natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In their written observations, the French, German and Italian Governments claim, none the less, that a teleological interpretation of the Regulation, taking account of its objectives, could lead to allowing Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation to apply in matters relating to contracts of employment.
Francoska, nem�ka in italijanska vlada v svojih pisnih stali�čih kljub temu zatrjujejo, da bi teleolo�ka razlaga Uredbe, ki upo�teva njene cilje, lahko pripeljala do tega, da se prizna uporaba člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe na področju pogodb o zaposlitvi.
Thus, the Italian Government submits that the purpose of Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation, which is to preclude the risk of irreconcilable judgments, implies that that provision should be applicable to all types of disputes, including therefore those concerning contracts of employment.
Italijanska vlada tako trdi, da iz cilja člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe, da se prepreči protislovja odločb, izhaja, da je ta določba uporabljiva za vse vrste sporov, vključno s spori glede pogodb o zaposlitvi.
It is true that the application of Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation to contracts of employment would make it possible to extend to disputes relating to such contracts the possibility of bringing, before the same court, related claims concerning more than one defendant.
Res je, da bi uporaba člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe na področju pogodb o zaposlitvi raz�irila možnost, da se pri sporih, ki se nanje nana�ajo, pred eno sodi�če predložijo povezani zahtevki, ki se nana�ajo na več toženih oseb.
Such an extension, like that effected expressly by the Community legislature in Article 20, point 2, of the Regulation in relation to counterclaims, would reflect the general objective of sound administration of justice, which implies observance of the principle of economy of procedure.
Taka raz�iritev bi na podlagi raz�iritve, ki jo je zakonodajalec Skupnosti izrecno določil v členu 20(2) Uredbe glede nasprotne tožbe, ustrezala splo�nemu cilju dobrega delovanja sodnega organa, ki vključuje spo�tovanje načela ekonomičnosti postopka.
However, it is settled caselaw that the rules of special jurisdiction must be interpreted strictly and cannot be given an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by the Regulation (see, inter alia, in relation to Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation, Case C-103/05 Reisch Montage [2006] ECR I-6827, paragraph 23, and Case C-98/06 Freeport [2007] ECR I-8319, paragraph 35).
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse vendarle izhaja, da je treba določbe o posebni pristojnosti razlagati ozko, kar ne dopu�ča razlage zunaj primerov, ki so izrecno navedeni v Uredbi (glede člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe glej zlasti sodbi z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Reisch Montage, C-103/05, ZOdl., str. I-6827, točka 23, in z dne 11. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Freeport, C-98/06, ZOdl., str.
As has been noted in paragraph 23 of this judgment, the wording of the provisions of Section 5 of Chapter II of the Regulation precludes the application of Article 6, point 1, in disputes concerning matters relating to contracts of employment.
I-8319, točka 35). Kot pa je bilo ugotovljeno v točki 23 te sodbe, besedilo določb oddelka 5 poglavja II Uredbe izključuje uporabo navedenega člena 6, točka 1, v sporu glede pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
Moreover, sound administration of justice would imply that any possibility of relying on Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation should be open, as in the case of counterclaims, both to employees and to employers.
Dobro delovanje sodnega organa naj bi poleg tega pomenilo, da se na člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe, kot v primeru nasprotne tožbe, lahko sklicuje tako delodajalec kot delavec.
Such an application of Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation could give rise to consequences contrary to the objective of protection, which the insertion in that regulation of a specific section for contracts of employment sought specifically to ensure.
Taka uporaba člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe pa bi lahko povzročila posledice, ki bi bile v nasprotju s ciljem varstva, ki ga posebej zasleduje uvedba posebnega oddelka za pogodbe o zaposlitvi v to uredbo.
Reliance by an employer on Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation could thus deprive the employee of the protection afforded to him by Article 20, point 1, of that regulation, according to which proceedings can be brought against an employee only in the courts of the Member State in which he is domiciled.
Dejstvo, da se delodajalec lahko sklicuje na člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe, bi tako delavcu lahko odvzelo varstvo, ki mu je zagotovljeno s členom 20(1) te uredbe, določbo, v skladu s katero je delavca mogoče tožiti zgolj pred sodi�či države članice, na ozemlju katere ima stalno prebivali�če.
As regards the possibility, suggested by the French and German Governments, of interpreting Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation as meaning that only an employee should be able to rely on that provision, it must be pointed out that that would run counter to the wording of the provisions of both Article 6, point 1, and Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation.
Glede možnosti, ki jo predlagata francoska in nem�ka vlada, da se člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe razlaga tako, da naj bi zgolj delavec imel možnost, da se sklicuje na to določbo, je treba poudariti, da je ta možnost v nasprotju z besedilom tako določb oddelka 5 poglavja II te uredbe kot njenega člena 6, točka 1.
In addition, there would be no reason to restrict the protective logic of such an argument to Article 6, point 1, alone, and it would be necessary to accept that employees, and they alone, should be able to rely on any rule of special jurisdiction provided for in that regulation which could serve their individual interests.
Poleg tega naj ne bi obstajal noben razlog, da se varovalna logika take utemeljitve omeji zgolj na ta člen 6, točka 1, in bi bilo treba priznati, da se zgolj delavec lahko sklicuje na katero koli pravilo o posebni pristojnosti, določeno v tej uredbi, ki lahko služi njegovim upravičenim interesom.
The transformation by the Community courts of the rules of special jurisdiction, aimed at facilitating sound administration of justice, into rules of unilateral jurisdiction protecting the party deemed to be weaker would go beyond the balance of interests which the Community legislature has established in the law as it currently stands.
To, da sodi�če Skupnosti pravila o posebni pristojnosti, ki so namenjena zagotavljanju dobrega delovanja sodnega organa, spremeni v pravila o enostranski pristojnosti, ki varujejo stranko, ki naj bi bila �ibkej�a, bi �lo prek ravnovesja interesov, ki jih je zakonodajalec Skupnosti postavil v sedanjem stanju prava.
Therefore, as regards the Community provisions currently in force, an interpretation such as that suggested by the French and German Governments would be difficult to reconcile with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the objectives of the
Glede sedaj veljavnih skupnostnih določb bi bila taka razlaga, kot jo predlagata francoska in nem�ka vlada, težko združljiva z načelom pravne varnosti, ki je eden od ciljev Uredbe in ki zlasti zahteva, da je treba pravila o pristojnosti razlagati tako, da so, kot
GLAXOSMITHKLINE AND LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE
GLAXOSMITHKLINE IN LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE je navedeno v enajsti uvodni izjavi te uredbe, čimbolj predvidljiva (glede navedenega člena 6, točka 1, glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Reisch Montage, točki 24 in 25, ter Freeport, točka 36).
It must also be pointed out that the Regulation, in its current version, notwithstanding the objective of protection referred to in recital 13 in the preamble thereto, does not afford particular protection to an employee in a situation such as Mr Rouard’s since, as a claimant before the national courts, there is no rule of jurisdiction available to him that is more favourable than the general rule laid down in Article 2, point 1, of the Regulation.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da Uredba v sedanji različici, ne glede na cilj varstva, ki je določen v njeni trinajsti uvodni izjavi, delavcu, ki je v takem položaju kot J.-P. Rouard, ne daje posebnega varstva, ker kot tožeča stranka pred nacionalnimi sodi�či ne razpolaga z ugodnej�im pravilom o pristojnosti kot je splo�no pravilo iz člena 2(1) navedene uredbe.
In those circumstances, the answer to the question referred must be that the rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual contracts of employment.
V teh okoli�činah je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da se pravilo o posebni pristojnosti iz člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe ne more uporabiti v sporu, ki spada pod oddelek 5 poglavja II te uredbe, ki se nana�a na pravila o pristojnosti, ki se uporabljajo za individualne pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other that 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.
The rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6, point 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 cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual contracts of employment.
Pravilo o pristojnosti iz člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah se ne more uporabiti v sporu, ki spada pod oddelek 5 poglavja II te uredbe, ki se nanaša na pravila o pristojnosti, ki se uporabljajo za individualne pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
Case C-499/06
Zadeva C-499/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie)
(Disability pension granted to civilian victims of war or repression — Condition requiring residence in national territory — Article 18(1) EC)
„Invalidska pokojnina, odobrena civilnim žrtvam vojne ali represije – Pogoj prebivali�ča na nacionalnem ozemlju – Člen 18(1) ES“
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 28 February 2008 .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 28. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Citizenship of the European Union — Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States — Social advantages
Državljanstvo Unije – Pravica do prostega gibanja in bivanja na ozemlju države članice – Socialne ugodnosti
(Art. 18 EC)
(člen 18 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-499/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-499/06
Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State.
Člen 18(1) ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, na podlagi katere bi slednja na splo�no in v vseh okoli�činah svojim državljanom zavrnila izplačilo dajatev, odobrenih civilnim žrtvam vojne ali represije, samo zato, ker v obdobju izplačevanja te dajatve ne prebivajo na ozemlju te države, ampak na ozemlju druge države članice.
However, although it is true that a residence condition constitutes a criterion capable of showing that there is such a connection, the fact remains that the circumstance that a person is a national of the Member State granting the benefit at issue and lived in that State for more than 20 years may be sufficient to establish a connection between that State and the recipient of the benefit.
Vendar, če pogoj prebivanja res pomeni merilo, ki kaže na obstoj tak�ne navezanosti, toliko bolj dejstvo, da ima nekdo državljanstvo države članice, ki podeljuje zadevne dajatve in v tej državi živi več kot dvajset let, zadostuje za dokaz obstoja navezne okoli�čine med to državo in upravičencem do te dajatve.
In those circumstances, the requirement of residence throughout the period of payment of the benefit concerned must be held to be disproportionate, since it goes beyond what is necessary to ensure that such a connection exists.
V teh okoli�činah je treba zahtevo po prebivanju v celotnem obdobju izplačevanja navedenih dajatev �teti za nesorazmerno v delu, v katerem presega to, kar je nujno za zagotavljanje take navezanosti.
Furthermore, as regards the necessity of verifying that the recipient continues to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that benefit, a residence condition also goes beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective and, therefore, fails to comply with the principle of proportionality.
Poleg tega, v zvezi s potrebo po preverjanju, ali upravičenec �e naprej izpolnjuje pogoje za pridobitev te dajatve, tudi pogoj prebivanja, presega to, kar je nujno za dosego tega cilja, in ne spo�tuje načela sorazmernosti.
It is true that both the wish to limit the obligation of solidarity with civilian victims of war or repression solely to those who have a connection with the people of the State concerned by means of a residence condition, which is regarded as an expression of the extent to which such persons are connected with that society, and the necessity to verify that the recipients continue to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that benefit constitute objective considerations of public interest which are capable of justifying the fact that the conditions for the grant or payment of the benefit may affect the freedom of movement of the citizens of that Member State.
Res je, da pomenita tako želja po omejitvi obveznosti solidarnosti v zvezi s civilnimi žrtvami vojne ali represije le na osebe, pri katerih obstaja navezna okoli�čina z narodom zadevne države, s pogojem prebivali�ča, ki bi bil izraz stopnje integracije v tej družbi, kot zahteva po preverjanju, ali upravičenec �e naprej izpolnjuje pogoje za prejemanje te dajatve, objektivna preudarka v splo�nem interesu, ki upravičujeta, da pogoji za pridobitev ali izplačilo take dajatve vplivajo na prosto gibanje državljanov te države članice.
(see paras 35, 37, 39-47, operative part)
(Glej točke 35, 37, od 39 do 47 in izrek.)
Once again, the Court has been asked to give a ruling on the lawfulness of a residence condition imposed on the recipients of a social benefit provided for by the legislation of a Member State.
Sodi�če je ponovno pozvano, naj se izreče o nezakonitosti pogoja prebivali�ča, naloženega upravičencem do dajatve iz socialne varnosti, ki jo določa zakonodaja države članice.
The stumbling block arises out of citizenship of the European Union because the civil and social integration which, through the progressive development of the status of citizen of the Union, the Treaty seeks to promote 2 is limited purely by the external borders of the Union and thus encourages transcendence of the territorial framework of national communities.
Državljanstvo Evropske unije pomeni oviro, ker sta vključevanje v družbo in socialno vključevanje, ki ju s postopnim razvojem statusa državljana Unije sku�a spodbujati Pogodba 2, upo�tevana le z vidika zunanjih meja Unije in zato spodbujata preseganje ozemeljskega okvira nacionalnih skupnosti.
Article 17 EC states:
V členu 17 Pogodbe ES je določeno:
In this case, the Court has been asked in a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, IV Wydział Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych (Regional Court, Koszalin (Poland), Fourth Labour and Social Security Chamber) about the interpretation which must be given to Article 18 EC, which guarantees citizens of the Union the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
V obravnavani zadevi je Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie IV Wydział Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych (okrožno sodi�če v Koszalinu, četrti senat za delo in socialno varnost, Poljska) v okviru predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Sodi�ču postavilo vpra�anje glede razlage člena 18 ES, ki državljanom Unije zagotavlja pravico prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic.
The national
Sodi�če a quo spra�uje, ali ta določba nasprotuje
Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.
Državljanstvo Unije dopolnjuje in ne nadome�ča nacionalnega državljanstva.
Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.’
Za državljane Unije veljajo pravice in dolžnosti po tej pogodbi.“
Under Article 5 of the Law on provision for war and military invalids and their families, the benefits provided for by the Law are to be paid to the person entitled to them whilst he is resident in the territory of the Republic of Poland, unless the Law or an international Treaty stipulates otherwise.
V skladu s členom 5 zakona o pokojninah vojnih invalidov in članov njihovih družin se dajatve, določene z zakonom, plačajo upravičencu med njegovim prebivanjem na ozemlju Republike Poljske, razen če ni z zakonom ali mednarodno pogodbo določeno drugače.
Article 18(1) EC provides:
V členu 18(1) Pogodbe ES je določeno:
II — The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
II – Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
‘Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.’
„Vsak državljan Unije ima pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic ob upo�tevanju omejitev in pogojev, določenih s to pogodbo in ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti za njeno uveljavitev.“
The reference for a preliminary ruling results from proceedings between Ms Halina Nerkowska and the Social Security Institution, Koszalin Branch.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe izhaja iz spora med Halino Nerkowsko in socialnim varstvenim zavodom, območna enota Koszalin.
In essence, under the Polish Law on provision for war and military invalids and their families of 29 May 1974, as amended by Article 12(2) of the Law on combatants and certain persons who are the victims of wartime and postwar repression of 24 January 1991, people who have suffered a disability connected with a period spent in prison or in an internment camp during or after the war are entitled to benefits.
V bistvu imajo v skladu s poljskim zakonom z dne 29. maja 1974 o pokojninah vojnih invalidov in članov njihovih družin, kot je bil spremenjen s členom 12(2) zakona z dne 24. januarja 1991 o borcih in nekaterih osebah, žrtvah represije med vojno in po njej, pravico do dajatev osebe, katerih invalidnost je posledica bivanja v ujetni�kem ali internacijskem tabori�ču med vojno ali po njej.
At the age of three she lost her parents who were deported to Siberia pursuant to a court order.
Ko je bila stara tri leta, je izgubila star�e, ki so bili na podlagi sodne odločbe prisilno izseljeni v Sibirijo.
In April 1951 the insured person, Ms Nerkowska, together with her family (her brother and aunt) were themselves deported to the USSR where Ms Nerkowska lived under difficult conditions until January 1957.
Aprila 1951 so bili zavarovanka in njena družina (brat in teta) tudi sami izgnani v ZSSR, kjer je zavarovanka do januarja 1957 živela v težavnih razmerah.
It was only after almost six years that she was permitted to return to Poland.
Šele po skoraj �estih letih je dobila dovoljenje za vrnitev na Poljsko.
After studying and working in Poland, she left her country in 1985 to settle in Germany.
Po �tudiju in delu v svoji državi je leta 1985 zapustila Poljsko in se nastanila v Nemčiji.
Following an application by the applicant in the main proceedings, the Social Security Institution, Koszalin Branch, by decision of 4 October 2002, recognised her entitlement to a disability pension as a result of partial incapacity for work linked to her stay in places of isolation, but suspended payment of this benefit on the ground that her place of residence was outside Poland.
Socialnovarstveni zavod, območna enota Koszalin, je tožeči stranki v postopku v glavni stvari na njeno zahtevo z odločbo z dne 4. oktobra 2002 priznal pravico do invalidske pokojnine zaradi delne nezmožnosti za delo, povezane z njenim bivanjem v koncentracijskih tabori�čih, vendar je izplačevanje rent iz tega naslova ustavil, ker je prebivala v tujini.
The suspension of payment of the disability pension was confirmed by judgment of 22 May 2003.
Ustavitev izplačil invalidske pokojnine je bila potrjena s sodbo z dne 22. maja 2003.
Taking the view that the resolution of the dispute depends on the interpretation of Community law, the Regional Court, Koszalin, asks the Court whether the right of freedom of movement and of residence attached by Article 18 EC to citizenship of the Union precludes the application of national rules, such as those at issue in this case, under which the payment of benefits pursuant to a disability pension for incap-a city for work linked to a stay in a place of isolation is subject to the condition that the person entitled to the benefits is resident in national territory.
Ker je okrožno sodi�če v Koszalinu menilo, da je re�itev spora odvisna od razlage prava Skupnosti, je Sodi�ču predložilo vpra�anje, ali pravica do prostega gibanja in prebivanja, ki jo člen 18 ES povezuje z državljanstvom Unije, preprečuje uporabo nacionalnih ureditev, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki plačilo dajatev iz naslova invalidske pokojnine zaradi nezmožnosti za delo, povezane z bivanjem v koncentracijskem tabori�ču, pogojuje s prebivali�čem upravičenca na nacionalnem ozemlju.
In September 2006 the applicant in the main proceedings submitted a fresh application for payment of the benefit arising from her entitlement to the pension, arguing that the Republic of Poland had acceded to the European Union and had consequently incorporated Community law into national law.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je na podlagi trditve o pristopu Republike Poljske k Evropski uniji in vključitve prava Skupnosti v poljsko pravo septembra 2006 ponovno vložila zahtevo za izplačilo rent, ki izhajajo iz njene pravice do pokojnine.
By decision of 14 September 2006, the Social Security Institution, Koszalin Branch, nevertheless again refused payment, on the ground that the applicant in the main proceedings did not have a place of residence in the territory of the Republic of Poland.
Socialnovarstveni zavod, območna enota Koszalin, je z odločbo z dne 14. septembra 2006 kljub temu ponovno zavrnil plačilo z obrazložitvijo, da tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari ni prebivala na ozemlju Republike Poljske.
It must be stated at the outset that it is not disputed by any of the parties that social benefits such as a disability pension in respect of incapacity for work caused by a stay in a place of isolation, which is at issue in this case, are not covered by the Community instruments on the coordination of social security systems, which in principle prohibit that any residence condition be imposed on the recipient.
Najprej je treba pojasniti, da med strankami ni sporno, da za dajatve iz socialne varnosti, kot je v tej zadevi invalidska pokojnina za nezmožnost za delo, povzročena zaradi bivanja v koncentracijskem tabori�ču, ne veljajo instrumenti Skupnosti o usklajevanju sistemov socialnega zavarovanja, ki načeloma prepovedujejo vsak pogoj prebivali�ča, naložen upravičencu.
In particular Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which lays down the principle of the exportability of social security benefits, expressly excludes from its scope ‘benefits schemes for victims of war or
Zlasti Uredba (EGS) �t. 1408/71, ki postavlja načelo izplačevanja dajatev iz socialne varnosti v tujino, namreč s svojega področja uporabe izrecno izključuje „sisteme dajatev za žrtve vojne ali