natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In any event, it would appear that the provisions of Directive 1999/70 or of the Framework Agreement could — in principle — certainly be relied upon directly in proceedings before the ordinary Irish courts since, according to the referring court, the complainants could bring proceedings against Ireland (the State) in its capacity as their employer and thus seek redress directly for the alleged infringement of their rights under the Directive.
Kolikor je razvidno, bi postopek pred rednimi irskimi sodi�či načelno vsekakor dovoljeval neposredno sklicevanje na določbe Direktive 1999/70 oziroma okvirnega sporazuma.
24They would not be restricted to seeking redress by claiming compensation against Ireland on account of the failure to transpose Directive 1999/70 on time. 25
Po podatkih predložitvenega sodi�ča bi namreč pritožniki tam lahko tožili irsko državo, ki nastopa kot njihov delodajalec, in na ta način zahtevali neposredno pravno varstvo zaradi zatrjevanih kr�itev njihovih pravic iz Direktive; 24nikakor pri tem ne bi bili omejeni le na sekundarnopravno varstvo v obliki od�kodninskih zahtevkov zoper irsko državo zaradi prepoznega prenosa Direktive 1999/70. 25
25 — Such compensation claims have been consistently recognised in caselaw since the judgment in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others [1991] ECR I-5357.
25 – Tak�ni od�kodninski zahtevki so v ustaljeni sodni praksi pripoznani od sodbe z dne 19. novembra 1991 v združenih zadevah Francovich in drugi (C-6/90 in C-9/90, Recueil, str. I-5357).
If — in respect of the period before Dir -ective 1999/70 was transposed — the Directive could be relied upon by the complainants only in proceedings before the ordinary Irish courts, rather than the Irish labour courts, the complainants would effectively be forced to pursue two parallel sets of proceedings in order to obtain the protection to which they
Če bi se torej lahko pritožniki na Direktivo 1999/70 za čas pred njenim prenosom neposredno sklicevali le pred rednimi irskimi sodi�či, ne pa v okviru irskega delovnega sodstva, bi bili dejansko prisiljeni, da sprožijo dva vzporedna postopka, da bi pridobili varstvo, ki jim pripada na podlagi prava
IMPACT are entitled under Community law: the first before the ordinary courts in respect of the period before the — belated — transposition of the Directive into Irish law, and the second before the labour courts in respect of the period afterwards.
Skupnosti: prvega pred rednimi sodi�či za čas do – prepoznega – prenosa direktive v irsko pravo in drugega v okviru delovnega sodstva za čas po tem.
It is not for the Court of Justice to adopt a particular view on the interpretation of domestic law in this case since, under the division of jurisdiction between the Community courts and the national courts, the Court must take account of the factual and legislative context, as described in the order for reference, in which the questions put to it are set.
Sodi�ču v tem sporu glede razlage notranjega prava ni treba zavzeti stali�ča. V okviru razdelitve pristojnosti med sodi�či Skupnosti in nacionalnimi sodi�či mora namreč Sodi�če glede na dejanski in pravni okvir, v katerega se uvr�čajo vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, izhajati iz ugotovitev predložitvenega sodi�ča 27.
27 It appears from the order for reference that Irish labour courts have compulsory jurisdiction under the 2003 Act. 28
Predložitveni sklep kaže na to, da je pristojnost irskega delovnega sodstva v skladu z zakonom iz leta 2003 obligatorna 28.
The respondents raise the objection that the complainants could have avoided such a double burden if, from the outset, they had brought proceedings only before the ordinary Irish courts.
Tožena irska ministrstva trdijo, da bi se pritožniki tak�ni dvojni obremenitvi lahko izognili, če bi že na začetku vložili tožbe le pred rednimi irskimi sodi�či.
They claim that the Irish labour courts do not have compulsory jurisdiction, 26and that the complainants were not, therefore, obliged to turn to the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court in respect of the period from 14 July 2003.
Menijo, da so pristojnosti irskih delovnih sodi�č fakultativne 26, pritožniki naj zato ne bi bili zavezani, da se za obdobje od 14. julija 2003 obrnejo na komisarko za pravice in na Labour Court.
Instead, they could have brought all their claims before the ordinary Irish courts, irrespective of whether they relate to the period before or after 14 July 2003.
Zahtevke bi lahko uveljavljali pred rednimi irskimi sodi�či, ne glede na to, ali se nana�ajo na obdobje pred 14. julijem 2003 ali po njem.
Accordingly, it must be assumed that the complainants were in fact compelled to bring two sets of proceedings before different courts in order to enjoy the full protection afforded to them as fixedterm workers under Directive 1999/70 and the Framework Agreement.
V takih okoli�činah je treba izhajati iz tega, da bi pritožniki dejansko morali voditi dva postopka pred različnimi sodi�či, da bi bili deležni polnega varstva, do katerega so upravičeni v skladu z Direktivo 1999/70 oziroma okvirnim sporazumom kot zaposleni za določen čas.
Such a double burden of two sets of proceedings, each with its own associated special features and risks, would make it excessively difficult for the complainants effectively to obtain the protection afforded to them by Community law in their capacity
Tak�na dvojna obremenitev z dvema postopkoma in s posebnostmi in tveganji, ki so z njima vsakokrat povezani, bi pritožnikom čezmerno otežila učinkovito uveljavitev varstva, ki jim ga kot delavcem, zaposlenim za določen čas, zagotavlja pravo
Those assertions were emphatically opposed by IMPACT at the hearing.
Tem navedbam je IMPACT na ustni obravnavi odločno nasprotoval.
In IMPACT’s view, the Irish labour courts have compulsory jurisdiction under the 2003 Act.
Po njegovem mnenju so pristojnosti irskega delovnega sodstva v skladu z zakonom iz leta 2003 obligatorne.
In any event, proceedings before the ordinary courts regarding fixedterm employment disputes have had no practical significance to date.
V vsakem primeru naj obravnavanje sporov glede zaposlitve za določen čas pred rednimi sodi�či do sedaj ne bi imelo nobenega praktičnega pomena.
26 — According to the respondents, the non-compulsory nature of that jurisdiction stems from section 14 of the 2003 Act, which states that ‘[a]n employee … may present a complaint to a rights commissioner …’ (emphasis added).
26 – Po mnenju toženih irskih ministrstev fakultativnost teh pristojnosti izhaja iz člena 14 zakona iz leta 2003, v skladu s katerim se delojemalec lahko pritoži pri komisarki za pravice: „An employee […] may present a complaint to a rights commissioner […]“ (moj poudarek).
There is no reference anywhere in that order to the non-compulsory jurisdiction which is claimed by the respondents.
V predložitvenem sklepu o fakultativni pristojnosti, kot jo zatrjujejo tožena irska ministrstva, ni nikjer govora.
That is incompatible with the principle of effectiveness.
Skupnosti. To ni združljivo z načelom učinkovitosti.
would thus be weakened.
vitemu uveljavljanju pravic posameznikov na podlagi prava Skupnosti 30, bi bilo na tak način razvrednoteno.
The principle of effectiveness requires that, in proceedings before the court tasked with applying the national legislation transposing a directive, it should be possible to assert also those claims which arise directly from that directive in respect of periods prior to its transposition.
Načelo učinkovitosti zahteva, da je pred sodi�čem, ki mora uporabiti nacionalne predpise o prenosu Direktive, mogoče uveljaviti tudi tiste zahtevke, ki neposredno izhajajo iz te direktive za obdobje pred njenim prenosom.
However, even if the Irish labour courts only had non-compulsory jurisdiction, consideration would in any event have to be given to the fact that these are the specialised courts which — on transposing Direct- ive 1999/70 — the Irish legislature specifically entrusted with the determination of employment disputes arising from fixedterm employment.
Vendar tudi če bi bila pristojnost irskega delovnega sodstva zgolj fakultativna, bi bilo treba v vsakem primeru izraziti pomislek, da gre pri tem za specializirano sodišče, ki mu je irski zakonodajalec med prenosom Direktive 1999/70 posebej zaupal re�evanje delovnopravnih sporov, ki izhajajo iz delovnih razmerji, sklenjenih za določen čas.
It must be possible for the full protection granted to fixedterm workers by the Directive to be invoked before such a specialised court.
Pred takim specializiranim sodi�čem mora biti uveljavitev varstva, ki ga imajo zaposleni za določen čas na podlagi Direktive, vsestransko možna.
In essence, the protection at issue is the same, whether it is afforded directly or only indirectly — through the national transposing legislation — by the Directive. 29
V bistvu gre pri tem velikokrat za isto varstvo, ne glede na to, ali neposredno ali zgolj posredno – na podlagi nacionalnega zakona o prenosu – izhaja iz direktive 29.
The principle of equivalence is an expression of the general principle of equal treatment and nondiscrimination, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. 31
Načelo enakovrednosti izhaja iz splo�nega načela enakega obravnavanja in prepovedi diskriminacije, ki zahteva, naj se primerljivi položaji ne obravnavajo različno in naj se različni položaji ne obravnavajo enako, razen če je tako obravnavanje objektivno utemeljeno. 31
Any separation of jurisdiction as regards the application of the Directive, on the one hand, and of its national transposing legislation, on the other, would make the effective enforcement of the protection provided by Community law considerably more difficult for the workers concerned.
Razhajanje sodnih pristojnosti za uporabo direktive po eni strani in, po drugi strani, njen nacionalni zakon o prenosu bi močno otežili učinkovito uveljavitev varstva, ki ga prizadetim delavcem zagotavlja pravo Skupnosti.
In addition, the direct effect of Community law — which, in the absence of action by the national authori-
Tudi neposredno učinkovanje prava Skupnosti, ki je v primeru zamude nacionalnih organov namenjeno učinko-
29 — The only difference is in so far as the national transposing legislation grants wider protection, extending beyond that granted by the Directive and the Framework Agreement.
29 – Razlika obstaja le, če nacionalni zakon o prenosu zagotavlja �ir�e varstvo, ki presega varstvo, zagotovljeno na podlagi Direktive in okvirnega sporazuma.
It must assess the relevant procedural rules in their overall context. Therefore, it must take into account the role played by the applicable provisions in the procedure as a whole, as well as the operation and any special features of that procedure before the different national courts. 33
Pri tem mora predložitveno sodi�če preučiti tako predmet kot tudi bistvene značilnosti domnevno primerljivih pravnih sredstev, ki jih določa nacionalno pravo; konkretna posebna postopkovna pravila mora preučiti v njihovi medsebojni povezavi, torej mora preučiti položaj uporabljivih predpisov v celotnem postopku, poleg tega mora upo�tevati potek postopka in posebnosti postopka pred različnimi nacionalnimi organi. 33
The redress which the complainants seek in the Irish labour courts serves, as already explained, to enforce the protection which, as fixedterm workers, they are guaranteed under Community law.
Pravna sredstva, ki so jih pritožniki uporabili v okviru irskega delovnega sodstva, so, kot je bilo že izpeljano, namenjeni uveljavitvi njihovega varstva, ki jim ga kot delavcem, zaposlenim za določen čas, zagotavlja pravo Skupnosti.
32 As already mentioned, the protection at issue is the same both before and after 14 July 2003 and ultimately derives from Directive 1999/70, irrespective of whether it is afforded directly or only indirectly — through the national transposing legislation — by the Directive.
32Nasprotno mnenju toženih irskih ministrstev gre pri tem, kot je bilo že navedeno, tako za čas pred 14. julijem 2003 kot za čas po tem datumu za isto varstvo, ki končno temelji na Direktivi 1999/70, ne glede na to, ali neposredno ali zgolj posredno – na podlagi nacionalnega zakona o prenosu – izhaja iz direktive.
The principle of equivalence is infringed, for example, if a person relying on a right conferred by Community law is forced to incur additional costs and delay by compari- son with those he would incur if he were only to bring an action under domestic law. 34
Načelo enakovrednosti je na primer kr�eno, če mora zadevna oseba, ki se sklicuje na pravico, izhajajočo iz pravnega reda Skupnosti, računati z dodatnimi stro�ki in dalj�imi roki, kot če bi zgolj uveljavljala zahtevek v skladu z nacionalnim pravom. 34
In the present case there are, according to the order for reference, distinct differences between the redress which fixedterm workers such as the complainants can seek against their employer before a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court, on the one hand, and that which they can seek before the ordinary Irish courts, on the other.
V obravnavanem primeru v skladu z navedbami v predložitvenem sklepu obstajajo znatne razlike med pravnimi sredstvi, ki jih lahko delavci, zaposleni za določen čas, kot so pritožniki, vložijo zoper svojega delodajalca pri Rights Commissioner oziroma Labour Court na eni strani in pri rednih irskih sodi�čih na drugi strani.
In examining those claims, the referring court must consider both the purpose and the essential characteristics of the allegedly
Kajti z obema vrstama pravnih sredstev naj bi se zagotovilo isto varstvo, ki izhaja iz Direktive, načelo enakovrednosti pa zahteva, da pogoji za tožbo, ki temelji neposredno na Direktivi, ne smejo biti manj ugodni kot pogoji za tožbo, ki temelji na nacionalnem zakonu o prenosu.
33 — See, to that effect, Levez (cited in footnote 23), paragraphs 43 and 44, and Preston (cited in footnote 23), paragraphs 61 and 62.
33 – V tem smislu sodbi, navedeni v opombi 23, Levez (točki 43 in 44) in Preston (točki 61 in 62).
34 — Again, see Levez (cited in footnote 23), paragraph 51, and Preston (cited in footnote 23), paragraph 60.
34 – Glej �e enkrat sodbi, navedeni v opombi 23, Levez (točka 51) in Preston (točka 60).
32 — See point 58 of this Opinion.
32 – Glej zgoraj točko 58 teh sklepnih predlogov.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-268/06
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-268/06 odločanje, kot jih opredeli predložitvena odločba. 37
Thus, proceedings before the ordinary Irish courts are described as being considerably more formal, complex, costly and timeconsuming.
Tako so postopki pred rednimi irskimi sodi�či predstavljeni kot znatno bolj uradni, zapleteni, dražji in dolgotrajnej�i.
Court fees are payable, an unsuccessful party may be ordered to pay costs, and parties may be represented only by lawyers, not by trade unions or employers’ associations.
Zaračunavajo se sodne takse, za stranko, ki v postopku ne uspe, obstaja tveganje, da bo morala nositi stro�ke, zastopstva strank pa ne morejo prevzeti sindikati oziroma združenja delodajalcev, ampak je to pridržano odvetnikom.
35By contrast, complaints before the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court are subject to a simpler procedure in which the parties may be represented by any person, in particular by a trade union or employers’ association, costs are not awarded and no court fees are payable.
35Nasprotno se pritožbe, vložene pri Rights Commissioner in Labour Court, obravnavajo po enostavnej�em postopku, v katerem stranke lahko zastopa poljubna oseba, zlasti sindikat ali združenje delodajalcev; ne naložijo se niti stro�ki niti se ne zaračunavajo sodne takse.
Thus, those concerned would be in a worse position when asserting claims based directly on Community law in respect of the period prior to the transposition of Direct- ive 1999/70 than when asserting claims based on the Irish transposing legislation in respect of the period after transposition.
Zadevne osebe bi bile tako pri uveljavljanju zahtevkov, ki temeljijo neposredno na pravu Skupnosti, za čas pred prenosom Direktive 1999/70 v manj ugodnem položaju kot za čas po tem datumu glede uveljavljanja zahtevkov, ki temeljijo na irskem zakonu o prenosu.
Admittedly, the respondents have challenged some aspects of that description and assessment of Irish procedural law before the Court of Justice.
Tožena irska ministrstva so sicer pred Sodi�čem delno izpodbijala to predstavitev in oceno irskega postopkovnega prava.
Suffice it to say in that regard, however, that it is not for the Court to determine, in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling, whether the referring court’s interpretation of provisions of national law is correct.
V tem smislu pa zadostuje napotilo, da ni naloga Sodi�ča, da v okviru predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe odloča o tem, ali je razlaga nacionalnih predpisov s strani predložitvenega sodi�ča pravilna.
36Rather, the Court must take account, under the division of jurisdiction between the Community judicature and the national courts, of the factual and legislative context, as described in the order for reference, in which the questions put to it are set. 37
36 Naloga Sodi�ča je namreč, da v okviru porazdelitve pristojnosti med sodi�či Skupnosti in nacionalnimi sodi�či upo�teva dejanski in pravni okvir, v katerega se uvrstijo vpra�anja za predhodno
In so far as the jurisdiction of the Irish labour courts is regarded as compulsory in respect of the period from 14 July 2003, the fact that employees such as the complainants are in a worse position is apparent also from the fact that — as already mentioned
Če se pristojnost irskih delovnih sodi�č za obdobje od 14. julija 2003 �teje za obligatorno, je mogoče manj ugodno obravnavanje delavcev, kot so pritožniki, videti tudi v tem,
37 — See, again, the caselaw cited in footnote 27.
I-7919, točka 24); z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Orfanopoulos in Oliveri (navedena v opombi 27, točka 42) in z dne 18. januarja 2007 v zadevi Auroux (C-220/05, ZOdl., str. I-385, točka 25).
IMPACT period before 14 July 2003 and to be directed instead to seek legal redress in the ordinary Irish courts.
IMPACT da bi bili – kot je bilo že omenjeno v drugi zvezi 38– dejansko prisiljeni sprožiti dva pred 14. julijem 2003 onemogočil dostop do irskega delovnega sodstva in bi se jih namesto tega napotilo na pravdni postopek pred rednimi irskimi sodi�či.
Legal consequences in another context 38 — they would in practice be forced to pursue two parallel sets of proceedings in order to obtain the protection to which they are entitled under Community law: the first before the ordinary courts in respect of the period prior to the transposition of Directive 1999/70, and the second before the labour courts in respect of the period afterwards.
vzporedna postopka, da bi pridobili varstvo, ki jim pripada na podlagi prava Skupnosti: prvega pred rednimi sodi�či za čas do prenosa Direktive 1999/70 in drugega v okviru delovnega sodstva za čas po tem.
If, on the other hand, their claims were based only on the 2003 Act and not also on Community law, only one set of proceedings would be required, with recourse to the Irish labour courts being available in any event.
Če pa bi, nasprotno, zahtevke oprli le na zakon iz leta 2003 in ne dodatno tudi na pravo Skupnosti, bi bil potreben le en sodni postopek, za kar bi bila v vsakem primeru pri irskih delovnih sodi�čih bila odprta pravna pot.
In accordance with the preceding remarks, therefore, both the principle of effectiveness and the principle of equivalence would be infringed if fixedterm workers such as the complainants were directed to seek legal redress in the ordinary Irish courts in respect of the period prior to 14 July 2003 and were denied access to the Irish labour courts.
Na podlagi zgornjih ugotovitev bi bilo torej v nasprotju z načelom učinkovitosti kot tudi z načelom enakovrednosti, če bi se delavce, zaposlene za določen čas, kot so pritožniki, za čas pred 14. julijem 2003 napotilo na pravdni postopek pred redna irska sodi�ča in bi se jim onemogočil dostop do irskega delovnega sodstva.
The fact that the complainants are in a worse position cannot be justified, for example, on the ground that there was no Irish legislation to transpose Direct- ive 1999/70 in place before 14 July 2003 that could have established the jurisdiction of the labour courts, since a Member State cannot rely, as against individuals, on its own failure to transpose a directive. 39
Manj ugodnega obravnavanja pritožnikov ni mogoče na primer upravičiti s tem, da v obdobju pred 14. julijem 2003 ni bilo irskega zakona o prenosu Direktive 1999/70, ki bi lahko utemeljil pristojnost delovnega sodstva. Kajti država članica ne more posameznikom ugovarjati s svojo zamudo pri prenosu direktive. 39
It would, therefore, constitute an infringement of the principle of equivalence for the complainants to be denied access to the Irish labour courts in respect of the
V nasprotju z načelom enakovrednosti bi torej bilo, če bi se pritožnikom za čas
It follows from the principle of Community loyalty (Article 10 EC) that the referring court must interpret the provisions relating to its own jurisdiction and the procedural rules governing actions brought before it in such a way as to ensure, wherever possible, the effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Directive 1999/70 and the Framework Agreement. 40
Iz načela lojalnosti Skupnosti (člen 10 ES) izhaja, da mora predložitveno sodi�če določbe o lastni pristojnosti kot tudi podrobna postopkovna pravila v primeru tožb, ki so vložene pri njem, razlagati kolikor je mogoče �iroko v smislu učinkovitega varstva pravic, ki za posameznika izhajajo iz Direktive 1999/70 in okvirnega sporazuma. 40
38 — See, in that regard, the remarks on the principle of effectiveness in points 54 to 66 of this Opinion.
38 – K temu glej zgornje navedbe glede načela učinkovitosti v točkah od 54 do 66 teh sklepnih predlogov.
39 — See, by way of example, Ratti (cited in footnote 30), paragraph 22, and Becker (cited in footnote 30), paragraphs 24, 33 and 34.
39 – Glej le sodbi, navedeni v opombi 30, Ratti (točka 22) in Becker (točke 24, 33 in 34).
40 — See, to that effect, Unibet (cited in footnote 16), paragraph 44.
40 – V tem smislu sodba Unibet (navedena v opombi 16, točka 44).
B — Question 2: Examination of the direct effect of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Framework Agreement
B – Drugo vprašanje: preizkus neposredne veljave določbe 4 in določbe 5 okvirnega sporazuma
In those circumstances, the referring court is required, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, to apply the directly effective provisions of Directive 1999/70 or of the framework agreement on fixedterm work in the main proceedings in order to ensure, in each case, the effective judicial protection of the rights of individuals conferred by that legislation. 41
V teh okoli�činah mora predložitveno sodi�če v skladu z načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti v sporu o glavni stvari uporabiti neposredno veljavne določbe Direktive 1999/70 oziroma okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas, da bi v vsakem posamičnem primeru zagotovilo učinkovito varstvo individualnih pravic, ki izhajajo iz teh predpisov. 41
The second question is referred only in the event that Question 1 is, as I suggest, to be answered in the affirmative.
Drugo vpra�anje je zastavljeno le za primer, če je odgovor na prvo, kot sem predlagala, 42 pritrdilen.
42By the second question, the referring court asks whether Clauses 4(1) and 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixedterm work are directly applicable, so as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before the courts.
S tem drugim vpra�anjem želi predložitveno sodi�če izvedeti, ali je mogoče določbi 4(1) in 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas uporabiti neposredno, tako da se posamezniki lahko pred sodi�čem sklicujejo na ti določbi.
The following interim conclusion can therefore be drawn:
Vmesno je torej treba ugotoviti:
In accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, a national court is
Nacionalno sodi�če mora v skladu z načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti uporabiti neposredno veljavne predpise prava