natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Taking the view that resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings required an interpretation of Article 49 EC by the
Oberlandesgericht Celle je menilo, da re�itev spora o glavni stvari terja razlago Sodi�ča glede člena 49 ES, in prekinilo odločanje ter mu v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
By this question, the court of reference essentially asks whether the Treaty rules on the freedom to provide services must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Landesvergabegesetz, that requires contractors and, indirectly, their subcontractors to pay workers posted in the
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s tem vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje v bistvu izvedeti, ali je pravila Pogodbe v zvezi s svobodo opravljanja storitev treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je deželni zakon, ki izbranim ponudnikom in, posredno, njihovim podizvajalcem nalaga,
framework of the performance of a public contract at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where those services are performed, on pain of penalties that may go as far as the termination of the works contract, where the collective agreement to which the legislation in question refers is not declared to be of universal application.
naj delavcem, napotenim v okviru izvedbe javnega naročila, izplačajo najmanj plačo, določeno s kolektivno pogodbo, ki se uporablja v kraju, kjer se te storitve izvajajo, v nasprotnem primeru lahko sankcije privedejo celo do razdrtja podjemne pogodbe, kadar kolektivna pogodba, na katero se sklicuje ta zakonodaja, ni razgla�ena za splo�no uporabno.
Some of these governments also examine the question from the point of view of Direct- ive 96/71 and are of the opinion that the directive does not preclude the measure at issue in the main proceedings.
Nekatere izmed teh vlad analizirajo vpra�anje tudi z vidika Direktive 96/71 in menijo, da ta ne nasprotuje ukrepu iz postopka v glavni stvari.
Land Niedersachsen, the German and Danish Governments, Ireland and the Cypriot, Austrian, Finnish and Norwegian Governments consider essentially that Article 49 EC does not preclude a measure such as the one at issue in the main proceedings.
Land Niedersachsen, danska in nem�ka vlada, Irska in ciprska, avstrijska, finska ter norve�ka vlada v bistvu menijo, da člen 49 ES ne nasprotuje ukrepu, kot je ukrep iz postopka v glavni stvari.
In so far as the measure constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services, it is justified inter alia by the objective of worker protection and proportionate to achievement of that objective.
Ker pomeni omejitev svobode opravljanja storitev, ga upravičuje, med drugim, cilj varstva delavcev in je v sorazmerju z uresničitvijo tega cilja.
The Polish Government, by contrast, takes the view that Directive 96/71 does not justify making the award of a contract subject to the service provider’s paying posted workers wages above the minimum rate mentioned in Article 3(1)(c) of that directive.
Nasprotno pa poljska vlada zatrjuje, da Direktiva 96/71 ne more upravičiti ukrepa, ki oddajo naročila pogojuje s tem, da ponudnik napotenim delavcem izplača vi�jo plačo od minimalne postavke, ki izhaja iz člena 3(1)(c) te direktive.
That government points out that it is evident from the order for reference that the levels of remuneration laid down in the collective agreements in force at the place where the services are performed are significantly higher than the minimum defined in the AEntG.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa naj bi torej izhajalo, da so ravni osebnih prejemkov, ki jih določa kolektivna pogodba, ki se uporablja v kraju, kjer se izvajajo storitve, znatno vi�je od minimalnega osebnega prejemka, ki ga predpisuje AEntG.
The Belgian Government considers that such a restriction may be justified, first where the workers do not enjoy a comparable level of protection under the law of the Member State where their employer is established, so that the application of the national rules of the host State confers a genuine benefit on them, significantly adding to their social protection, and secondly where the application of those rules is proportionate to the public interest objective pursued.
Belgijska vlada meni, da je to oviro mogoče upravičiti, prvič, kadar delavci niso deležni primerljivega varstva na podlagi zakonodaje države sedeža podjetja, tako da jim uporaba nacionalnih predpisov države gostiteljice prina�a dejansko korist, ki občutno prispeva k njihovi socialni varnosti, in drugič, kadar je uporaba teh predpisov sorazmerna z zasledovanim ciljem v javnem interesu. Po
In the alternative, the Polish Government maintains that the measure at issue in the main proceedings infringes Article 49 EC.
Poljska vlada podredno navaja, da je ukrep iz postopka v glavni stvari v nasprotju s členom 49 ES.
According to that government, it constitutes an unjustified obstacle to the freedom to provide services.
Po njenem mnenju pomeni neupravičeno oviro za svobodo opravljanja storitev.
It shares the view of the court of reference that the purpose of the Landesvergabegesetz is to shield German building undertakings from competition from other Member States, thereby de facto achieving an economic purpose which,
Strinja se s stali�čem, da je namen določb deželnega zakona za�čititi nem�ka gradbena podjetja pred konkurenco iz drugih
RÜFFERT industry or profession concerned and within the territorial scope of such agreements.
RÜFFERT spo�tovati vsa podjetja iz zadevnega sektorja ali poklica, ki sodijo v krajevno področje uporabe te pogodbe.
according to the caselaw of the Court, cannot justify a restriction on a fundamental freedom.
držav članic, ki s tem de facto uresničujejo gospodarski cilj, ki v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča ne more upravičiti omejitve temeljne svobode.
According to the Polish Government, such provisions go beyond what is necessary to combat unfair competition, that objective being adequately attained by the setting of a minimum rate of pay in the AEntG.
Take določbe presegajo tisto, kar je potrebno za boj proti nelojalni konkurenci, ker je ta cilj mogoče zadostno doseči z določitvijo minimalnih postavk plačila v AEntG.
For that reason, the Commission considers that, in so far as the Landesvergabegesetz requires compliance with a level of remuneration laid down in a collective agreement that has not been declared to be universally applicable, that law must be considered incompatible with Directive 96/71.
Zato Komisija meni, da če bi deželni zakon nalagal spo�tovanje ravni plačil, ki bi ga predpisovala kolektivna pogodba, ki ni razgla�ena za splo�no uporabno, bi morali �teti, da je ta zakon v neskladju z Direktivo 96/71.
It would thus fall outside the scope of the guarantees that Community law provides with regard to the minimum remuneration of posted workers and which are harmonised by that directive.
Tako naj namreč ne bi spadala v okvir jamstev, ki ga zakonodaja Skupnosti določa na področju minimalnega plačila napotenih delavcev in ki je usklajen s to direktivo.
The Commission of the European Communities considers that the dispute in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Directive 96/71 and that the question referred for a preliminary ruling should therefore be examined first and foremost in the light of that directive.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti meni, da spor o glavni stvari spada na področje uporabe Direktive 96/71 in da je torej treba vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje najprej preučiti glede na to direktivo.
It states that the aim of that directive is to strike a balance between the freedom to provide services and the protection of posted workers.
Izpostavlja, da je cilj te direktive ustvariti ravnovesje med svobodo opravljanja storitev in varstvom napotenih delavcev.
In order to achieve that objective, the Community legislature established, in Article 3 of Directive 96/71, a detailed framework with which the Member States must comply.
Da bi ga dosegel, naj bi zakonodajalec Skupnosti v členu 3 Direktive 96/71 vzpostavil podroben okvir, ki bi ga države članice morale spo�tovati.
The Commission adds that the Law of a Land which has the purpose of imposing more demanding terms and conditions of employment solely for posted workers employed in the framework of public contracts, in other words in only one area of economic life, cannot in any event serve an overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 49 EC nor be an appropriate way of pursuing such an interest.
Komisija dodaja, da deželni zakon, katerega cilj naj bi bil določiti strožje pogoje za delo in zaposlitev le za napotene delavce, ki so zaposleni v okviru javnih naročil, torej le v enem delu gospodarskega segmenta, v nobenem primeru ne more ustrezati vi�jemu javnemu interesu v smislu člena 49 ES, niti ni primeren za zasledovanje takega interesa.
Since the Federal Republic of Germany has a system for declaring collective agreements to be of universal application, according to the Commission only the first subparagraph of Article 3(8) of the directive is relevant.
Ker Zvezna republika Nemčija določa sistem razglasitve splo�ne uporabe kolektivnih pogodb, naj bi bil upo�teven le člen 3(8), prvi pododstavek, te direktive.
Under that provision, read in conjunction with the second indent of Article 3(1) of the directive, minimum wages should be set for workers posted to Germany only under collective agreements that have been declared to be of universal application, in other words agreements that must be complied with by all undertakings in the
Na podlagi te določbe, v povezavi s členom 3(1), druga alinea, navedene direktive, se morajo minimalne plače za delavce, napotene v Nemčijo, določiti le s kolektivnimi pogodbami, ki so razgla�ene za splo�no uporabne, to pomeni s pogodbami, ki jih morajo
At the hearing, the French Government essentially endorsed the position held by the Commission by maintaining that Article 49 EC and Directive 96/71 do not
Francoska vlada je na obravnavi v bistvu zagovarjala isto stali�če kot Komisija in navedla, da člen 49 ES in Direktiva 96/71 ne nasprotujeta temu, da država članica za
16 prevent a Member State from applying to posted workers the minimum wage laid down in a national or local collective agreement, but on condition that the agreement in question has been declared to be universally applicable to undertakings in the industry or territory concerned.
napotene delavce uporabi minimalno plačo, ki jo določa nacionalna ali lokalna kolektivna pogodba, vendar le če je bilo razgla�eno, da se ta pogodba splo�no uporablja za podjetja v sektorju ali na zadevnem ozemlju.
I note, however, that Article 23 of the directive in question is not without interest in the present case because it expresses the notion that the performance of the work following the award of a public contract must comply with the employment protection provisions and the working conditions in force in the place where the work is to be carried out.
Vendar ugotavljam, da člen 23 zadevne direktive ni v celoti brez pomena v okviru obravnavane zadeve, saj izraža idejo, po kateri je treba pogodbo po dodelitvi javnega naročila izpolniti v skladu z določbami o varstvu in pogojih za delo, ki veljajo v kraju, kjer je treba opraviti dela.
In the light of these observations, it should first be noted that, in order to provide a useful reply to the court which has referred to it a question for a preliminary ruling, the Court may be required to take into consideration rules of Community law to which the national court did not refer in its question. 15
Glede na te ugotovitve je treba najprej spomniti, da lahko Sodi�če, da bi predložitvenemu sodi�ču, ki je nanj naslovilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, dalo koristen odgovor, upo�teva pravila prava Skupnosti, na katera se nacionalno sodi�če v svojem vpra�anju ni sklicevalo 15.
I shall not, however, go further in interpreting Directive 93/37, because that directive is of no assistance with regard to the central issue raised by the question from the court of reference, namely determination of the employment conditions which may, in compliance with Community law, be imposed for the performance of a public contract in a situation where workers are posted in the framework of the provision of services.
Vendar ne vztrajam pri razlagi Direktive 93/37, ker ta ne daje odgovora na jedro problema, ki je zastavljeno s tem vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje, to je določitev pogojev za delo, ki se smejo v skladu s pravom Skupnosti naložiti ob izvedbi javnega naročila v primeru napotitve delavcev v okviru opravljanja storitev.
With regard first to Directive 93/37, I have indicated above that that directive does not regulate the performance of public contracts.
Prvič, glede Direktive 93/37 sem že prej navedel, da ne ureja faze izvedbe javnih naročil.
The undertaking that contractors must make under Paragraphs 3(1) and 4(1) of the Landesvergabegesetz to pay their employees at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where the services in question are performed and to impose the same obligation on their subcontractors consti-
Po mojem mnenju zaveza, ki jo morajo ponudniki sprejeti na podlagi členov 3(1) in 4(1) deželnega zakona, da svojim delavcem izplačujejo najmanj plačo, določeno s kolektivno pogodbo, ki se uporablja v kraju, kjer se te storitve izvajajo, in da podi-
16 — See in this respect the interpretative communication of the Commission on the Community law applicable to public procurement and the possibilities for integrating social considerations into public procurement, which states that ‘contract conditions are obligations which must be accepted by the successful tenderer and which relate to the performance of the contract’ and by means of which tenderers ‘undertake, when submitting their bids, to meet such conditions if the contract is awarded to them’ (p. 17).
15 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 12. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Wolff & Müller (C-60/03, ZOdl., str. I-9553, točka 24). 16 – V tej zvezi glej Razlagalno sporočilo Komisije o pravu Skupnosti, ki se uporablja za javna naročila, in o možnosti vključitve socialnih vidikov v ta naročila (COM(2001) 566 konč.), v katerem je določeno, da „[j]e pogoj za izvedbo obveznost, ki jo mora sprejeti imetnik naročila in ki se nana�a na izvr�itev pogodbe“ ter s katero „se ponudniki ob oddaji svojih ponudb zavežejo, da bodo izpolnili to zahtevo, če jim bo naročilo dodeljeno“ (str. 17).
In order to be compatible with Article 49 EC, such contract conditions must comply with the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality and with the principle of transparency, as we shall see below.
Kot bomo pozneje videli, mora tak pogoj za izvedbo, da bi bil v skladu s členom 49 ES, spo�tovati načelo prepovedi diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo in načelo transparentnosti.
Turning now to Directive 96/71, I am of the opinion that the facts in the dispute in the main proceedings, as described in the order for reference, must be held to fall within the scope of that directive, since they correspond to the situation described in Article 1(3)(a) of that directive.
Dalje, glede Direktive 96/71 menim, da je treba �teti, da dejansko stanje spora o glavni stvari, kot je opisano v predložitvenem sklepu, spada na področje uporabe te direktive, ker ustreza primeru iz člena 1(3)(a) navedene direktive.
Nevertheless, in so far as the Law lays down conditions for the performance of works contracts — in this instance the payment of a minimum wage — which must be applied to the workers employed by the contractor and/or by any subcontractor, including workers posted in the framework of the provision of services, which is the case in the main proceedings, it is necessary to examine the Law in the light of secondary Community law on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services.
Vendar, ker ta zakon določa pogoje v zvezi z izpolnitvijo pogodb o gradnji – v tem primeru izplačilo minimalne plače –, ki se morajo obvezno uporabljati za delavce, ki jih zaposluje izbrani ponudnik in/ali morebitni podizvajalec, in za delavce, ki so napoteni v okviru opravljanja storitev, kot je primer v zadevi v glavni stvari, je treba navedeni zakon preučiti glede na določbo sekundarnega prava Skupnosti o napotitvi delavcev v okviru opravljanja storitev.
To be more precise, we have here a case in which an undertaking established in a Member State, namely PKZ established in Poland, has posted Polish workers, for its account and under its direction, on the territory of another Member State, in the event the Federal Republic of Germany, in the framework of a subcontracting contract concluded between the undertaking making the posting and the party for whom the services are intended, operating in the latter Member State, that is to say the defendant in the main proceedings.
Natančneje, zna�li smo se pred primerom, v katerem je podjetje s sedežem v eni državi članici, to je družba PKZ s sedežem na Poljskem, za svoj račun in pod svojim vodstvom napotilo poljske delavce na ozemlje druge države članice, v tem primeru Zvezne republike Nemčije, v okviru pogodbe o podizvajanju, sklenjene med podjetjem po�iljateljem in prejemnikom storitev, ki deluje v tej zadnji državi članici, namreč toženo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari.
Moreover, it is common ground that the facts in the dispute in the main proceedings occurred after the expiry of the period for Member States to transpose Directive 96/71, that is to say after 16 December 1999.
Poleg tega ni sporno, da so okoli�čine dejanskega stanja v sporu o glavni stvari nastale po datumu izteka roka, ki je bil državam članicam določen za prenos Direktive 96/71, to pomeni po 16. decembru 1999.
I shall therefore begin by examining whether Directive 96/71 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Landesvergabegesetz, which requires contractors and, indirectly, their subcontractors to pay workers posted in the framework of the performance of a public contract at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where those services are performed, on pain of penalties that may go as far as the termination of the works contract, where the collective agreement to which the legislation in question refers is not declared to be universally applicable within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 3(8) of that directive.
Začel bom torej s preučitvijo vpra�anja, ali je Direktivo 96/71 treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je deželni zakon, ki zahteva, naj izbrani ponudniki in, posredno, njihovi podizvajalci delavcem, ki so napoteni v okviru izvedbe javnega naročila, izplačajo najmanj plačo, določeno s kolektivno pogodbo, ki se uporablja v kraju, kjer se storitve izvajajo, v nasprotnem primeru lahko sankcije privedejo celo do razdrtja podjemne pogodbe, kadar kolektivna pogodba, na katero napotuje ta zakonodaja, ni razgla�ena za splo�no uporabno v smislu člena 3(8), prvi pododstavek, te direktive.
A — The interpretation of Directive 96/71
A – Razlaga Direktive 96/71
Since its judgment in Seco and Desquenne & Giral, 17 the Court has taken the view that, as a general rule, Community law does not preclude Member States from applying their legislation, or collective labour agreements entered into by both sides of industry, to any person who is employed, even temporarily, within their territory, no matter in which country the employer is established, just as Community law does not prohibit Member States from enforcing those rules by appropriate means. 18 This caselaw of the Court is reiterated in the 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71. 66.
Sodi�če je namreč po izdaji sodbe z dne 3. februarja 1982 v zadevi Seco in Desquenne & Giral 17odločilo, da pravo Skupnosti načeloma ne nasprotuje temu, da države članice �irijo svojo zakonodajo ali kolektivne pogodbe o zaposlitvi, sklenjene med socialnimi partnerji, na vse osebe, ki opravljajo plačano delo, tudi če je začasno, na njihovem ozemlju, ne glede na državo, v kateri ima sedež delodajalec, in tudi ne prepoveduje državam članicam, da s primernimi ukrepi zagotovijo spo�tovanje teh pravil 18. Ta sodna praksa Sodi�ča je povzeta v dvanajsti uvodni izjave Direktive 96/71. 66.
In my opinion, Directive 96/71 cannot be interpreted as precluding a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
Po mojem mnenju Direktive 96/71 ni mogoče razlagati tako, da nasprotuje ukrepu, kot je ukrep v postopku v glavi stvari. Da bi se o tem prepričali, je treba opisati sistem uveljavitve te direktive.
I shall then examine, in the light of the system described in that way, the arrangements under German law for determining minimum rates of pay in the construction industry.
Dalje bom, glede na tako opisan sistem, preučil sistem po nem�kem pravu za določitev minimalne urne postavke v gradbeni�tvu.
The first contribution of this directive is to make mandatory what until then had been only an option for Member States.
Prvi prispevek te direktive je preoblikovati v obveznost tisto, kar je bilo doslej le možnost, ki so jo države članice imele na voljo.
The directive thus requires the Member States to apply to undertakings established in another Member State which post workers to their territory in the framework of the transnational provision of services a number of national rules setting terms and conditions of employment covering certain matters.
Navedena direktiva torej nalaga državam članicam, naj za podjetja s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ki delavce napotujejo na njihovo ozemlje v okviru čezmejnega opravljanja storitev, uporabijo določeno �tevilo nacionalnih predpisov, ki določajo pogoje za delo in zaposlitev na določenih področjih.
As I have already indicated above, Directive 96/71 is designed to coordinate the laws of the Member States in order to lay down a nucleus of mandatory rules for minimum protection to be observed in the host country by employers who post workers to perform temporary work in the territory of a Member State where the services are provided.
Kot sem že prej navedel, želi Direktiva 96/71 uskladiti zakonodaje držav članic, tako da je določeno jedro prisilnih predpisov glede minimalne za�čite, ki jih morajo v državi gostiteljici spo�tovati delodajalci, ki napotujejo svoje delavce, da opravijo začasno delo na ozemlju države članice, kjer se opravlja storitev.
Another contribution of Directive 96/71 is to give substance to the ‘nucleus’ of protect- ive rules, the application of which the Community legislature wished to guarantee for the benefit of posted workers.
Drugi prispevek Direktive 96/71 je vzpostavitev „trdnega jedra“ za�čitnih pravil, katerih uporabo je zakonodajalec Skupnosti želel zagotoviti v korist napotenih delavcev.
In adopting that directive, the Community legislature not only appropriated the caselaw established over time by the Court on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services but also clarified and strengthened it.
S sprejetjem te direktive zakonodajalec Skupnosti ni le prilagodil sodne prakse, ki jo je Sodi�če postopno oblikovalo na področju napotitve delavcev v okviru opravljanja storitev, ampak jo je tudi preciziral in okrepil.
Hence, Article 3(1) of the directive lays down the national rules establishing terms and conditions of employment which cannot be denied to posted workers in the Member State in which the service is performed.
Tako člen 3(1) te direktive določa nacionalne predpise o določbah in pogojih za zaposlitev, ki napotenim delavcem ne smejo biti odvzete v državi članici, v kateri se opravlja storitev.
These mandatory terms of employment include minimum rates of pay, whether set by law, regulation or administrative provision or, in the case of building work, by collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable within the meaning of Article 3(8) of the directive.
Med temi obveznimi pogoji za delo so minimalne urne postavke, ki so določene z zakoni ali drugimi predpisi oziroma za dejavnosti v gradbeni�tvu s kolektivnimi pogodbami ali arbitražnimi odločbami, razgla�enimi za splo�no uporabne v smislu člena 3(8) navedene direktive.