natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The English text of the judgment refers in error to the third recital, rather than the first.
Angle�ka različica besedila sodbe nepravilno navaja tretjo uvodno izjavo namesto prve.
13 — Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
13 – Direktiva Sveta 1999/70/ES z dne 28. junija 1999 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP (UL L 175, str. 43).
In Mangold, the Court observed that Directive 2000/78 does not itself lay down
Sodi�če je v sodbi Mangold poudarilo, da Direktiva 2000/78 sama ne določa načela
(76) Consequently, observance of the general principle of equal treatment, in particu- lar in respect of age, cannot as such be conditional upon the expiry of the period allowed the Member States for the transposition of a directive intended to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of age ….
(76) Posledično spo�tovanje splo�nega načela enakega obravnavanja, zlasti ne glede na starost, kot tako ne more biti odvisno od izteka roka, ki države članice zavezuje za prenos direktive, katere namen je opredeliti splo�ni okvir boja proti diskriminaciji zaradi starosti […].
Mangold has attracted a certain amount of academic criticism.
Sodba Mangold je bila predmet določenih kritik s strani teorije.
The general theme of the criticism is that the Court (of its own volition, without good reason and against the wishes of the legislature) extended the scope of a directive, 14to give it effect before the end of its transitional period and in horizontal circumstances, by making an innova tive reference to a general principle of Community law.
Kritike se na splo�no nana�ajo na to, da je Sodi�če z inovativnim sklicevanjem na splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti (samovoljno, brez utemeljenega razloga in v nasprotju z voljo zakonodajalca) raz�irilo področje uporabe direktive, 14tako da je priznalo njen učinek pred iztekom njenega roka za prenos in v horizontalnih okoli�činah.
15 Consequently, a number of commentators have expressed the opinion that the Court has undermined the purpose of direct effect.
15 Posledično so �tevilni komen- tatorji izrazili mnenje, da je Sodi�če spodkopalo namen neposrednega učinka.
16 Furthermore, the ruling is criticised for having produced a situation of considerable legal uncertainty. 17
16Poleg tega je bila sodba kritizirana tudi zato, ker je ustvarila položaj velike pravne negotovosti. 17
Four Advocates General have also commented on Mangold.
Tudi �tirje generalni pravobranilci so zavzeli stali�če glede sodbe Mangold.
(77) In those circumstances it is the responsibility of the national court, hearing a dispute involving the principle of nondiscrimination in respect of age, to provide, in a case within its jurisdiction, the legal protection which individuals derive from the rules of Community law and to ensure that those rules are fully effective, setting aside any provision of national law which may conflict with that law ….
(77) V teh okoli�činah nacionalno sodi�če, pred katerim poteka pravni spor, ki vključuje načelo enakega obravnavanja ne glede na starost, v okviru svojih pristojnosti varuje pravice, ki jih pravo Skupnosti zagotavlja posamezniku, in zagotavlja njihovo popolno učinkovitost, s tem da ne uporabi nobene določbe nacionalnega prava, ki je v nasprotju z njim […].
15 — See, for example, K. Riesenhuber, Case Note in European Review of Contract Law 2007, p.
15 – Glej na primer K. Riesenhuber, Case Note v European Review of Contract Law, 2007, str. 62;J. Swift, „Pale, stale, male“, New Law Journal, 2007, str. od 532 do 534;Editorial Comments, Common Market Law Review, naveden zgoraj.
This is viewed positively from a rights perspective in D. Schiek, ‘The ECJ Decision in Mangold: A Further Twist on Effects of Directives and Constitutional Relevance of Community Equality Legislation’, Industrial Law Journal 2006, pp. 329 to 341.
Pritrdilno mnenje z vidika pravic je podal D. Schiek,„The ECJ Decision in Mangold:A Further Twist on Effects of Directives and Constitutional Relevance of Community Equality Legislation“, Industrial Law Journal,2006, str. od 329 do 341.
(78) … It is the responsibility of the national court to guarantee the full effectiveness of the general principle of nondiscrimination in respect of age, setting aside any provision of national law which may conflict with Community law, even where the period prescribed for trans -position of [Directive 2000/78] has not yet expired.’
(78) […] Nacionalno sodi�če v skladu s splo�nim načelom enakega obravnavanja ne glede na starost ne sme uporabiti določb nacionalnega prava, ki so v nasprotju z njim, in sicer niti takrat, ko se rok za prenos navedene direktive �e ni iztekel.“
In Chacón Navas, 18Advocate General Geelhoed noted the potentially far-reaching economic and financial consequences of claims to equal treatment based on the prohibitions set out in Article 13 EC.
Generalni pravobranilec Geelhoed je v zadevi Chacón Navas 18ugotovil more- bitne večje ekonomske in finančne posledice zahtevkov za enako obravnavanje, ki bi temeljili na prepovedih iz člena 13 ES.
The interpretation of measures based on Article 13 EC must not be stretched by relying on the words ‘[w]ithin the limits of the powers conferred by [the Treaty] upon the Community’ in that article, and still less by relying on the general policy of equality.
Ni dopustno �iriti razlage ukrepov, ki temeljijo na členu 13 ES, s sklicevanjem na besedilo „v mejah pristojnosti Skupnosti po [Pogodbi]“ iz tega člena, in �e manj s sklicevanjem na splo�no politiko enakosti.
Such an approach would impinge upon decisions made by the Member States in the exercise of powers which they still retain.
Tak pristop bi trčil ob odločitve držav članic, sprejete pri izvr�evanju pristojnosti, ki so jih ohranile.
Accordingly, he advocated a more restrained interpretation than that adopted by the Court in Mangold.
Zato zagovarja ožjo razlago od tiste, ki jo je sprejelo Sodi�če v sodbi Mangold.
Advocate General Mazák offered an extended criticism of Mangold in Palacios de la Villa.
Generalni pravobranilec Mazák je sodbo Mangold obsežno grajal v zadevi Palacios de la Villa.
20 He noted that the international instruments and constitutional traditions referred to in Mangold enshrine the general principle of equal treatment, but that it was a bold proposition and a significant move to infer from that the existence of a specific principle prohibiting age discrimination.
20Ugotavlja, da mednarodni dokumenti in ustavne tradicije, na katere se sklicuje v sodbi Mangold, vsebujejo splo�no načelo enakega obravnavanja, vendar je sklepanje o obstoju posebne prepovedi starostne diskriminacije dejansko pogumen sklep in precej�en premik.
A general principle of equality potentially implies a prohibition of discrimination on any ground which may be deemed un -acceptable, so that specific prohibitions constitute particular expressions of that general principle.
Splo�no načelo enakosti potencialno pomeni prepoved diskriminacije iz katerega koli razloga, ki se lahko �teje za nesprejemljivega, tako da so posebne prepovedi poseben izraz splo�nega načela enakosti.
However, it is quite a different matter to infer from the general principle of equality the existence of a prohibition of discrimination on a specific ground and the reasons for doing so are far from compelling.
Je pa sklepanje o obstoju posebne prepovedi diskriminacije iz posebnih razlogov na podlagi splo�nega načela enakega obravnavanja popolnoma druga stvar in razlogi za to so daleč od tega, da bi bili prepričljivi.
Moreover, neither Article 13 EC nor Directive 2000/78 necessarily reflect an already existing prohibition of all the forms of discrimination to which they refer.
Poleg tega niti člen 13 ES niti Direktiva 2000/78 nujno ne izražata že veljavne prepovedi vseh oblik diskriminacije, na katero se sklicujeta.
Rather, the underlying intention was in both cases to leave it to the Community legislature and the Member States to take appropriate action to that effect.
V obeh primerih je bil namen bolj v tem, da se zakonodajalcu Skupnosti in držav članic prepusti ukrepanje v zvezi s tem.
That is what the Court, too, seems to suggest in Grant, 21 in which it concluded that Community law, as it stood, did not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Zdi se, da tudi Sodi�če to predlaga v sodbi Grant, 21v kateri je ugotovilo, da takrat veljavno pravo Skupnosti ni zajemalo diskriminacije zaradi spolne usmerjenosti.
In Lindorfer, 19 I suggested that the prohibition of age discrimination identified by the Court in Mangold was a particular expression of the general principle of equality before the law.
V zadevi Lindorfer 19sem predlagala, da je bila prepoved starostne diskriminacije, ki jo je Sodi�če ugotovilo v sodbi Mangold, poseben izraz splo�nega načela enakosti pred zakonom.
Accordingly, I felt that the better reading of Mangold was that discrimination on grounds of age had always been precluded by the general principle of equality, and that Directive 2000/78 had introduced a specific, detailed framework for dealing with, inter alia, that discrimination.
Zato sem menila, da bi bilo sodbo Mangold bolje razumeti tako, da je bila diskriminacija zaradi starosti vedno prepovedana s splo�nim načelom enakosti in da je Direktiva 2000/78 uvedla poseben, podroben okvir za obravnavanje, med drugim, te diskriminacije.
I expand on that suggested interpretation below.
To razlago, ki sem jo predlagala, bom pojasnila spodaj.
Most recently, Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer has taken the view in
Generalni pravobranilec Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer je pred kratkim v zadevi
18 — Case C-13/05 [2006] ECR I-6467, at points 46 to 56 of the Opinion.
18 – Zadeva C-13/05, ZOdl., str. I-6467, točke od 46 do 56 sklepnih predlogov.
20 — Case C-411/05 [2007] ECR I-8531, in particular points 87 to 97 and points 132 to 138 of the Opinion.
20 – Zadeva C-411/05, ZOdl., str. I-8531, zlasti točke od87 do 97 in točke od 132 do 138 sklepnih predlogov.
19 — Case C-227/04 P [2007] ECR I-6767, in particular points 52 to 58 of the Opinion.
19 – Zadeva C-227/04 P, ZOdl., str. I-6767, zlasti točke od 52 do 58 sklepnih predlogov.
21 — Case C-249/96 [1998] ECR I-621.
21 – Zadeva C-249/96, Recueil, str. I-621.
BARTSCH is less surprising that the Court omitted any reference to age discrimination in Chacón Navas and Maruko, which concerned, respectively, disability discrimination and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
BARTSCH v zadevi odločilo le na podlagi spolne diskriminacije. Manj presenetljivo je, da je opustilo kakr�no koli sklicevanje na starostno diskriminacijo v sodbah Chacón Navas in Maruko, ki sta se nana�ali na diskriminacijo zaradi invalidnosti in spolne usmerjenosti.
Maruko 22 that the ‘essential character’ of the right to nondiscrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is of a different order to that which the Court attributed to the principle of nondiscrimination based on age in Mangold.
Maruko 22menil, da se „bistvena značilnost“ pravice prepovedi diskriminacije zaradi spolne usmerjenosti razlikuje od tiste, ki jo je Sodi�če pripisalo načelu prepovedi diskriminacije zaradi starosti v sodbi Mangold.
The Court has now delivered its judgments in those four cases.
Sodi�če je že izreklo sodbe v navedenih �tirih zadevah.
Despite (or possibly, in the light of) the comments of its Advocates General, in none of those judgments did the Court review — or indeed mention — its decision in Mangold in respect of the existence of a general principle of Community law prohibiting age discrimination.
Kljub pripombam (ali ob morebitnem upo�tevanju pripomb) generalnih pravobranilcev Sodi�če ni v nobeni od teh zadev presojalo – niti omenilo – svoje odločitve v zadevi Mangold glede obstoja splo�nega načela prava Skupnosti o prepovedi starostne diskriminacije.
Palacios de la Villa specifically concerned age discrimination.
Sodba Palacios de la Villa se je posebej nana�ala na starostno diskriminacijo.
There, the Court first determined that the national legislation at issue (according to which the fact that a worker had reached the retirement age laid down by that legislation led to automatic termination of his employment contract) created a difference in treatment directly based on age.
Sodi�če je v tej zadevi, prvič, ugotovilo, da je zadevna zakonodaja (v skladu s katero je pri�lo do samodejnega prenehanja pogodbe o zaposlitvi delavca, ki je dopolnil upokojitveno starost, določeno s to zakonodajo) povzročala različno obravnavanje neposredno na podlagi starosti.
The Court next established that Directive 2000/78, whose transposition period had already expired at the material time, was applicable to the events giving rise to the dispute before the national court.
Sodi�če je dalje ugotovilo, da se je Direktiva 2000/78, katere rok za prenos se je bil že iztekel v času dejanskega stanja v postopku v glavni stvari, uporabljala za primer, ki je pripeljal do spora pred nacionalnim sodi�čem.
Hence it was able to decide the case by reference to the directive.
Zato je v zadevi lahko odločilo s sklicevanjem na to direktivo.
The Court ruled that the measure was objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour market and accepted that it was an appropriate and necessary means to attain that aim.
Sodi�če je razsodilo, da je bil ukrep objektivno in razumno utemeljen z legitimnim ciljem zaposlovalne politike in delovnega trga ter da je �lo za primeren in nujen način za uresničevanje tega cilja.
The Court made no mention of a general principle prohibiting age discrimination.
Sodi�če ni omenilo splo�nega načela prepovedi starostne diskriminacije.
In Lindorfer, the Court had reopened the oral procedure and convened a new hearing at which it had asked the parties to express their views on, inter alia, the scope of the principle prohibiting age discrimination when calculating actuarial values in the transfer to the Community pension scheme of rights acquired under a national pension scheme. Nevertheless, it decided the case purely on the basis of sex discrimination.
Sodi�če je v sodbi Lindorfer ponovno odprlo ustni postopek in razpisalo novo obravnavo, na kateri je stranke pozvalo, naj se izrečejo o, med drugim, področju uporabe načela prepovedi starostne diskriminacije pri izračunu aktuarskih vrednosti pri prenosu pravic, pridobljenih na podlagi nacionalnega sistema pokojninskega zavarovanja, na pokojninski sistem Skupnosti.
22 — Case C-267/06 [2008] ECR I-1757, point 78 of the Opinion and the footnotes thereto.
22 – Zadeva C-267/06, ZOdl., str. I-1757, točka 78 sklepnih predlogov in v njih vsebovane opombe.
The Court’s approach in Palacios de la Villa, which analyses national legislation
Pristop Sodi�ča v sodbi Palacios de la Villa, ki vsebuje presojo nacionalne zako-
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-427/06 that explicitly provides for unfavourable treatment on the ground of age through the prism of Directive 2000/78 and concludes that it is acceptable, is very different from the approach in Mangold, in which the Court stated that it was the responsibility of the national court to set aside any provision of national law which conflicts with the principle of age discrimination.
24Splo�ne dekla- racije o enakem obravnavanju so navedene tudi v �tevilnih mednarodnih dokumentih. 25 nodaje, ki izrecno določa neugodno obravnavanje zaradi starosti, z vidika Direktive 2000/78 in ugotovitev, da je to sprejemljivo, se zelo razlikuje od pristopa v sodbi Mangold, v kateri je Sodi�če navedlo, da je nacionalno sodi�če odgovorno za to, da ne uporabi kakr�ne koli določbe nacionalnega prava, ki je v nasprotju z načelom starostne diskriminacije.
24General statements on equal treatment likewise appear in a number of international instruments. 25 Specifically, the European Convention on Human Rights provides, in Article 14 (entitled ‘Prohibition of discrimination’): ‘The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’.
Zlasti v Evropski konvenciji o človekovih pravicah, člen 14 (z naslovom: Prepoved diskriminacije), je določeno: „Uživanje pravic in svobo�čin, določenih s to Konvencijo, je zagotovljeno vsem ljudem brez razlikovanja glede na spol, raso, barvo kože, jezik, vero, politično ali drugo prepričanje, narodnosti ali socialni izvor, pripadnost narodni manj�ini, lastnino, rojstvo ali kak�ne druge okoli�čine“.
26 The general principle of equality may thus plausibly be regarded as ‘the actual principle underlying the prohibition of those forms of discrimination [listed in Article 13 EC]’ and its ‘source’ is indeed ‘found … in various international instruments and in the constitutional traditions common to the Member States’. 27
26Splo�no načelo enakosti je zato mogoče �teti za „splo�no prepoved teh oblik diskriminacije [iz člena 13 ES]“ in to dejansko „izhaja iz različnih mednarodnih pogodb in ustavnih tradicij, skupnih državam članicam“. 27
In the present case (as in Mangold) the period for transposing Directive 2000/78 had not expired at the material time.
Rok za prenos Direktive 2000/78 v obravnavani zadevi (kot v sodbi Mangold) se �e ni bil iztekel v času dejanskega stanja v postopku v glavni stvari.
The question whether there is a specific principle of Community law prohibiting age discrimination is therefore again potentially before the Court.
Zato se Sodi�ču morebiti ponovno postavlja vpra�anje, ali obstaja posebno načelo prava Skupnosti o prepovedi starostne diskriminacije.
Is there in Community law a general principle prohibiting age discrimination?
Ali v pravu Skupnosti obstaja splošno načelo prepovedi starostne diskriminacije?
24 — See the Commission’s Report on the Member States’ Legal Provisions to Combat Discrimination, available online at http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/labour_law/docs/reportmsdiscrimination_en.pdf.
24 – Glej Poročilo Komisije za leto 1999 o zakonskih ukrepih držav članic na področju boja proti diskriminaciji, dostopno na spletni strani http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/ labour_law/docs/reportmsdiscrimination_en.pdf.
25 — See footnote 5 above.
25 – Glej opombo 5 zgoraj.
The general principle of equality forms part of the foundations of the Community. 23
Splo�no načelo enakosti je del temeljev Skupnosti. 23Določbe o enakosti pred
26 — As is clear from the phrase ‘set forth in this Convention’, Article 14 is not a freestanding provision, but operates in conjunction with other substantive rights guaranteed by the Convention.
26 – Kot jasno izhaja iz stavka „določenih s to Konvencijo“, člen 14 ni samostojna določba, temveč se izvaja v povezavi z drugimi materialnimi pravicami, ki jih zagotavlja Konven -cija.
Protocol 12, however, does contain such a freestanding prohibition on discrimination (of the EU Member States, only Cyprus, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, and Spain have ratified the Protocol).
Protokol 12 pa ne vsebuje take samostojne prepovedi diskriminacije (od držav članic EU so le Ciper, Finska, Luksemburg, Nizozemska, Romunija in Španija ratificirale Protokol).
It will be noted that discrimination on grounds of age is not specifically identified in either of those long (though non-ex-haustive) lists.
Opozarjam, da ta diskriminacija zaradi starosti ni posebej navedena na nobenem od teh dolgih (vendar neizčrpnih) seznamov.
23 — See Case C-17/05 Cadman [2006] ECR I-9583, paragraph 28.
27 – Vse navedbe iz sodbe Mangold, navedene v opombi 2, točka 74.
The phrase is used, with minor variations, throughout the Court’s caselaw, starting apparently with Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel [1977] ECR 1753, paragraph 7.
Besedilo „ustavnih tradicij, skupnih državam članicam“ se običajno uporablja kot podlaga za ugotovitev temeljnega načela prava Skupnosti (glej člen 6(2) EU, ki kodificira starej�o sodno prakso Sodi�ča).
27 — All quotations from Mangold, cited in footnote 2, paragraph 74.
23 – Glej zadevo Cadman, C-17/05, ZOdl., str. I-9583, točka 28.
The formula ‘the constitutional traditions common to the Member States’ is conventionally used as the basis for identifying a fundamental principle of Community law (see Article 6(2) EU, which codifies the Court’s earlier case-law).
Stavek se z manj�imi odstopanji ponavlja skozi celotno sodno prakso Sodi�ča, očitno od združenih zadev Ruckde -schel z dne 19. oktobra 1977 (117/76 in 16/77, Recueil, str. 1753, točka 7).
The roots of any clear and specific pro -hibition on discrimination on grounds of age go back less far.
Korenine kakr�ne koli jasne in posebne prepovedi diskriminacije zaradi starosti ne gredo tako daleč.
As I noted in my Opinion in Lindorfer, such a specific prohibition is, in both national and international contexts, too recent and uneven comfortably to fall within that formula.
Kot sem ugotovila v svojih sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Lindorfer, je taka posebna prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti na nacionalni in na mednarodni ravni preveč nova in neizenačena, da bi ustrezala takemu opisu. 28 Dejansko je Komisija že leta
28Indeed, as recently as 1999 redheads from restaurants as being unjust, that is based on the premiss that, as regards the enjoyment of a meal in a restaurant, hair colour is irrelevant.
Na primer, če grajamo zakon, ki rdečelasim prepoveduje vstop v restavracije, kot nepravičen, to temelji na predpostavki, da barva las ni pomembna za uživanje jedi v restavraciji.
It is therefore clear that the criteria of relevant resemblances and differences vary with the fundamental moral outlook of a given person or society.
Zato je očitno, da se merilo upo�tevne podobnosti in razlik razlikuje glede na temeljna moralna načela določenega posameznika ali družbe. 32
32 the Commission publicly stated: ‘There is very little legislation on age discrimination in the Member States.’ 29
1999 javno izrazila: „V državah članicah je zelo malo zakonodaje glede diskriminacije zaradi starosti“. 29
A moment’s historical reflection will show that statements about ‘equality’, when deconstructed, have often meant ‘equality of treatment, in particular respects, for those inside the magic circle’ rather than ‘equality of treatment in every relevant respect for absolutely everyone’.
Kratek zgodovinski pregled pokaže, da so trditve o „enakosti“, kadar so se presojale, pogostokrat pomenile prej „enakost obravnavanja, zlasti za tiste znotraj začaranega kroga“, kot „enakost obravnavanja nujno vsakogar v vseh upo�tevnih pogledih“.
In the Athens of Pericles, citizens of the polis might claim a right to equal treatment in respect of access to justice or civic advancement; 33but the concept of equality excluded equal treatment with citizens in those respects for metics 34or slaves. Spartan equality — a
V Periklejevih Atenah so lahko državljani polisov zahtevali pravico do enakega obravnavanja glede dostopa do pravnega varstva ali socialnega napredovanja; 33vendar je pojem
It is worth pausing to enquire why that should be so.
Treba se je ustaviti pri vpra�anju, zakaj naj bi bilo tako.
A classic formulation of the principle of equality, such as Aristotle’s ‘treat like cases alike’ 30leaves open the crucial question of which aspects should be considered relevant to equal treatment and which should not.
Klasična formulacija načela enakosti, kot je Aristotelova: „podobne primere je treba obravnavati podobno“, 30pu�ča odprto odločilno vpra�anje o tem, katere vidike je treba �teti za upo�tevne pri enakem obravnavanju in katere ne.
31 Any set of human beings will resemble each other in some respects and differ from each other in others.
Katera koli skupna ljudi bo v določenih pogledih podobna, v drugih pa različna.
A maxim like Aristotle’s therefore remains an empty rule until it is established what differences are relevant for the purposes at hand.
Taka maksima, kot je Aristotelova, zato ostaja prazno pravilo, dokler se ne ugotovi, katere razlike so upo�tevne za zadevne namene.