natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That interpretation cannot, however, prevail, in so far as it not only disregards the teleological and contextual scope of Regulation No 44/2001, but also the sense of the provisions relevant in this case.
Ta razlaga se ne more uveljaviti, ker zanemarja ne samo teleolo�ke in kontekstualne razlage Uredbe �t. 44/2001, temveč tudi smisel upo�tevnih določb v tej zadevi.
In particular, it is based on the incorrect premise that Article 6(1) is an exception to the rules of jurisdiction laid down in the section concerning individual contracts of
Predvsem pa izhaja iz napačne predpostavke, da naj bi bil člen 6, točka 1, izjema od pravil
It follows from that provision, first, that any dispute concerning an individual contract of employment must be brought before the court having jurisdiction under the rules laid down in Section 5 of that regulation
Iz te določbe po eni strani izhaja, da je treba vsak spor, ki se nana�a na individualno pogodbo o zaposlitvi, predložiti sodi�ču v skladu s pravili o pristojnosti, določenimi
As I will show, the special rule of jurisdiction in Article 6(1) of the Regulation does not constitute an exception to the rules of jurisdiction concerning individual contracts of employment, but a supplement to the provisions concerning them which does not call into question the principle underlying those provisions.
Kot bom pokazal, pa pravilo o posebni pristojnosti, določeno v členu 6, točka 1, te uredbe, ne pomeni izjemo od pravil o pristojnosti glede individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi, temveč dodatek k določbam glede teh pravil, to je dodatek, ki ne vpliva na načelo, na katerem ta pravila temeljijo.
it would be surprising if, in adopting Regulation No 44/2001, the legislature had intended to deprive employees of the benefit of the more favourable rules which applied under the Brussels Convention prior to the entry into force of that regulation.
V teh okoli�činah bi bilo presenetljivo, če bi ti avtorji s sprejetjem Uredbe �t. 44/2001 hoteli delavcu odvzeti koristi, ki izhajajo iz ugodnej�ih pravil, ki jih je imel pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe v okviru Bruseljske konvencije.
The Court has, moreover, consistently pointed out that, in matters relating to contracts of employment, that convention was to be interpreted ‘[taking account] of the concern to afford proper protection to the party to the contract who is the weaker from the social point of view, in this case the employee’.
Sodi�če je poleg tega vztrajno opozarjalo, da je na področju pogodb o zaposlitvi to konvencijo treba razlagati „ob upo�tevanju zagotovitve primerne za�čite pogodbene stranke, ki je �ibkej�a s socialnega vidika, to je delavca“ 6.
6 An interpretation to the effect that, even in the case of related actions concerning a number of defendants, an employee would be required to sue each of them individually in the courts having jurisdiction in each Member State, would not only be contrary to the sound administration of justice, 7 but would also fail to protect the contracting party in the weaker position and, furthermore, deprive that party of a possibility that was previously available.
Razlaga, v skladu s katero bi tudi ob obstoju sorodnih pravd glede več toženih oseb delavec moral posamično tožiti vsakega od njih pred pristojnim sodi�čem v vsaki državi članici, pa bi bila v nasprotju ne le z interesi dobrega delovanja sodnega organa 7, temveč bi tudi zanemarila za�čito �ibkej�e pogodbene stranke in bi stranki odvzela možnost, na katero se je lahko prej zana�ala.
Accordingly, it must be considered that, although Regulation No 44/2001 provided
V teh okoli�činah je treba ugotoviti, da čeprav je Uredba �t. 44/2001 zaradi ohranitve
First of all, it should be remembered that, although the Brussels Convention did not contain a specific section on contracts of employment, the rules of jurisdiction which it laid down none the less applied to such contracts.
Predvsem je treba upo�tevati, da čeprav Bruseljska konvencija ni vsebovala posebnega oddelka glede pogodb o zaposlitvi, so se pravila o pristojnosti, ki jih je določala, zanje kljub temu uporabljala.
Thus, under the Convention, Article 6(1), allowing a number of defendants to be sued in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, was, as acknowledged by the Commission of the European Communities, perfectly well applicable to contracts of employment.
Zato je bil, kot priznava Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, člen 6, točka 1, Konvencije, v skladu s katerim je več toženih oseb mogoče tožiti pred sodi�čem v kraju, kjer ima stalno prebivali�če ena od njih, povsem uporabljiv za pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
As is pointed out in recital 5 in the preamble to Regulation No 44/2001, which followed on from the Brussels Convention, that regulation is a continuation of, and not a break from, the rules laid down in the Convention.
Uredba �t. 44/2001, ki nadome�ča Bruseljsko konvencijo, pomeni, kot je poudarjeno v peti uvodni izjavi te uredbe, nadaljevanje, ne pa razveljavitve pravil, ki jih določa Bruseljska konvencija.
Regulation No 44/2001 is thus not intended to amend substantially the content of the rules of jurisdiction, so that it is reasonable to believe that the authors of that text did not wish to exclude the application of Article 6(1) of the Regulation in the field with which we are concerned.
Z Uredbo �t. 44/2001 torej ni bilo mi�ljeno bistveno spremeniti pravila o sodni pristojnosti, tako da bi bilo mogoče sklepati, da avtorji tega besedila niso hoteli izključiti uporabe člena 6, točka 1, te uredbe na področju, s katerim se ukvarjamo.
5 — Recital 13 in the preamble to Regulation No 44/2001.
5 – Trinajsta uvodna izjava Uredbe �t. 44/2001.
6 — Case C-125/92 Mulox IBC [1993] ECR I-4075, paragraph 18.
6 – Sodba z dne 13. julija 1993 v zadevi Mulox IBC (C-125/92, Recueil, str.
Further, when Regulation No 44/2001 was drafted, it was considered desirable to create a specific section on jurisdiction in matters relating to contracts of employment because ‘the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more
Avtorji Uredbe �t. 44/2001 so poleg tega želeli oblikovati poseben oddelek v zvezi s sodno pristojnostjo na področju pogodb o zaposlitvi, saj so menili, da „[je treba] �ibkej�o
GLAXOSMITHKLINE AND LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE IN LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE nacionalnimi sodi�či iz člena 234 ES podati predložitvenemu sodi�ču uporaben odgovor, ki mu omogoča re�itev spora, o katerem odloča.
To that end and by reason of the complex and sometimes contradictory facts of this case, it would seem important to set out the conditions which the national court will need to examine in order to determine whether Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 may properly be relied on in the present case.
Zato in zaradi kompleksnih in včasih nasprotujočih si dejanskih okoli�čin v tej zadevi se zdi, da je treba pojasniti pogoje, ki jih mora predložitveno sodi�če preizkusiti, da bi ugotovilo, ali je člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe 44/2001 mogoče uporabiti v obravnavani zadevi.
for an exception to the rule of the defendant’s domicile in respect of contracts of employment, with a view to preserving the interests of the weaker party to the contract, the failure to take account of the case where a number of related claims are brought against a number of defendants in Section 5 must be understood as a lacuna in that text.
interesov �ibkej�e pogodbene stranke za pogodbe o delu določila izjemo od pravila stalnega prebivali�ča tožene osebe, je treba neupo�tevanje predpostavke več sorodnih pravd zoper več toženih oseb v oddelku 5 razumeti kot pravno praznino v tem besedilu.
That lacuna is filled by Article 6(1) of the Regulation, which makes it possible to supplement the rules applicable to contracts of employment without thereby calling into question the principles underlying those rules, namely, in particular, the protection of the weaker party to the contract and, more generally, the desire to prevent the multiplication of courts having jurisdiction.
To pravno praznino odpravlja člen 6, točka 1, te uredbe, s katerim je mogoče dopolniti pravila, ki so uporabljiva za pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ne da bi bilo to v nasprotju z načeli, na katerih temeljijo, zlasti z za�čito �ibkej�e pogodbene stranke in, bolj splo�no, z željo izogniti se povečevanju �tevila pristojnih sodi�č.
The applicability of Article 6(1) is of use in correcting the failure to take account of a characteristic of these cases, namely related claims in matters relating to contracts of employment, without however undermining the rules of jurisdiction which govern them.
Uporabljivost člena 6, točka 1, je namreč uporabno sredstvo za odpravo napake neupo�tevanja značilnosti zadeve, in sicer obstoja sorodnih pravd na področju pogodb o zaposlitvi, ne da bi to nasprotovalo pravilom o sodni pristojnosti, ki to področje urejajo.
As has been pointed out, Regulation No 44/2001 does not mark a break from the principles laid down in the Brussels Convention, but is a continuation of the rules laid down therein.
Kot je bilo poudarjeno, Uredba �t. 44/2001 ne razveljavlja načel iz Bruseljske konvencije, temveč pomeni nadaljevanje le-te.
Consequently, the Court’s caselaw on Article 6(1) of the Convention remains relevant in the context of the application to the dispute of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001.
Pojasnila Sodi�ča, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse glede člena 6, točka 1, Konvencije, prav tako ostajajo upo�tevna za spor v okviru uporabe člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t. 44/2001.
For all of those reasons, I would invite the Court to find that Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 is applicable in the context of individual contracts of employment.
Zaradi teh razlogov Sodi�če pozivam, naj ugotovi, da je člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t. 44/2001 uporabljiv v okviru individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi.
The application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 is subject to the condition that ‘the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings’.
Člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t. 44/2001 je mogoče uporabiti pod pogojem, „[da] so tožbeni zahtevki med seboj tako tesno povezani, da jih je smotrno obravnavati in o njih odločati skupaj, da bi se s tem izognili tveganju nezdružljivosti sodnih odločb, ki bi lahko bile posledica ločenih postopkov“.
B — The conditions governing the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 in the context of individual contracts of employment
B – Pogoji uporabe člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe št. 44/2001 v okviru individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi
It is established caselaw that, in the procedure laid down by Article 234 EC providing for cooperation between national
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso mora Sodi�če v okviru postopka sodelovanja z
That condition, which did not appear in the original version of the provision in the
Ta pogoj, ki ga v prvotnem besedilu te določbe iz Bruseljske konvencije ni bilo,
Brussels Convention, is taken directly from Article 22 of that convention, according to which actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-462/06 neposredno izhaja iz člena 22 te konvencije, v skladu s katerim so pravde sorodne, če so tako tesno povezane med seboj, da se zdita njihova skupna obravnava in odločanje o njih smiselna, da bi se s tem izognili nevarnosti nezdružljivih sodnih odločb, ki bi izhajale iz ločenih postopkov.
pretation, the application of special jurisdiction where there are a number of defendants is conditional on the fact that there is a risk that separate trial and judgment of cases might give rise to mutually exclusive legal consequences.
nevarnost pravnih posledic, ki bi se medsebojno izključevale.
By contrast, under a broad interpretation of the term ‘irreconcilable judgments’, it is sufficient that the separate trial and judgment of cases would involve the risk of conflicting decisions, without necessarily involving the risk of giving rise to mutually exclusive legal consequences.
Na podlagi �iroke razlage pojma „nezdružljivost sodnih odločb“ pa zadostuje, da zaradi ločenega obravnavanja in odločanja lahko pride do nevarnosti neskladja med re�itvami spora, ne da bi bilo nujno, da pride do nevarnosti pravnih posledic, ki bi se medsebojno izključevale 9.
9Without deciding in favour of either of those interpretations, the Court has also pointed out that, ‘in order that decisions may be regarded as contradictory, it is not sufficient that there be a divergence in the outcome of the dispute, but that divergence must also arise in the context of the same situation of law and fact’. 10
Sodi�če je, ne da bi se izreklo v korist ene ali druge razlage, tudi pojasnilo, da „za to, da bi se za sodne odločbe lahko �telo, da so si nasprotujoče, ne zado�ča, da obstaja neskladje med re�itvami spora, ampak mora priti do neskladja v okviru istega dejanskega in pravnega stanja“ 10.
In Kalfelis, the Court found it necessary to transpose the requirement of a connection between the claims in the context of the interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention.
Sodi�če je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kalfelis razsodilo, da je treba pogoj sorodnih pravd, pogoj, ki je bil pozneje povzet v besedilu člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t.
That requirement was later adopted when Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 was drafted, in order to prevent the use of that special jurisdiction from affecting the principle that the courts for the place where the defendant is domiciled have jurisdiction.
44/2001, prenesti v okvir razlage člena 6, točka 1, Bruseljske konvencije, da bi se preprečilo, da bi uporaba te posebne pristojnosti vplivala na pristojnost po načelu stalnega prebivali�ča toženca.
In the Court’s view, ‘that possibility might arise if a plaintiff were at liberty to make a claim against a number of defendants with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of the State where one of the defendants is domiciled’. 8
Sodi�če namreč meni, da „bi do tega lahko pri�lo, če bi tožeča stranka lahko vložila zahtevek zoper več toženih strank zgolj zato, da bi eno od teh toženih strank tožila pred sodi�čem države, v kateri ima stalno prebivali�če“ 8.
In reality, it is not necessary to pursue that debate further.
V resnici te razprave ni treba nadaljevati. Iz Uredbe �t.
It is clear from Regulation No 44/2001 and from the caselaw cited that the decisive element for determining whether Article 6(1) of the Regulation is applicable is, above all, the existence of a particularly close connection between the claims.
44/2001 in iz zgoraj navedene sodne prakse namreč jasno izhaja, da je za uporabo člena 6, točka 1, te uredbe odločilen obstoj tesne povezanosti med zahtevki.
That connecting factor can probably only be assessed on a case-by-case basis and, more specifically, in relation to the particular
Ta povezanost pa se lahko presoja zgolj od primera do primera, natančneje, glede
The term ‘irreconcilable judgments’ in the proviso governing the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 may be interpreted in many ways.
Pojem „nezdružljivost sodnih odločb“, ki je pogoj za uporabo člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t. 44/2001, je mogoče razlagati na več načinov.
9 — For a discussion and analysis of that question, reference can be made to the Opinion of Advocate General Léger in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Roche Nederland and Others, and to Bomhoff.
9 – Za priklic in analizo tega vpra�anja se lahko koristno sklicujemo na sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca P.
J, Judicial Discretion in European Law on Conflicts of Jurisdiction, SDU, The Hague, 2005.
Légerja, predstavljene v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Roche Nederland in drugi, ter na Bomhoff, J.: Judicial Discretion in European Law on Conflicts of Jurisdiction, Sdu, Haag, 2005.
10 — Roche Nederland and Others, paragraph 26, and Case C-98/06 Freeport [2007] ECR I-8319, paragraph 40.
10 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Roche Nederland in drugi (točka 26) in sodba z dne 11. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Freeport (C-98/06, ZOdl., str. I-8319, točka 40).
8 — Kalfelis, paragraph 9.
8 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Kalfelis (točka 9).
GLAXOSMITHKLINE AND LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE matters concerning which that special rule of jurisdiction is applicable.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE IN LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE na vsako področje, na katerem naj bi se to pravilo posebne pristojnosti uporabilo.
Second, that connection, when it has to be verified in the context of employment contracts, requires, in the light of the matters concerned, that account be taken of a certain number of criteria calculated to reveal the existence of a close connection between the cases in this particular field.
Drugič, ko je to povezanost treba preveriti v okviru pogodb o zaposlitvi, je glede na zadevno področje treba upo�tevati določeno �tevilo meril, ustreznih za ugotovitev obstoja tesne zveze med zahtevki na zadevnem področju.
In that context, the defendant in the main proceedings considers that the requirement that the two claims be connected is met, in so far as, first, there was ‘only one contract of employment or, at the very least, there was a continuous employment relationship’ 13 with his two employers and, second, the two companies belong to the same group of companies.
Tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari na podlagi tega meni, da naj bi bil pogoj povezave med zahtevkoma izpolnjen, če bi po eni strani obstajala „ista pogodba o zaposlitvi ali vsaj isto kontinuirano delovno razmerje“ 13z njenima delodajalcema, po drugi strani pa, če družbi pripadata isti skupini družb.
Such an interpretation would be tantamount to introducing an additional condition to the application of Article 6(1), which as a derogation from the basic rule of jurisdiction, can only be inter-
12 – Sodi�če je namreč vedno odklanjalo sprejeti teorijo „pajek v mreži“ („spider in the web“), ki so jo za namene razlage člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t.
12 — The Court has always refused to accept the ‘spider in the web’ theory elaborated, in particular by Dutch judges for the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001.
44/2001 razvili zlasti nizozemski sodniki.
The Community Court clearly rejected that theory in Roche Nederland and Others.
Sodi�če Skupnosti je to teorijo jasno zavrnilo z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Roche Nederland in drugi.
As acknowledged by the Commission and the United Kingdom at the hearing, the solution to this problem must be sought in Pugliese.
Kot sta na obravnavi priznala Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo, je treba re�itev tega problema iskati v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Pugliese.
The Court, which was called to give a ruling on the interpretation of ‘the place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, incidentally provided guidance for determining the extent to which two contracts of employment concluded with different employers are linked.
Ko je bilo Sodi�če poklicano, naj se izreče o razlagi pojma kraja, v katerem delavec običajno opravlja svoje delo, je ob tej priložnosti podalo pojasnila glede ugotavljanja stopnje povezanosti med dvema pogodbama o zaposlitvi, sklenjenima z različnima delodajalcema.
That caselaw strikes me as being particularly relevant as regards the factors which may be taken into account by the national court when verifying the connection between claims relating to contracts of employment that enables a number of defendants to be sued in the courts where any one of them is domiciled.
Menim, da je ta sodna praksa posebno pomembna glede meril, ki jih nacionalno sodi�če lahko upo�teva, ko preverja povezanost med zahtevki na področju pogodb o zaposlitvi, na podlagi katere je več toženih oseb mogoče tožiti pred sodi�čem v kraju stalnega prebivali�ča ene od njih 14.
16Consequently, it is in the light of all of those criteria, which are not exhaustive, that the national court will have to determine whether there is a sufficient connection between the two claims to enable the defendant in the main proceedings to sue the two appellant companies in the French courts.
Zato bo nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi vseh teh meril, ki niso taksativno navedena, moralo ugotoviti, ali obstaja zadostna povezava med zahtevkoma, ki toženi stranki v postopku v glavni stvari omogoča, da dve družbi – tožeči stranki v glavni stvari – toži pred francoskim sodi�čem.
The Court thus ruled that, ‘when an employee is connected to two different employers, the first employer can be sued before the courts of the place where the employee carries out his work for the second employer only when, at the time of the conclusion of the second contract of employment, the first employer itself has an interest in the employee’s performance of the service for the second employer in a place decided on by the latter … [T]he existence of that interest does not have to be strictly verified according to formal and exclusive criteria, but must be determined in an overall manner taking into consideration all the facts of the case’.
Sodi�če je tako razsodilo, da „ko je zaposlena oseba povezana z različnima delodajalcema, je prvega delodajalca mogoče tožiti pred sodi�čem v kraju, kjer zaposlena oseba opravlja svojo dejavnost za drugega delodajalca, zgolj če ima prvi delodajalec v trenutku sklenitve druge pogodbe interes za storitve, ki jih bo zaposlena oseba opravljala za drugega delodajalca v kraju, ki ga slednji določi […].
15The Community Court states, inter alia,
Obstoj tega interesa se ne sme ugotavljati v skladu s formalnimi in izključnimi merili, temveč ga je treba preverjati na splo�en način, ob upo�tevanju vseh okoli�čin obrav-
In the light of the above, the Court could conclude that a prerequisite for the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 is a connection between the claims sufficient to ensure, whatever court is seised, that it has a close link to the case.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno bi Sodi�če lahko ugotovilo, da je pogoj za uporabo člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe 44/2001 obstoj povezave med zahtevki, tako da je zagotovljeno, ne glede na sodi�če, ki o zadevi odloča, da obstaja tesna zveza z zadevo.
To assess such a connection in the context of individual contracts of employment, account could be taken, inter alia, of the fact that the conclusion of the second contract was envisaged when the first was being concluded, the fact that the first contract was amended on account of the conclusion of the second contract, the circumstance that there is an organisational or economic link between the two employers, the fact that there is
Za presojo te povezave v okviru individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi bo med drugim mogoče upo�tevati dejstvo, da je bila sklenitev druge pogodbe predvidena ob sklenitvi prve, dejstvo, da je bila prva pogodba spremenjena ob upo�tevanju
14 — A hint of such use of that judgment has already appeared in legal literature.
14 – Doktrina je že predvidela tako uporabo te sodbe.
See, inter alia, Moizard. N, RJS, 10/03, p.
Glej zlasti Moizard, N., RJS, 10/03, str.
756, where it is stated: ‘It is highly likely that the criteria in Pugliese will be very useful for determining which courts have jurisdiction in a dispute following international relocation within a group of companies’.
756, kjer je poudarjeno: „Zelo je verjetno, da bodo merila iz sodbe Pugliese zelo uporabna pri ugotavljanju pristojnega sodi�ča za spor na podlagi prehodnosti na mednarodni ravni znotraj skupine družb.“
15 — Pugliese, paragraphs 23 and 24.
15 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Pugliese (točki 23 in 24).16 – Prav tam (točka 24).