členu 122, drugi odstavek, Poslovnika predvidena možnost, da Sodi�če v pritožbah, ki jih vložijo uradniki ali drugi uslužbenci neke institucije, stro�ke razdeli med stranke postopka, kadar to zahtevajo razlogi pravičnosti.
Since these proceedings are the first before the Court of Justice to address the question of the reform of the pension scheme for officials of the Communities under the new Staff Regulations and as certain legal aspects of the new arrangements may indeed appear problematic, I suggest that the Court should order that the costs be shared.
Glede na to, da je ta postopek prvi postopek pred Sodi�čem, ki se nana�a na reformo pokojninskega sistema za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti, uvedeno z novimi Kadrovskimi predpisi, in glede na to, da je nova ureditev z določenih pravnih vidikov dejansko videti problematična, Sodi�ču predlagam, naj stro�ke razdeli med stranki.
The Community legislature decided to apply, with immediate effect, to pensioners living in ‘less expensive’ Member States, the pension calculation mechanism to be applied in the future to all former officials who have acquired their pension rights after the new Staff Regulations came into effect.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je namreč sklenil, da se bo za izračun pokojnine nekdanjih uradnikov s prebivali�čem v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah takoj začel uporabljati sistem, ki bo splo�no veljaven za vse nekdanje uradnike, ki bodo pridobili pokojninsko pravico po datumu uveljavitve novih Kadrovskih predpisov.
Moreover, in order to safeguard the position of those who, like the appellant, live in an ‘expensive’ Member State and acquired their pension rights before 1 May 2004, the legislature provided for a correction coefficient to be maintained for their benefit, albeit one calculated differently, as we have seen.
Poleg tega je zakonodajalec z namenom, da bi upokojencem, med katere spada tudi pritožnik, s prebivali�čem v „dragih“ državah članicah, ki so pridobili pokojninske pravice pred 1. majem 2004, zagotovil nespremenjen položaj, v njihovo korist določil, naj se za izračun njihove pokojnine upo�teva korekcijski koeficient (čeprav določen z drugačno metodo).