natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The appellant also criticises the grounds set out at paragraph 124 of the judgment under appeal, according to which ‘the lawfulness of a Community legislative act cannot depend on the manner in which it is applied in practice’, and those set out at paragraph 125, which refers to the caselaw to the effect that respect for the principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with respect for the principle of legality, according to which a person may not rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party.
Pritožnik poleg tega kritizira razloge izpodbijane sodbe, navedene tako v točki 124 te sodbe – v skladu s katerimi „zakonitost regulativnega akta Skupnosti ne more biti odvisna od načina njegovega izvajanja v praksi“– kot v točki 125 te sodbe, kjer je navedena sodna praksa, v skladu s katero je treba spo�tovanje načela enakega obravnavanja uskladiti s spo�tovanjem načela zakonitosti, v skladu s katerim nihče v svojo korist ne more uveljavljati nezakonitosti nekega ravnanja, ki je bilo storjeno v korist nekoga drugega.
The appellant invokes in that regard infringement of the principles of equal treatment and the equality of the parties before the Community judicature, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons, which is binding on the Community judicature and the institutions.
Pritožnik v zvezi s tem navaja kr�itev načel enakega obravnavanja in enakosti strank pred sodi�čem Skupnosti, pravic obrambe ter obveznosti obrazložitve, naložene sodi�ču Skupnosti in institucijam.
The Commission and the Council refer to the terms of Article 1(3)(a) and the second paragraph of Article 3(5)(b) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations and point out that the first of those provisions provides that Eurostat is to calculate the economic parities ‘with reference to Belgium’.
Komisija in Svet napotujeta na besedilo členov 1(3)(a) in 3(5), drugi pododstavek, (b) priloge XI k Kadrovskim predpisom, pri čemer poudarjata, da prvi od teh členov določa, da Eurostat izračuna ekonomske paritete „glede na Belgijo“.
2008 — CASE C-71/07 P cost of living in Brussels. The implementation of the transitional arrangements is effected by implementing regulations adopted by the Council, which Eurostat merely applies.
2008 – ZADEVA C-71/07 P ureditve bi izhajala iz izvedbenih uredb Sveta, ki bi jih Eurostat le izvr�il.
The appellant failed to challenge those implementing regulations, pleading only the illegality of Regulation No 723/2004.
Pritožnik naj teh izvedbenih pravil ne bi izpodbijal, saj se je skliceval zgolj na nezakonitost Uredbe �t. 723/2004.
As pointed out at paragraphs 68 and 69 above and paragraph 136 of the judgment under appeal, the introduction under the transitional arrangements of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% does not constitute an infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v točkah 68 in 69 te sodbe in v točki 136 izpodbijane sodbe, uvedba najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 % s prehodno ureditvijo ne pomeni kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja.
Under those circumstances, the application, in fact or in law, of a correction coefficient of 100% to pensioners residing in Belgium clearly cannot constitute such an infringement.
Glede na to je treba ugotoviti, da pravna ali dejanska uporaba korekcijskega koeficienta 100 % za upokojence, ki prebivajo v Belgiji, ne bi pomenila te kr�itve.
Even if the cost of living in Belgium, calculated in accordance with the ‘country method’, was below that taken into account for the calculation of basic salary, with the result that, following the logic of the old pension scheme, a correction coefficient of less than 100% would have been applied, the fact that pensioners residing in Belgium, in the same way as all other pensioners residing in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States as referred to at paragraph 69 above, receive only the basic full pension and, therefore, enjoy a purchasing power that is greater than that of the appellant does not constitute discrimination in the context of the transitional arrangements.
Čeprav bi bilo v primeru, ko bi bili življenjski stro�ki v Belgiji, izračunani po metodi „države“, nižji od stro�kov, ki se upo�tevajo za izračun osnovne plače, posledično, z uporabo logike, ki je veljala za staro pokojninsko ureditev, namreč treba določiti nižji korekcijski koeficient od 100 %, pa dejstvo, da upokojenci, ki prebivajo v Belgiji, prejemajo – tako kot drugi upokojenci, ki prebivajo v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah, ki se obravnavajo v točki 69 te sodbe – le celoten znesek osnovne pokojnine in imajo torej vi�jo kupno moč kot pritožnik, z vidika prehodne ureditve ne pomeni diskriminacije.
It follows from the foregoing that, even if the grounds of the judgment under appeal, in particular, those set out at paragraphs 124 and 125 thereof, were vitiated by an error of law, as the appellant claims, a finding that there was such an error would not lead to the setting-aside of the judgment, since the appellant’s argument alleging discrimination by comparison with pensioners living in Belgium must, in any event, be rejected on the grounds set out at paragraphs 74 and 75 above, which were also set out by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da kljub temu, da naj bi �lo pri utemeljitvi Sodi�ča prve stopnje, zlasti v točkah 124 in 125 izpodbijane sodbe, za napačno uporabo prava, kot trdi pritožnik, ugotovitev te napake ne bi povzročila razveljavitve sodbe, zato ker je treba trditev pritožnika, ki se nana�a na diskriminacijo v razmerju do upokojecev, ki prebivajo v Belgiji, v vsakem primeru zavrniti iz razlogov, predstavljenih v točkah 74 in 75 te sodbe, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje poleg tega predstavilo tudi v izpodbijani sodbi.
Accordingly, that part of the sole plea, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and the equality of the parties before the Community judicature, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons, which is binding on the Community judicature and the institutions, must be rejected.
V teh okoli�činah je treba obravnavani del edinega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na kr�itev načel enakega obravnavanja in enakosti strank pred sodi�čem Skupnosti, pravic obrambe ter obveznosti obrazložitve, naložene sodi�ču Skupnosti in institucijam, zavrniti.
Since no part of the sole plea in law relied on by the appellant is well founded, Mr Campoli’s appeal must be dismissed.
Ker noben del edinega tožbenega razloga, ki ga navaja pritožnik, ni utemeljen, je treba pritožbo, ki jo je vložil F. Campoli, zavrniti.
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to costs.
V skladu s členom 122, prvi odstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča Sodi�če odloči o stro�kih, kadar pritožba ni utemeljena.
Under Article 69(2) of those rules, which apply to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 118, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča, ki se uporablja za pritožbeni postopek na podlagi člena 118 tega poslovnika, se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
In accordance with Article 69(3) of those rules, where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, or where the circumstances are exceptional, the Court may order that the costs be shared or that the parties bear their own costs.
V skladu s členom 69(3) navedenega poslovnika pa lahko Sodi�če odloči, da se stro�ki delijo ali da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke, če vsaka stranka uspe samo deloma ali v izjemnih okoli�činah.
Since each party has been partly unsuccessful, each party must be ordered to bear its own costs.
Če vsaka stranka s svojimi tožbenimi predlogi uspe samo deloma, je treba odločiti, da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke.
In accordance with Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which is also applicable by virtue of Article 118, the institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.
V skladu s členom 69(4) Poslovnika Sodi�ča, ki se prav tako uporablja na podlagi člena 118 tega poslovnika, institucije, ki se kot intervenienti udeležijo postopka, nosijo svoje stro�ke.
The Council must therefore be ordered to bear its own costs.
Zato je treba odločiti, da Svet nosi svoje stro�ke.
Dismisses the principal appeal and the cross-appeal;
Pritožba in nasprotna pritožba se zavrneta.
Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Campoli, Komisija Evropskih skupnosti in Svet Evropske unije nosijo svoje stroške.
Case C-94/07
Zadeva C-94/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Arbeitsgericht Bonn)
(Article 39 EC — Concept of ‘worker’ — Non-governmental organisation operating in the public interest — Doctoral grant — Employment contract — Conditions)
„Člen 39 ES – Pojem ‚delavec‘ – Nevladna organizacija, ki deluje v javnem interesu – Štipendija za doktorski �tudij – Pogodba o zaposlitvi – Pogoji“
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 17 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (peti senat) z dne 17. julija 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Meaning (Art. 39 EC)
Prosto gibanje oseb – Delavci – Pojem (člen 39 ES)
Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Provisions of the Treaty — Prohibition of discrimination based on nationality — Scope
Prosto gibanje oseb – Delavci – Določbe Pogodbe – Prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva – Področje uporabe
(Art. 39 EC)
(člen 39 ES)
Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Prohibition of discrimination based on nationality
Prosto gibanje oseb – Delavci – Enako obravnavanje – Prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva
SUMMARY — CASE C-94/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-94/07
principle of nondiscrimination in relation to workers within the meaning of Article 39 EC.
člena 39 ES spo�tovati načelo prepovedi diskriminacije.
A researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a grant contract concluded with an association operating in the public interest which manages scientific research institutes and which is established under the private law of a Member State must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC only if his activities are performed for a certain period of time under the direction of an institute forming part of that association and if, in return for those activities, he receives remuneration.
Raziskovalca, ki pripravlja doktorsko disertacijo na podlagi pogodbe o �tipendiranju, ki jo je sklenil z združenjem, ki deluje v javnem interesu in upravlja znanstveno raziskovalne in�titute ter je ustanovljeno na podlagi zasebnega prava države članice, je treba obravnavati kot delavca v smislu člena 39 ES, le če določen čas opravlja delo pod vodstvom in�tituta, ki je del tega združenja, in za to prejema plačilo.
It is for the national court to undertake the necessary verification of the facts in order to establish whether such is the case.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora opraviti potreben preizkus dejanskega stanja, da bo lahko presodilo, ali gre v zadevi, o kateri odloča, za tak primer.
In that regard, the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC has a specific Community meaning and must not be interpreted narrowly.
V zvezi s tem je pojem „delavec“ v smislu člena 39 ES pojem Skupnosti in se ga ne sme razlagati ozko.
Any person who pursues activities which are real and genuine, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, must be regarded as a ‘worker’.
Za „delavca“ je treba �teti vsakogar, ki opravlja dejansko in resnično dejavnost, z izjemo dejavnosti tako omejenega obsega, da jih je mogoče opredeliti zgolj kot podrejene in pomožne.
The essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.
Značilnost delovnega razmerja je, da oseba v določenem času v korist druge osebe in pod njenim vodstvom opravi storitve, za katere prejme plačilo.
(see paras 33-35, 37, operative part 1)
(Glej točke od 33 do 35, 37 in točko 1 izreka.)
Under Article 39 EC, freedom of movement for workers within the European Community entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
Na podlagi tega člena, prvič, prosto gibanje delavcev v Evropski skupnosti vključuje odpravo vsakr�ne diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva delavcev držav članic v zvezi z zaposlitvijo, plačilom in drugimi delovnimi pogoji.
Moreover, the principle of nondiscrimination laid down by Article 39 EC is worded in general terms and is not addressed specifically to the Member States or to bodies governed by public law.
Poleg tega je načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, ki ga ureja člen 39 ES, določeno s splo�nimi pojmi in se ne nana�a posebej na države članice ali subjekte javnega prava.
Thus, the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality applies not only to the actions of public authorities but also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating in a collective manner gainful employment and the provision of services.
Zato se prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva ne nana�a le na dejanja javnih organov, temveč obsega tudi druge predpise, s katerimi se kolektivno ureja plačano delo oziroma opravljanje storitev.
The abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons would be compromised if the abolition of State barriers could be neutralised by obstacles resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organisations not governed by public law.
Odprava ovir za prosto gibanje oseb med državami članicami bi bila ogrožena, če bi ovire, ki jih odpravi država, izničile ovire, ki bi jih z izvr�evanjem pravne avtonomije ustvarila združenja in organizacije, ki niso osebe javnega prava.
Thus, with regard to Article 39 EC, which lays down a fundamental freedom and which constitutes a specific application of the general prohibition of discrimination contained in Article 12 EC, the prohibition of discrimination applies equally to all agreements intended to regulate paid
Zato se v zvezi s členom 39 ES, ki ureja temeljno svobo�čino in je poseben izraz splo�ne prepovedi diskriminacije iz člena 12 ES, prepoved diskriminacije nana�a tudi na vse dogovore,
RACCANELLI labour collectively, as well as to contracts between individuals.
RACCANELLI s katerimi se kolektivno ureja plačano delo, ter na pogodbe med posamezniki.
(see paras 41-46, 48, operative part 2)
(Glej točke od 41 do 46, 48 in točko 2 izreka.)
Furthermore, neither Article 39 EC nor Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community prescribes a specific measure to be taken by the Member States or privatelaw associations in the event of a breach of the prohibition of discrimination, but leaves them free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving the objective of those respective provisions, depending on the different situations which may arise.
Poleg tega niti člen 39 ES niti določbe Uredbe �t. 1612/68 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti državam članicam ali zasebnopravnim združenjem v primeru kr�itve prepovedi diskriminacije ne nalagajo sprejetja določenega ukrepa, temveč jim prepu�čajo, da glede na različne položaje, ki lahko nastanejo, sami izberejo med različnimi re�itvami, primernimi za doseganje cilja teh določb.
Consequently, in the event that a foreign doctoral student is justified in relying on damage caused by the discrimination to which he has been subject, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the national legislation applicable in relation to non-contractual liability, the nature of the compensation which he would be entitled to claim.
Če se lahko torej tuj �tudent doktorskega �tudija utemeljeno sklicuje, da je zaradi diskriminacije, katere žrtev je bil, utrpel �kodo, mora predložitveno sodi�če glede na veljavno nacionalno zakonodajo na področju nepogodbene odgovornosti presoditi, v kak�ni obliki lahko zahteva povračilo �kode.
Discrimination based on nationality which is prohibited under Article 39 EC consists in the application of different rules to comparable situations or in the application of the same rule to different situations.
Diskriminacija na podlagi državljanstva, ki je prepovedana s členom 39 ES, se izkazuje z uporabo različnih pravil za primerljive položaje oziroma istega pravila za različne položaje.
It is for the national court to establish whether, where a privatelaw association concludes grant contracts and employment contracts with doctoral students, employment contracts being reserved for domestic doctoral students, the potential withholding of the choice between the two types of contract for a foreign doctoral student resulted in inequality in the treatment of domestic and foreign doctoral students.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora ugotoviti, ali zasebnopravno združenje, ki s �tudenti doktorskega �tudija sklepa pogodbe o �tipendiranju oziroma o zaposlitvi ter slednje pogodbe pridržuje le za nacionalne �tudente, neenako obravnava nacionalne in tuje �tudente, s tem da tujemu �tudentu doktorskega �tudija ne omogoči izbire med tema dvema vrstama pogodb.
(see paras 47, 48, 50-52, operative part 2, 3)
(Glej točke 47, 48, od 50 do 52 in točki 2 in 3 izreka.)
2008 — CASE C-94/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-94/07
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (peti senat) z dne 17. julija 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn (Germany), made by decision of 4 November 2004, received at the Court on 20 February 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-94/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Arbeitsgericht Bonn (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 4. novembra 2004, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 20. februarja 2007, v postopku
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: K. Sztranc-Sławiczek, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 April 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Sztranc-Sławiczek, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 10. aprila 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 39 EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 39 ES in člena 7 Uredbe Sveta �t. 1612/68/EGS z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti (UL L 257, str. 2).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Mr Raccanelli and the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV (‘MPG’) concerning an employment relationship which Mr Raccanelli claims that he entered into with the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn (‘MPI’), which forms part of MPG.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med A. Raccanellijem in registriranim združenjem Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV (v nadaljevanju: MPG) zaradi delovnega razmerja, ki naj bi ga prvi sklenil z in�titutom Maxa Plancka za radioastronomijo s sedežem v Bonnu (v nadaljevanju: MPI), ki je del MPG.
Article 1 of Regulation No 1612/68, which appears in Title I, headed ‘Eligibility for employment’, provides:
Člen 1 Uredbe �t. 1612/68, ki je vključen v Naslov I te uredbe z naslovom „Dostop do zaposlitve“, določa:
Any national of a Member State, shall, irrespective of his place of residence, have the right to take up an activity as an employed person, and to pursue such activity, within the territory of another Member State in accordance with the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action governing the employment of nationals of that State.
Vsak državljan države članice ima – ne glede na njegovo prebivali�če – pravico, da v drugi državi članici sprejme zaposlitev in se zaposli v skladu z zakoni ali drugimi predpisi, ki veljajo za zaposlovanje državljanov te države.
He shall, in particular, have the right to take up available employment in the territory of another Member State with the same priority as nationals of that State.’
Zlasti ima pravico, da sprejme razpoložljivo zaposlitev na območju druge države članice z enako prednostjo kot državljani te države.“
Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68, which appears in Title II, headed ‘Employment and equality of treatment’, is worded as follows:
Člen 7 Uredbe �t. 1612/68, ki je vključen v Naslov II te uredbe z naslovom „Zaposlovanje in enako obravnavanje“, določa:
A worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal, and, should he become unemployed, reinstatement or re-employment.
Delavec, ki je državljan države članice, v drugi državi članici zaradi njegovega državljanstva ne sme biti deležen drugačnega obravnavanja kot domači delavci v zvezi z zaposlitvenimi in delovnimi pogoji, predvsem glede plačila, odpovedi in, če bi postal brezposeln, glede vrnitve na delovno mesto ali ponovne zaposlitve.
Any clause of a collective or individual agreement or of any other collective regulation concerning eligibility for employment, employment, remuneration and other conditions of work or dismissal shall be null and void in so far as it lays down or authorises discriminatory conditions in respect of workers who are nationals of the other Member States.’
Vsaka določba kolektivne ali individualne pogodbe ali druge kolektivne ureditve glede dostopa do zaposlitve, zaposlitve, plačila in drugih delovnih pogojev ali odpovedi, je nična, če določa ali dopu�ča diskriminacijske pogoje za delavce, ki so državljani drugih držav članic.“
According to national legislation, ‘BAT/2 employment contract’ or ‘BAT IIa halftime contract’ means a contract entered into on the basis of the IIa grade of the pay scale, as applicable at the material time, of the federal collective agreement for public-sector workers (BAT), and under which the working hours correspond to 50% of a full-time post.
Iz nacionalne zakonodaje izhaja, da je „pogodba o zaposlitvi BAT/2“ ali „BAT IIa/polovični delovni čas“ pogodba, ki se sklene na podlagi uvrstitve v plačni razred IIa v upo�tevnem času veljavne plačne lestvice kolektivne pogodbe za zvezne uslužbence (BAT) in določa delovni čas, ki ustreza 50 % zaposlitve za polni delovni čas.
MPG is established under German private law in the form of an association operating in the public interest.
MPG je bil ustanovljen na podlagi nem�kega zasebnega prava in ima status združenja, ki deluje v javnem interesu.
It manages a number of scientific research institutes in Germany and other European States.
V Nemčiji in drugih evropskih državah upravlja �tevilne znanstvenoraziskovalne in�titute.
These research institutes, named ‘Max Planck Institutes’, conduct basic research in the general interest in the natural sciences, life sciences, the humanities and social sciences.
Ti raziskovalni in�tituti, poimenovani „in�tituti Maxa Plancka“, v splo�nem interesu opravljajo temeljne raziskave na področju naravnih, biolo�kih, humanističnih in družboslovnih znanosti.
MPG operates two methods of advancement for junior researchers, enabling them, in particular, to prepare a thesis: a grant contract or an employment contract.
MPG izvaja dve obliki uveljavljanja mladih raziskovalcev, v okviru katerih lahko ti zlasti pripravijo disertacijo, in sicer sklepa z njimi pogodbe o �tipendiranju in o zaposlitvi.
The main difference between the two means of support for doctoral students is that:
Dve obliki podpore �tudentom doktorskega �tudija se razlikujeta zlasti v dejstvu, da: