natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Similar considerations, moreover, led the Community institutions to replace Directive 91/628 by Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1).
Poleg tega so institucije Skupnosti na podlagi podobnih preudarkov nadomestile Direktivo 91/628 z Uredbo Sveta �t. 1/2005/ES z dne 22. decembra 2004 o za�čiti živali med prevozom in postopki, povezanimi z njim, in o spremembi Direktiv 64/432/EGS in 93/119/ES ter Uredbe (ES) 1255/97 (UL L 3, str. 1).
It should be noted, secondly, that the protection of animal welfare is a legitimate objective in the public interest, the importance of which was reflected, in particular, in the adoption by the Member States of the Protocol on protection and welfare of animals annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (OJ 1997 C 340, p.
Drugič, opozoriti je treba, da je varstvo dobrega počutja živali legitimni cilj v splo�nem interesu, katerega pomembnost se kaže zlasti v tem, da so države članice sprejele Protokol o za�čiti in dobrem počutju živali, ki je priložen Pogodbi o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti (UL 1997, C 340, str.
110) and the signing by the Community of the European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport (revised) (Council Decision 2004/544/EC of 21 June 2004 on the signing of the European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport (revised), OJ 2004 L 241, p. 21).
110), ali da je Skupnost podpisala Evropsko konvencijo o za�čiti živali v mednarodnem prevozu (revidirana) (Sklep Sve ta 2004/544/ES z dne 21. junija 2004 o podpisu Evropske konvencije o za�čiti živali v mednarodnem prevozu (revidirana), UL L 241, str. 21).
The importance of that objective is also reflected in Declaration No 24 on the protection of animals annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union.
Pomembnost tega cilja izhaja tudi iz Izjave �t. 24 o za�čiti živali, ki je priložena Sklepni listini Pogodbe o Evropski uniji.
Moreover, the Court has held on a number of occasions that the interests of the Community include the health and protection of animals (Joined Cases 141/81 to 143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 13, and Case 131/86
Sicer pa je Sodi�če večkrat ugotovilo interes, ki ga ima Skupnost glede zdravja in za�čite živali (sodbi z dne 1. aprila 1982 v združenih zadevah Holdijk in drugi,
United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 905, paragraph 17).
905, točka 17).
In particular, it held that efforts to achieve objectives of the common agricultural policy cannot disregard requirements relating to the public interest such as the protection of the health and life of animals, requirements which the Community institutions must take into account in exercising their powers, in particular in relation to common organisations of the markets.
Presodilo je namreč, da doseganje ciljev skupne kmetijske politike ne more izključiti tak�nih zahtev v splo�nem interesu, kot sta za�čita zdravja in življenja živali ter ki jih morajo institucije Skupnosti upo�tevati pri izvr�evanju svojih pooblastil in zlasti v okviru skupnih ureditev trgov.
It follows that, by thus linking payment of export refunds for live bovine animals to compliance with Community animalwelfare legislation, the Community legislature seeks to uphold public-interest requirements and the pursuit of that objective cannot, of itself, lead to a finding that Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 is invalid.
S povezovanjem izplačila izvoznih nadomestil za živo govedo s spo�tovanjem skupnostne ureditve o dobrem počutju živali posku�a normodajalec Skupnosti upo�tevati zahteve v splo�nem interesu; doseganje tega cilja samo po sebi ne more pripeljati do ugotovitve, da člen 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 ni veljaven.
The link thus made also has the advantage of ensuring that the Community budget does not finance exports made in breach of Community provisions on animal welfare.
Tak�na povezava ima med drugim prednost, da zagotavlja, da se iz proračuna Skupnosti ne financira izvoz, ki bi se izvajal v nasprotju z določbami Skupnosti o dobrem počutju živali.
However, the Finanzgericht Hamburg observes, in essence, that Regulation No 615/98 and Directive 91/628 pursue different objectives and that a regulation cannot thus refer in global terms to a directive which is, moreover, ‘regrettably vague’.
Kljub temu pa predložitveno sodi�če ugotavlja, da Uredba �t. 615/98 in Direk -tiva 91/628 v bistvu sledita drugačnim ciljem ter da uredba ne more tako na splo�no napotiti na direktivo, ki je med drugim „zaskrbljujoče nenatančna“.
However, it cannot be precluded, in principle, that the provisions of a directive may be applicable by means of an express reference in a regulation to its provisions, provided that general principles of law and, in particular, the principle of legal certainty, are observed.
Vendar se načeloma ne more izključiti možnost uporabe direktive na podlagi izrecne napotitve na njene določbe v uredbi, če se spo�tujejo splo�na pravna načela in zlasti načelo pravne varnosti.
Moreover, the purpose of the general reference made by Regulation No 615/98 to Directive 91/628 is to ensure, for the purposes of the implementation of Article 13(9) of Regulation No 805/68, compliance with the relevant provisions of that directive on the welfare of live animals and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport.
615/98 na Direktivo 91/628 zagotoviti – za uporabo člena 13(9) Uredbe �t. 805/68 – spo�tovanje upo�tevne določbe navedene direktive na področju dobrega počutja živih živali in zlasti za�čite živali med prevozom.
Consequently, it cannot properly be held, as was submitted by the applicant in the main proceedings in Case C-58/06, that that reference is contrary to the principle of legal certainty in so far as it covers all the provisions of Directive 91/628.
Tako se ne more podpreti trditve tožeče stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari v zade -vi C-58/06, da navedena napotitev v delu, v katerem se nana�a na celoto določb Direktive 91/628, kr�i načelo pravne varnosti.
It is apparent from the foregoing arguments that consideration of the first question has disclosed nothing capable of casting doubt on the validity of Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98.
Iz vseh navedenih preudarkov izhaja, da pri preučitvi prvega vpra�anja ni bil ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi lahko vplival na veljavnost člena 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98.
Question 2
Drugo vprašanje
By its second question, the Finanzgericht Hamburg asks, in essence, whether Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 is compatible with the principle of proportionality inasmuch as, according to the wording of that provision, any infringement of a provision of Directive 91/628 is automatically, and irrespective of whether animal welfare is in fact adversely affected, penalised by the total forfeiture of the export refund.
Z drugim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je člen 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 skladen z načelom sorazmernosti v delu, v skladu s katerim je glede na besedilo te določbe vsaka kr�itev ene od določb Direktive 91/628 avtomatično in neodvisno od ugotovljenega poslab�anja dobrega počutja živali kaznovana s popolno izgubo izvoznih nadomestil.
First of all, the principle of proportionality, which is a general principle of Community law and has been affirmed on numerous occasions in the caselaw of the Court of Justice, in particular with regard to common agricultural policy (see, inter alia, Case C-189/01 Jippes and Others [2001] ECR I-5689, paragraph 81, and Case C-310/04 Spain v Council [2006] ECR I-7285, paragraph 97), must be observed as such both by the Community legislature and by the national legislatures and courts which apply Community law.
Najprej je treba pojasniti, da morajo načelo sorazmernosti, ki je splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti in ga je sodna praksa Sodi�ča večkrat potrdila zlasti na področju skupne kmetijske politike (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 12. julija 2001 v zadevi Jippes in drugi, C-189/01, Recueil, str. I-5689, točka 81, in z dne 7. septembra 2006 v zadevi Španija proti Svetu, C-310/04, ZOdl., str.
That principle must also be observed by the competent national authorities in the application of Regulation No 615/98.
I-7285, točka 97), spo�tovati normodajalec Skupnosti ter nacionalni zakonodajalci in sodniki, ki uporabljajo pravo Skupnosti.
Next, it should be borne in mind that, while being bound by the principle of proportionality, the Community legislature enjoys a wide discretionary power in matters concerning the common agricultural policy, corresponding to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 34 EC to 37 EC.
Nato je treba opozoriti, da ima normodajalec Skupnosti, čeprav ga veže načelo sorazmernosti, �iroko diskrecijsko pravico, ki je v skladu s političnimi odgovornostmi, ki mu jih podeljujeta člena 34 ES in 37 ES.
Consequently, judicial review must
Tako se mora presoja sodi�ča omejiti na
2008 — JOINED CASES C-37/06 AND C-58/06 be limited to verifying that the measure in question is not vitiated by any manifest error or misuse of powers and that the authority concerned has not manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretionary power (see, to that effect, Jippes and Others, paragraph 80).
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-37/06 IN C-58/06 preveritev, ali je pri�lo pri spornem ukrepu do očitne napake oziroma do zlorabe pooblastil in ali je zadevni organ očitno prekoračil meje svoje diskrecijske pravice (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Jippes in drugi, točka 80).
The principle of proportionality requires that measures adopted by Community institutions do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued (see, to that effect, Case C-331/88 Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I-4023, paragraph 13, and Jippes and Others, paragraph 81).
Načelo sorazmernosti zahteva, da se v aktih institucij Skupnosti ne prekoračijo meje tega, kar je primerno in nujno za uresničitev ciljev, ki jim legitimno sledi sporna ureditev, pri čemer se pri več primernih ukrepih izbere najmanj obremenilni, in da povzročene neugodnosti niso nesorazmerne s sledenimi cilji (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 13. novembra 1990 v zadevi Fedesa in drugi, C-331/88, Recueil, str. I-4023, točka 13, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Jippes in drugi, točka 81).
Finally, as regards judicial review of compliance with that principle, bearing in mind the wide discretionary power enjoyed by the Community legislature in matters concerning the common agricultural policy, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate in terms of the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue (see Fedesa and Others, paragraph 14, and Jippes and Others, paragraph 82).
Nazadnje, v zvezi s sodnim nadzorom pogojev izvajanja tega načela in ob upo�tevanju �iroke diskrecijske pravice, ki jo ima normodajalec Skupnosti na področju skupne kmetijske politike, lahko samo očitna neprimernost ukrepa, sprejetega na tem področju, glede na cilj, ki ga pristojna institucija želi doseči, vpliva na zakonitost takega ukrepa (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Fedesa in drugi, točka 14, ter Jippes in drugi, točka 82).
Thus, the criterion to be applied is not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only one or the best one possible but whether it was manifestly inappropriate (Jippes and Others, paragraph 83).
Tako ni bistveno, ali je bil ukrep, ki ga je sprejel normodajalec, edini ali najbolj�i mogoči, temveč ali očitno ni bil primeren (zgoraj navedena sodba Jippes in drugi, točka 83).
In the present case, bearing in mind the wording of Articles 1 and 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 and the purpose of that regulation, compliance with Directive 91/628 constitutes a prerequisite for payment of export refunds.
V obravnavani zadevi je treba opozoriti, da je glede na besedilo členov 1 in 5(3) Uredbe �t.
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 establishes that the consequence of failing to comply with the provisions of that directive is forfeiture of the right to the refund, leading to non-payment.
615/98 ter cilj navedene uredbe spo�tovanje določb Direktive 91/628 predhodni pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil.
It is
V členu 5(3) Uredbe �t.
It should be noted in that regard that the competent authorities of the Member States can determine the amount of export refunds only in the two clearly distinct situations set out in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da lahko pristojni organi držav članic odločajo o znesku izvoznega nadomestila samo v dveh jasno ločenih primerih iz člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98.
In the first situation, where the death of animals is attributable to failure to comply with Directive 91/628, the Community legislature does not confer any discretion upon the competent authorities, since it expressly provides that the refund is not to be paid.
V prvem primeru, v katerem se smrt živali lahko pripi�e nespo�tovanju določb Direktive 91/628, normodajalec Skupnosti pristojnemu organu ne podeli diskrecijske pravice, ker izrecno predvidi, da se nadomestilo ne izplača.
On the other hand, in the second situation, where those authorities consider that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with, but that failure has not resulted in the death of animals, the Community legislature confers a certain degree of discretion upon the competent authorities to determine whether it is appropriate, as a result of noncompliance with a provision of that directive, for the export refund to be forfeited, reduced or retained.
Nasprotno pa v drugem primeru, v katerem pristojni organ meni, da Direktiva 91/628 ni bila spo�tovana, vendar to nespo�tovanje ni povzročilo smrti živali, normodajalec Skupnosti pristojnemu organu podeli določeno diskrecijsko pravico glede odločitve, ali nespo�tovanje določbe navedene direktive povzroči izgubo, zmanj�anje ali ohranitev izvoznega nadomestila.
However, such discretion is not unlimited, since it is circumscribed by Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98.
Taka diskrecijska pravica pa ni neomejena, saj je njen okvir določen s členom 5 Uredbe �t. 615/98.
It is only in the light of the documents referred to in Article 5(2), the reports on the checks referred to in Article 4 of that regulation and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1 of the regulation that the competent authority may conclude that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with.
Pristojni organ lahko le na podlagi dokumentov iz navedenega člena 5(2), poročil o pregledih iz člena 4 te uredbe in/ali katerega koli drugega podatka, ki ga ima o spo�tovanju določb člena 1 navedene uredbe, sklepa, da Direktiva 91/628 ni bila spo�tovana.
The documents referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98 and the reports referred to in Article 4 of that regulation all relate to the physical condition and/or the health of animals during transport.
Dokumenti iz člena 5 Uredbe �t. 615/98 in poročila iz člena 4 iste uredbe se nana�ajo na fizično stanje in/ali zdravje živali med njihovim prevozom.
The competent authority can therefore conclude that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with only on the basis of documents relating to the health of the animals which must be provided by the exporter,
Pristojni organ lahko torej meni, da Direktiva ni bila spo�tovana, le na podlagi takih dokumentov v zvezi z
2008 — JOINED CASES C-37/06 AND C-58/06 such as the control copy T 5, which makes it possible to verify, inter alia, whether the animals were fit to travel and whether the means of transport complied with the provisions of that directive.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-37/06 IN C-58/06 zdravjem živali, ki jih mora predložiti izvoznik, kot je kontrolni izvod T5, na podlagi katerega se lahko med drugim preveri, ali so bile živali sposobne za pot in ali je bilo prevozno sredstvo v skladu z določbami navedene direktive.
That interpretation cannot be affected by the wording of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, according to which the competent authority may also conclude that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with in the light of all other elements at its disposal.
Besedilo člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, v skladu s katerim lahko pristojni organ tudi na podlagi katerega koli drugega podatka, ki ga ima, meni, da Direktiva 91/628 ni bila spo�tovana, ne more omajati te razlage.
In fact, that wording must also be interpreted as referring to elements which have some bearing on the welfare of the animals.
Tudi to besedilo je namreč treba razlagati tako, da se nana�a na podatke v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živali.
In those circumstances, Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 must be interpreted as meaning that noncompliance with Directive 91/628 which may result in a reduction in or forfeiture of export refunds relates to the provisions of that directive which have an impact on the welfare of animals, that is to say, their physical condition and/or their health, and does not relate the provisions of that directive which, in principle, have no such impact.
Pod temi pogoji je treba člen 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 razlagati tako, da se nespo�tovanje Direktive 91/628, ki lahko povzroči zmanj�anje ali izgubo izvoznega nadomestila, nana�a na določbe te direktive, ki so v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živali, to je v zvezi z njihovim fizičnim stanjem in/ali njihovim zdravjem, ter ne na tiste določbe, ki s tem načeloma niso povezane.
The conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 are therefore consonant with the principle of proportionality.
Pogoji, ki so določeni v členu 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, so torej v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti.
It is for the competent authority to assess whether a failure to comply with a provision of Directive 91/628 has had an impact on animal welfare, whether such a failure can, where appropriate, be remedied and whether it must result in the export refund being forfeited, reduced or retained.
Pristojni organ mora oceniti, ali je kr�itev določbe Direktive 91/628 vplivala na dobro počutje živali, ali je tako kr�itev mogoče odpraviti in ali mora povzročiti izgubo, zmanj�anje ali ohranitev izvoznega nadomestila.
It is also for that authority to decide whether the export refund must be reduced on a pro rata basis according to the number of
Isti organ mora tudi odločiti, ali je treba zmanj�ati izvozno nadomestilo sorazmerno s �tevilom živali, ki so po
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK animals which may, in its view, have suffered as a result of noncompliance with Directive 91/628 or whether that refund should not be paid since the failure to comply with a provision of that directive has had an impact on the welfare of all the animals.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK njegovem mnenju lahko trpele zaradi nespo�tovanja Direktive 91/628, ali ne izplačati tega nadomestila, če je nespo�tovanje določbe navedene direktive vplivalo na dobro počutje vseh živali.
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that the examination of the conditions for granting export refunds has disclosed nothing which would make it possible for Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 to be regarded as manifestly inappropriate in terms of the objective pursued, namely that of ensuring the protection of live animals during transport under the rules on export refunds.
Glede na vse navedene preudarke je treba zaključiti, da pri preučitvi pogojev dodelitve izvoznih nadomestil ni bil ugotovljen noben dejavnik, na podlagi katerega bi se lahko sklepalo, da člen 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 očitno ni primeren glede na sledeni cilj, ki je v okviru sistema izvoznih nadomestil zagotoviti za�čito živih živali med prevozom.
It follows that consideration of the second question has disclosed nothing capable of casting doubt on the validity of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 in the light of the principle of proportionality.
Tako ni bil pri preučitvi drugega vpra�anja ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi lahko vplival na veljavnost člena 5(3) Uredbe �t.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Ker je ta postopek za stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, to odloči o stro�kih.
Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
Stro�ki, prigla�eni za predložitev stali�č Sodi�ču, ki niso stro�ki omenjenih strank, se ne povrnejo.
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (tretji senat) razsodilo:
Consideration of the first question has disclosed nothing capable of casting doubt on the validity of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport.
Pri preučitvi prvega vprašanja ni bil ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi lahko vplival na veljavnost člena 1 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 615/98 z dne 18. marca 1998 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za dobro počutje živega goveda med prevozom.
Consideration of the second question has disclosed nothing capable of casting doubt on the validity of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 in the light of the principle of proportionality.
Pri preučitvi drugega vprašanja ni bil ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi lahko vplival na veljavnost člena 5(3) Uredbe št. 615/98 v zvezi z načelom sorazmernosti.
It is for the Finanzgericht Hamburg to assess whether the competent authorities have applied the relevant provisions of Regulation No 615/98 in a manner that is consonant with that principle.
Predložitveno sodišče bo moralo preveriti, ali so pristojni organi uporabili upoštevne določbe Uredbe št. 615/98 v skladu z navedenim načelom.
Case C-246/06
Zadeva C-246/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras)
(Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — Direct effect — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under a judicial conciliation settlement — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision)
„Socialna politika – Varstvo delavcev ob plačilni nesposobnosti delodajalca – Direktiva 80/987/EGS, spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES – Neposredni učinek – Od�kodnina za protipravno odpoved delovnega razmerja, določena v okviru sodne poravnave – Izplačilo, ki ga zagotovi jamstvena ustanova – Izplačilo, ki je pogojeno s sprejetjem sodne odločbe“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social policy — Approximation of laws — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer — Directive 2002/74 amending Directive 80/987
Socialna politika – Približevanje zakonodaj – Varstvo delavcev ob plačilni nesposobnosti delodajalca – Direktiva 2002/74 o spremembi Direktive 80/987
(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74, Art. 3, first para.)
(Direktiva Sveta 80/987, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74, člen 3, prvi odstavek)
SUMMARY — CASE C-246/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-246/06
(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74)
(Direktiva Sveta 80/987, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74)