natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE AND LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE an agreement between the two employers providing a framework for the coexistence of the two contracts, the fact that the first employer retains management powers in respect of the employee, or the circumstance that the first employer is able to decide the duration of the employee’s work for the second employer.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE IN LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE sklenitve druge pogodbe, dejstvo, da obstaja organizacijska ali ekonomska povezava med delodajalcema, dejstvo, da obstaja sporazum med delodajalcema, ki določa okvir za soob- stoj dveh pogodb, dejstvo, da prvi delodajalec �e naprej lahko daje navodila delojemalcu, ali okoli�čina, da prvi delodajalec lahko odloča o trajanju zaposlitve pri drugem delodajalcu.
In conclusion, I suggest that the Court should answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling as follows:
Zato Sodi�ču predlagam, da na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovori:
‘The rule of special jurisdiction set out in Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters can apply in the context of Section 5 relating to the rules relating to jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment.
Pravilo o posebni pristojnosti, določeno v členu 6, točka 1, Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000, o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah se lahko uporablja v okviru oddelka 5, ki se nana�a na uporabljiva pravila o sodni pristojnosti na področju individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi.
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.
Pogoj za uporabo člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe 44/2001 je 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 an agreement between the two employers providing a framework for the coexistence of the two contracts, the fact that the first employer retains management powers in respect of the employee, or the circumstance that the first employer is able to decide the duration of the employee’s work for the second employer.’
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 sklenitve druge pogodbe, dejstvo, da obstaja organizacijska ali ekonomska povezava med delodajalcema, dejstvo, da obstaja sporazum med delodajalcema, ki določa okvir za soobstoj dveh pogodb, dejstvo, da prvi delodajalec �e naprej lahko daje navodila delojemalcu, ali okoli�čina, da prvi delodajalec lahko odloča o trajanju zaposlitve pri drugem delodajalcu.
2008 — CASE C-462/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-462/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 22. maja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (France), made by decision of 7 November 2006, received at the Court on 20 November 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-462/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Cour de cassation (Francija) z odločbo z dne 7. novembra 2006, ki je na Sodi�če prispela 20. novembra 2006, v postopku
— the Commission of the European Communities, by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 January 2008, gives the following
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, zastopnica, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 17. januarja 2008 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Article 6, point 1, and Section 5 of Chapter II of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 6(1) ter oddelka 5 poglavja II Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL 2001, L 12, str.
1; ‘the Regulation’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Uredba).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Mr Rouard and Glaxosmithkline and Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, established in the United Kingdom and France respectively, considered by Mr Rouard, by virtue of a term in his contract of employment, to have been his joint employers and from which he seeks the payment of various amounts by way of compensation for dismissal and damages for wrongful breach of that contract.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med J.-P. Rouardom in družbama Glaxosmithkline in Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline s sedežema v Združenem kraljestvu oziroma v Franciji, za kateri J.-P. Rouard na podlagi ene od klavzul v njegovi pogodbi o zaposlitvi meni, da sta njegovi sodelodajalki, in od katerih zahteva izplačilo različnih zneskov odpravnine in od�kodnine zaradi nezakonite odpovedi navedene pogodbe.
Article 2, point 1, in Section 1, entitled ‘General provisions’ of Chapter II of the Regulation, provides:
Oddelek 1 poglavja II Uredbe, naslovljen „Splo�ne določbe“, vsebuje člen 2, ki v svojem prvem odstavku določa:
‘Subject to the provisions of this regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.’
„Ob upo�tevanju določb te uredbe so osebe s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi članici ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo tožene pred sodi�či te države članice.“
Article 6 of the Regulation, in Section 2 of Chapter II thereof, entitled ‘Special jurisdiction’, states:
Člen 6 Uredbe, ki je v oddelku 2 poglavja II, naslovljenem „Posebna pristojnost“, določa:
‘A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued:
„Oseba s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi članici je lahko tožena tudi:
(1) where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided 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;
1. če je ena od več toženih oseb, tudi pred sodi�čem kraja, kjer ima ena od njih stalno prebivali�če, če 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;
(3) on a counter-claim arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based, in the court in which the original claim is pending;
3. če gre za nasprotno tožbo, ki izhaja iz iste pogodbe ali dejstev, na kater[ih] je temeljila prvotna tožba, pred sodi�čem, kjer je v teku prvotni postopek;
Among the objectives of the Regulation, recital 13 states:
V trinajsti uvodni izjavi je med cilji Uredbe določeno:
‘In relation to insurance, consumer contracts and employment, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for.’
„Šibkej�a stranka mora biti v zvezi z zavarovanjem, potro�ni�kimi pogodbami in zaposlitvijo za�čitena s pravili o pristojnosti, ki so za varstvo njenih pravic ugodnej�a od splo�nih pravil.“
Section 5 of Chapter II of the Regulation, entitled ‘Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment’, contains in particular the following provisions:
Oddelek 5 poglavja II Uredbe, naslovljen „Pristojnost za individualne pogodbe o zaposlitvi“, vsebuje zlasti naslednje določbe:
In matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4 and point 5 of Article 5.
V zadevah v zvezi z individualnimi pogodbami o zaposlitvi se pristojnost določa v skladu s tem oddelkom brez poseganja v člen 4 in v peto točko člena 5.
An employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued:
Delodajalec s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi članici je lahko tožen:
(1) in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled; or
1. pred sodi�či v državi članici, kjer ima stalno prebivali�če; ali
(2) in another Member State:
2. v drugi državi članici:
(a) in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so, or
(a) pred sodi�či v kraju, kjer delavec običajno opravlja svoje delo, ali pred sodi�či v kraju, kjer je nazadnje opravljal svoje delo; ali
(b) if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.
(b) če delavec običajno ne opravlja ali ni opravljal svojega dela v eni in isti državi, pred sodi�či v kraju, kjer se nahaja ali se je nahajala poslovna enota, ki je zaposlila delavca.
An employer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled.
Delodajalec lahko sproži postopek samo pred sodi�či države članice, kjer ima delavec stalno prebivali�če.
The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.’
Določbe tega oddelka ne vplivajo na pravico do vložitve nasprotne tožbe pred sodi�čem, kjer je v skladu s tem oddelkom v teku prvotni postopek.“
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred to the Court
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
Mr Rouard was engaged in 1977 by the company Laboratoires Beecham Sévigné, the seat of which was in France, and he was posted to various African States.
J.-P. Rouard se je leta 1977 zaposlil v družbi Laboratoires Beecham Sévigné s statutarnim sedežem v Franciji in je bil poslan v različne afri�ke države.
Pursuant to a new contract of employment concluded in 1984 with Beecham Research UK, another company in the group, which was registered in the United Kingdom, Mr Rouard was engaged by that company and sent to Morocco.
V skladu z novo pogodbo o zaposlitvi, ki je bila sklenjena leta 1984 z družbo Beecham Research UK, drugo družbo v skupini s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu, se je J.-P. Rouard v tej družbi zaposlil in je bil poslan v Maroko.
Under that contract of employment, his new employer undertook to maintain the contractual rights acquired by Mr Rouard under his initial contract of employment with Laboratoires Beecham Sévigné, and in particular to preserve his rights derived from length of service and his entitlement to compensation in the event of dismissal.
S to pogodbo o zaposlitvi se je njegov novi delodajalec zavezal, da bo ohranil določene pogodbene pravice, ki jih je J.-P. Rouard pridobil v okviru svoje prvotne pogodbe o zaposlitvi z družbo Laboratoires Beecham Sévigné, zlasti ohranitev delovne dobe ter pravic do nadomestila za prenehanje delovnega razmerja.
Mr Rouard was dismissed in 2001.
J.-P. Rouard je bil odpu�čen leta 2001.
In 2002 he brought an action before the Conseil de prud’hommes de Saint-Germain-en-Laye (Employment Tribunal, Saint-Germain-en-Laye) against Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, which has assumed the rights of Laboratoires Beecham Sévigné, the seat of which is in France, and Glaxosmithkline, which has assumed the rights of Beecham Research UK, the seat of which is in the United Kingdom.
Leta 2002 je na conseil de prud’hommes de Saint-Germain-en-Laye vložil tožbo zoper družbo Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, ki je pravna naslednica družbe Laboratoires Beecham Sévigné in katere sedež je v Franciji, in družbo Glaxosmithkline, ki je pravna naslednica družbe Beecham Research UK in katere sedež je v Združenem kraljestvu.
Mr Rouard requests that those companies be ordered jointly and severally to pay him various amounts of compensation and damages for noncompliance with the dismissal procedure, dismissal without genuine and serious cause and wrongful breach of his employment contract.
J.-P. Rouard predlaga, naj se tema družbama naloži solidarno plačilo različnih nadomestil in od�kodnine z obrestmi zaradi nespo�tovanja postopka odpovedi delovnega razmerja, zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja brez dejanskega in resnega vzroka in zaradi nezakonite odpovedi njegove pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
Mr Rouard submits that those two companies were his joint employers.
J.-P. Rouard trdi, da je treba ti družbi �teti za njegova sodelodajalca.
Since the French courts have jurisdiction in respect of Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, the seat of which is in France, those courts, he submits, also have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation, in respect of Glaxosmithkline.
Meni, da ker je francosko sodi�če pristojno za družbo Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline s sedežem v Franciji, je na podlagi člena 6(1) Uredbe prav tako pristojno za družbo Glaxosmithkline.
Those companies disputed the jurisdiction of the Conseil de prud’hommes de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, which upheld that objection of lack of jurisdiction.
Navedeni družbi sta izpodbijali pristojnost conseil de prud’hommes de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, ki je ugodilo temu ugovoru glede nepristojnosti.
After the Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal, Versailles) set aside the first instance judgment, those companies appealed in cassation against the judgment of 6 April 2004 of that latter court.
Ker je cour d’appel de Versailles razveljavilo sodbo sodi�ča prve stopnje, sta ti družbi vložili kasacijsko pritožbo zoper njegovo sodbo z dne 6. aprila 2004.
It is in those circumstances that the Cour de cassation decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Cour de cassation prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Does the rule of special jurisdiction stated in Article 6, point 1, of [the] Regulation …, by virtue of which a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued “where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any of them is domiciled, provided 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”, apply to proceedings brought by an employee before a court of a Member State against two companies belonging to the same group, one of which, being the one which engaged that employee for the group and refused to re-employ him, is domiciled in that Member State and the other, for which the employee last worked in non-Member States and which dismissed him, in another Member State, when that applicant relies on a clause in the employment contract to claim that the two [companies] were his co-employers from whom he claims compensation for his dismissal or does the rule in Article 18, point 1, of [R]egulation [No 44/2001], by virtue of which, in matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction is to be determined by Section 5 of Chapter II [of that regulation], exclude the application of Article 6, point 1, [of that regulation], so that each of the two companies must be sued before the courts of the Member State where it is domiciled[?]’
„Ali se pravilo o posebni pristojnosti, navedeno v členu 6, točka 1, Uredbe […] – na podlagi katerega je oseba s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi članici lahko tožena, ‚če je ena od več toženih oseb, tudi pred sodi�čem kraja, kjer ima ena od njih stalno prebivali�če, če 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‘ – lahko uporabi v postopku, ki ga pred sodi�čem države članice sproži zaposlena oseba proti družbama, ki sodita v isto skupino in med katerima ima prva – tista, ki ga je zaposlila za skupino in ga kasneje ni želela ponovno sprejeti na delo – sedež v tej državi članici, druga – za račun katere je zadevna oseba nazadnje delala v tretjih državah in ki je zadevno osebo odpustila – pa v drugi državi članici, pri čemer se ta vlagatelj zahtevka sklicuje na določilo pogodbe o zaposlitvi, da bi dokazal, da sta [družbi] bili njegova sodelodajalca, od katerih zahteva nadomestilo za svojo odpustitev, ali pa pravilo iz člena 18, [odstavek] 1, Uredbe, na podlagi katerega se v zadevah v zvezi z individualnimi pogodbami o zaposlitvi pristojnost določa v skladu z oddelkom [5] poglavja II [te uredbe], izključuje uporabo člena 6, točka 1, [te uredbe] tako, da mora biti vsaka od družb tožena pred sodi�čem države članice, kjer ima sedež[?]“
By this question the national court essentially asks whether the rule of special jurisdiction in Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation in respect of co-defendants is applicable to the action brought by an employee against two companies established in different Member States which he considers to have been his joint employers.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je pravilo o posebni pristojnosti glede več toženih oseb iz člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe uporabljivo za tožbo, ki jo vloži delavec zoper dve družbi s sedežema v različnih državah članicah, ki ju �teje za svoji sodelodajalki.
It should be pointed out, at the outset, that the Regulation now replaces in Member States’ relations the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da Uredba v zvezi z odnosi med državami članicami nadome�ča Konvencijo z dne 27. septembra 1968 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL 1972, L 299, str.
The rules of jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment contained in the Regulation differ appreciably from the rules applicable in that field under the Brussels Convention.
Pravila o pristojnosti glede individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi iz Uredbe se občutno razlikujejo od pravil, ki se uporabljajo na tem področju v okviru Bruseljske konvencije.
In the Brussels Convention the only specific rule concerning contracts of employment was introduced in 1989.
Edino posebno pravilo glede pogodb o zaposlitvi je bilo v slednjo vneseno leta 1989.
That rule appeared in Section 2 of Title II of that convention, concerning special jurisdiction, and had been added in the form of a particular case of the jurisdiction rule laid down in Article 5, point 1, of the Brussels Convention in matters relating to a contract.
To pravilo, ki se je nana�alo na posebne pristojnosti, je bilo v oddelku 2 poglavja II te konvencije, in je bilo dodano kot izjema od pravila o pristojnosti iz člena 5, točka 1, Bruseljske konvencije glede pogodbenih zadev.
In the Regulation, jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment is the subject of a specific section, namely Section 5 of Chapter II.
Pristojnost za individualne pogodbe o zaposlitvi je v Uredbi predmet posebnega oddelka, in sicer oddelka 5, poglavja II.
That section, which contains Articles 18 to 21 of the Regulation, seeks to ensure that employees are afforded the protection referred to in recital 13 of the preamble thereto.
Namen tega oddelka, v katerem so členi od 18 do 21 te uredbe, je delavcu zagotoviti varstvo iz trinajste uvodne izjave te uredbe.
As maintained, or at least acknowledged, by Glaxosmithkline and Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, the French, German, Italian and United Kingdom Governments and the Commission of the European Communities, it is apparent from the wording of the provisions of Section 5 that they are not only specific but also exhaustive.
Kot so trdile ali vsaj priznale družbi Glaxosmithkline in Laboratoires Glaxos -mithkline, francoska, nem�ka in italijanska vlada ter vlada Združenega kraljestva in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, iz določb iz navedenega oddelka 5 izhaja, da te niso le posebne, temveč so tudi izčrpne.
Thus, it is clear from Article 18, point 1, of the Regulation, first, that any dispute concerning an individual contract of employment must be brought before a court designated in accordance with the jurisdiction rules laid down in Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation and, second, that those jurisdiction rules cannot be amended or supplemented by other rules of jurisdiction laid down in that regulation unless specific reference is made thereto in Section 5 itself.
Iz člena 18(1) Uredbe tako po eni strani izhaja, da je treba vsak spor, ki se nana�a na individualno pogodbo o zaposlitvi, predložiti sodi�ču, ki je pristojno v skladu s pravili o pristojnosti iz oddelka 5 poglavja II te uredbe, po drugi strani pa, da pravil o pristojnosti ni mogoče spremeniti ali nadomestiti z drugimi pravili o pristojnosti, določenimi v isti uredbi, razen če se oddelek 5 te uredbe nanje izrecno ne sklicuje.
Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation falls not within Section 5 of Chapter II of the Regulation but within Section 2 thereof.
Člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe pa ni v oddelku 5 navedenega poglavja II, temveč v njegovem oddelku 2.
Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation is not referred to at all in Section 5, unlike Article 4 and Article 5, point 5, of the Regulation, the application of which is preserved expressly by Article 18(1) thereof.
Za razliko od členov 4 in 5, točka 5, Uredbe, ki se na podlagi člena 18(1) Uredbe izrecno uporabljata, se oddelek 5 sploh ne sklicuje na člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe.
The rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation is also not the subject of a corresponding provision in Section 5, unlike the rule laid down in Article 6, point 3, concerning the case of counterclaims, which has been incorporated in Article 20, point 2, of that regulation.
Pravilo o pristojnosti iz člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe prav tako ni predmet ustrezne določbe v navedenem oddelku 5, v nasprotju s pravilom iz točke 3 člena 6, ki se nana�a na nasprotno tožbo, ki je bila vključena v člen 20(2) navedene uredbe.
It is therefore clear that a literal interpretation of Section 5 of Chapter II of the Regulation leads to the conclusion that that section precludes any recourse to Article 6, point 1, thereof.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da dobesedna razlaga oddelka 5 poglavja II Uredbe pripelje do ugotovitve, da ta oddelek izključuje vsakr�no uporabo člena 6, točka 1, te uredbe.
That interpretation is, moreover, supported by the ‘travaux préparatoires’.
To razlago poleg tega potrjujejo pripravljalna dela.
The proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1999 C 376 E, p.
Predlog Uredbe Sveta (ES) o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL 1999, C 376 E, str.
1) states, in relation to Section 5 of Chapter II of the proposed regulation, which was adopted as it stood by the Community legislature, that ‘[t]he jurisdiction conferred by this Section is substituted for that conferred by Sections 1 [General provisions] and 2 [Special jurisdiction]’.
1) glede oddelka 5 poglavja II predlagane uredbe, kot ga je brez sprememb sprejel zakonodajalec Skupnosti, namreč določa, da „[se] pristojnosti, določene v tem oddelku, […] nadomestijo s pristojnostmi, ki so določene v oddelkih 1 [Splo�ne določbe] in 2 [Posebne pristojnosti]“.