natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Instead it leaves it to the Member States to choose between the three types of measure, all of which are ranked equally and one or more of which the Member States must — at their total discretion — implement
Nasprotno prepu�ča državam članicam izbiro med temi tremi vrstami ukrepov, ki so
63 — Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraphs 62 and 63.
63 – Sodba Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točki 62 in 63).
64 — Clause 1(b) of the Framework Agreement.
64 – Določba 1(b) okvirnega sporazuma.
See also Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraphs 63 and 79.
Glej tudi sodbo Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točki 63 in 79).
65 — Adeneler, paragraphs 65, 80, 92 and 101; Marrosu and Sardino, paragraphs 44 and 50; and Vassallo, paragraph 35 (all cited in footnote 3).
65 – Sodbe Adeneler (točke 65, 80, 92 in 101), Marrosu in Sardino (točki 44 in 50) in Vassallo (točka 35), vse navedene v opombi 3.
IMPACT in a manner that is effective and consistent with the purpose of the Directive.
IMPACT enakovredni in od katerih morajo po prostem preudarku prenesti enega ali več na način, ki je učinkovit in ki ustreza cilju Direktive.
66In that way, account is taken of the situation in each Member State and the circumstances of particular sectors and occupations.
66 Ta do (c) okvirnega sporazuma, na podlagi zgolj zamude države članice pri prenosu Direktive ni mogoče izhajati iz neposredne uporabljivosti te določbe ali posameznih delov te določbe.
67 the Framework Agreement are not ranked inter se, it cannot be inferred merely from the Member State’s failure to transpose the Directive that Clause 5(1) or individual components of it are directly applicable.
način naj bi omogočal upo�tevanje stanja v vsaki državi članici in razmer v posameznih sektorjih in poklicih. 67
A Member State is therefore not necessarily required to introduce the first of the three possible measures.
Zato državi članici ni treba nujno sprejeti prvega od treh ukrepov, ki so na izbiro.
There is nothing to prevent it from simply defining the maximum total duration of successive employment relationships or the maximum number of renewals of fixedterm employment relationships in order to prevent abuse, instead of defining objective reasons.
Nič ji ne preprečuje, da namesto objektivnih razlogov določi le najdalj�e skupno trajanje zaporednih delovnih razmerij za določen čas ali največje �tevilo obnovitev delovnih razmerij za določen čas, da na ta način prepreči zlorabe.
Nor, contrary to the Commission’s view, does the requirement of an objective reason for the renewal of fixedterm employment relationships represent a sort of lowest common denominator which, if the Directive is not properly transposed, could be distilled from Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement as constituting the minimum content of that provision.
Zahteva po objektivnem razlogu za obnovitev delovnih razmerij za določen čas, drugače kot meni Komisija, tudi ne pomeni neke vrste najmanj�ega skupnega imenovalca, ki bi se lahko v primeru pomanjkljivega prenosa izlu�čil iz določbe 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma kot vsebinski minimum.
Nor does a failure to introduce the other two possible measures necessarily imply that the options available to the Member State concerned are limited to the first measure once the deadline for transposing Direct- ive 1999/70 has passed.
Prav tako iz tega, da nista bila uvedena druga dva možna ukrepa, ne izhaja, da so se možnosti izbire zadevne države članice s potekom roka za prenos Direktive 1999/70 nujno skrčile na prvi ukrep.
Once that deadline has passed, all that has been established is that the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil its obligations to transpose the directive.
S potekom roka za prenos je dejstvo le, da zadevna država članica ni izpolnila obveznosti glede prenosa.
However, as the three measures laid down under Clause 5(1)(a) to (c) of
Ker pa ne obstaja vrsti red med temi tremi ukrepi, predvidenimi v določbi 5(1), od (a)
66 — As to the obligation in respect of the purpose and the practical effectiveness of the Directive or of the Framework Agreement, see Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraphs 68, 82 and 101.
66 – K obveznosti glede cilja in glede polnega učinka direktive oziroma okvirnega sporazuma glej sodbo Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točke 68, 82 in 101).
67 — See paragraph 10 of the General Considerations of the Framework Agreement and the third paragraph in the preamble to the Agreement; also Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 68.
67 – Glej točko 10 splo�nih ugotovitev okvirnega sporazuma in tretji odstavek njegove preambule, dalje sodbo Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točka 68).
This is because only the first of the three possible measures would, on being incorporated into national law, result in any requirement that the renewal of fixedterm employment contracts or relationships be based on objective reasons.
Kajti le prvi od treh ukrepov, ki so na izbiro, sploh vzpostavi, če je prenesen v nacionalno pravo, zahtevo po objektivnih razlogih za obnovitev pogodb o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerij za določen čas.
By contrast, the other two measures do not necessarily entail the need for such justification since, provided that the maximum total duration or maximum number of renewals fixed in accordance with the Directive, is not exceeded, a fixedterm employment relationship may be renewed even if there is no objective reason for doing so, without that renewal being contrary to the Framework Agreement.
Nasprotno pa oba druga ukrepa ne zahtevata nujno take obveznosti upravičevanja. Dokler se namreč ne preseže najdalj�e skupno trajanje oziroma največje �tevilo obnovitev, ki je določeno v skladu z Direktivo, se lahko delovno razmerje za določen čas obnovi tudi, če ni objektivnega razloga, ne da bi temu nasprotoval okvirni sporazum.
Member States may reflect the exceptional nature of fixedterm employment relationships in their national law in other ways too, for example by defining a maximum total duration (Clause 5(1)(b)) or a maximum number of renewals (Clause 5(1)(c)).
Naravo izjeme delovnih razmerij za določen čas lahko države članice v svojem nacionalnem pravu izrazijo tudi na drugačen način, namreč z določitvijo najdalj�ega skupnega trajanja (določba 5(1)(b)) ali največjega �tevila obnovitev (določba 5(1)(c)).
Although it is made particularly clear in paragraph 7 of the General Considerations of the Framework Agreement that the use of fixedterm employment contracts founded on objective reasons 68is a way to prevent abuse, that does not mean, however, that fixedterm employment contracts are permissible only if there are objective reasons for fixing the term, or that, in the absence of objective reasons, such contracts should automatically be regarded as an abuse.
Točka 7 splo�nih ugotovitev okvirnega sporazuma sicer posebej poudarja, da je uporaba pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas, ki temeljijo na objektivnih razlogih, 68način preprečevanja zlorab.
If that were the case, the measures provided for in Clause 5(1)(b) and (c) of the Framework Agreement would be superfluous.
To pa ne pomeni, da bi bile pogodbe o zaposlitvi za določen čas sploh dopustne le, če za časovno omejitev obstajajo objektivni razlogi, in da bi bilo treba, če ni objektivnih razlogov, avtomatično �teti, da gre pri njih za zlorabo.
In general terms, therefore, the present case is not so much on a par with Francovich (cited by the Commission) — the minimum scope of protection could at least be established from the directive at issue in that case 72 — as it is with Von Colson and Kamann (referred to by the Labour Court), in which no particular measure was prescribed and in which, moreover, the Member States were given a wide discretion as to the nature of the measures to be adopted.
Čisto na splo�no torej obravnavani primer ne spominja toliko na zadevo Francovich, ki jo navaja Komisija, – iz zadevne direktive v tem primeru je bilo vsaj mogoče izlu�čiti vsebinski minimum glede obsega varstva 72– kot bolj na zadevo Von Colson in Kamann, ki jo navaja Labour Court, kjer državam članicam ni bil predpisan določen ukrep in jim je dalje ostala na razpolago �iroka diskrecijska pravica glede vrste ukrepov, ki jih morajo sprejeti. 73
71That does not mean, however, that there must always be an objective reason for concluding or renewing fixedterm employ-
Okvirni sporazum sicer nedvomno izhaja iz tega, da so pogodbe o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas splo�na oblika delovnih razmerij 70in da pogodbe o zaposlitvi za določen čas, kot poudarja Sodi�če, „le v nekaterih okoli�činah“ ustrezajo potrebam
Overall, therefore, Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement does not fulfil the requirements for direct applicability.
Skupno gledano tako določba 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma ne izpolnjuje pogojev za neposredno uporabo.
Thus, in paragraph 7 of the General Considerations, the reference is to ‘objektive Gründe’ and in Clause 5(1)(a) to ‘sachliche Gründe’.
71 – Sodba Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točka 62), glej tudi točko 8 splo�nih ugotovitev okvirnega sporazuma in drugi odstavek njegove preambule.
69 — See to that effect Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 62.
68 – V nem�ki jezikovni različici okvirnega sporazuma je terminologija neenotna; tako točka 7 splo�nih ugotovitev govori o „objektivnih razlogih“, določba 5(1)(a) pa o „stvarnih razlogih“.
70 — See paragraph 6 of the General Considerations and the second paragraph of the preamble to the Framework Agreement.
Če pa pogledamo druge jezikovne različice, lahko ugotovimo, da je to posebna težava nem�ke različice in da ne gre za vsebinsko razliko.
72 — Francovich (cited in footnote 25), paragraphs 17 to 20, on the ‘content of the guarantee’).
72 – Sodba Francovich (navedena v opombi 25, točke od 17 do 20, glede „vsebine jamstva“).
The direct effect of the directive at issue in that case was rejected on other grounds (Francovich, paragraphs 23 to 26).
Neposredna veljava direktive, ki je bila obravnavana v tej zadevi, je bila zavrnjena iz drugih razlogov (sodba Francovich, točke od 23 do 26).
71 — Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 62.
69 – V tem smislu sodba Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točka 62).
See also paragraph 8 of the General Considerations and the second paragraph of the preamble to the Framework Agreement.
73 – Sodba z dne 10. aprila 1984 v zadevi Von Colson in Kamann (14/83, Recueil, str. 1891, zlasti točki 18 in 27).
73 — Case 14/83 Von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891, in particular, paragraphs 18 and 27.
70 – Glej točko 6 splo�nih ugotovitev okvirnega sporazuma in drugi odstavek njegove preambule.
C — Question 3: Community-law requirements for the renewal of fixedterm employment relationships after the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70 but before the entry into force of the national transposing legislation
C – Tretje vprašanje: določbe prava Skupnosti glede obnovitve delovnih razmerij za določen čas po poteku roka za prenos Direktive 1999/70, ampak pred uveljavitvijo nacionalnega zakona o prenosu
If, on the other hand, Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement were confirmed to be directly applicable in the terms suggested by the Commission, the protection of the workers concerned would need to be appropriately safeguarded.
Če bi se, nasprotno, neposredna uporabljivost določbe 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma potrdila v smislu, ki ga predlaga Komisija, bi bilo treba primerno upo�tevati varstvo prizadetih delavcev.
While the Framework Agreement does not place the Member States under any general obligation to convert fixedterm employment relationships to employment relationships of indefinite duration, 74it would be contrary to the protective purpose of the Framework Agreement if the workers concerned were to lose their jobs immediately solely on the basis of an unlawful time-limit on their employment contracts.
Okvirni sporazum sicer na splo�no ne zavezuje držav članic, da preoblikujejo delovna razmerja, sklenjena za določen čas, v delovna razmerja za nedoločen čas 74.
By its third question, the referring court seeks to obtain a ruling on whether Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement permits a Member State, acting in its capacity as an employer, to renew existing fixedterm employment contracts for relatively extended fixed terms — up to eight years in the present case — in the period between the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70 and the entry into force of the national transposing legislation.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s tretjim vpra�anje izvedeti, ali določba 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma dovoljuje državi članici, ki nastopa kot delodajalec, da v obdobju od poteka roka za prenos Direktive 1999/70 do uveljavitve nacionalnega zakona o prenosu za določen čas obnovi obstoječe pogodbe o zaposlitvi za določen čas za razmeroma dolga omejena časovna obdobja – v obravnavanem primeru: do osem let.
Underlying this question is the concern that the employees affected may have lost the protection of the 2003 Act and of the Framework Agreement because their employment contracts were renewed for such extended terms shortly before the Irish transposing legislation entered into force.
Za tem vpra�anjem stoji bojazen, da je bilo zadevnim delavcem z obnovitvijo njihovih pogodb o zaposlitvi za tako dolga omejena časovna obdobja tik pred uveljavitvijo irskega zakona o prenosu odvzeto varstvo, ki ga določata tako zakon iz leta 2003 kot tudi okvirni sporazum.
Irrespective of whether individuals can rely directly on Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, the defaulting Member State may however be required (in accordance with Francovich and subject to the conditions laid down in that case) to compensate citizens in respect of any loss or damage caused by the failure properly to transpose Directive 1999/70. 75
Ne glede na to, ali se posamezniki lahko neposredno sklicujejo na določbo 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma, je lahko država članica, ki je zamudila s prenosom, v skladu s sodbo Francovich in pogoji, ki so v njej določeni, zavezana, da državljanom povrne �kodo, ki so jo morebiti utrpeli zaradi nepravilnega prenosa Direktive 1999/70. 75
74 — See Adeneler, paragraphs 91 and 101, and Marrosu and Sardino, paragraph 47 (both cited in footnote 3).
74 – Primerjaj v opombi 3 navedene sodbe Adeneler (točki 91 in 101) in Marrosu in Sardino (točka 47).
75 — Francovich (cited in footnote 25), paragraphs 30 to 46, and settled caselaw since, most recently Farrell (cited in footnote 44), paragraph 43.
75 – Sodba Francovich (navedena v opombi 25, točke od 30 do 46) in poznej�a ustaljena sodna praksa, glej nazadnje sodbo Farrell (navedena v opombi 44, točka 43).
The referring court asks the Court of Justice to consider this question ‘having regard’ to the Court’s answers to Questions 1 and 2(b).
Predložitveno sodi�če napro�a Sodi�če, da to vpra�anje preuči „glede na“ svoje odgovore na vpra�anje 1 in vpra�anje 2(b).
The following remarks are therefore
Pri naslednjih ugotovitvah zato izhajam iz tega, da določba 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma,
76 authorities are subject to a positive obligation — beyond a mere prohibition on frustrating the objective of a directive — actively to promote the attainment of that objective.
dosego cilja, ki ga določa direktiva. 78 To pa �e zlasti velja po poteku roka za prenos, če obstaja pozitivna obveznost vseh nosilcev javne oblasti, da morajo aktivno spodbujati dosego cilja direktive, kar presega samo prepoved sprejemanja vseh ukrepov, ki bi lahko ogrozili doseganje ciljev direktive.
If the direct application of that provision is ruled out, Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement in itself cannot preclude the renewal for up to eight years of the employment relationships concerned.
Če neposredna uporaba določila ne pride v po�tev, potem sama določba 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma ne more biti ovira obnovitvi zadevnih delovnih razmerij za določen čas za obdobje do osem let.
However, the framework agreement on fixedterm work is intended merely to establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixedterm employment contracts or relationships (see Clause 1(b) and Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement).
Namen okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas pa je zgolj vzpostaviti okvir za preprečevanje zlorab, ki izhajajo iz veriženja pogodb o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerij za določen čas (glej določbo 1(b) in določbo 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma).
No other conclusion can be drawn if the prohibition on frustrating the objective of a directive, referred to both by the referring court and by IMPACT, is taken into account.
Rezultat je enak tudi, če se upo�teva prepoved sprejemanja vseh ukrepov, ki bi lahko ogrozili doseganje ciljev direktive, na katero sta opozorila tako predložitveno sodi�če kot tudi IMPACT.
The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, in its capacity as a public employer, cannot have infringed that objective of establishing appropriate general requirements simply by renewing individual fixedterm employment relationships — for another, albeit relatively extended, fixed term — shortly before the national transposing legislation entered into force.
Irsko zunanje ministrstvo, ki nastopa kot delodajalec, ni moglo tega cilja vzpostavitve primernih okvirnih pogojev kr�iti že samo s tem, da je posamična delovna razmerja za določen čas tik pred uveljavitvijo nacionalnega zakona o prenosu �e enkrat obnovilo za določen čas, pa četudi za razmeroma dolga omejena časovna obdobja.
Admittedly, all national authorities are obliged to help to achieve the result prescribed by a directive.
Vsi nacionalni organi so sicer zavezani, da prispevajo k doseganju cilja, ki ga določa neka direktiva.
That obligation stems from Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC in conjunction with the directive itself.
Ta obveznost izhaja iz čle na 10 ES in iz člena 249(3) ES v povezavi s samo direktivo.
77Even during the period prescribed for transposing a direct- ive, the Member States are therefore obliged to refrain from anything that could be liable seriously to compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by it, 78 and all the more so once the period prescribed for transposition has expired, at which point all public
77 Države članice se morajo zato že v času roka za prenos direktive vzdržati vsega, kar bi lahko resno ogrozilo
76 — Points 105 to 119 of this Opinion.77 — See Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 117.
76 – Točke od 105 do 119 teh sklepnih predlogov.
5(1) of the framework agreement on fixedterm work, do not preclude a Member State, in its capacity as employer, from renewing individual fixedterm employment contracts for relatively extended fixed terms in the period between the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70 and the date of its actual transposition into domestic law.
79 Cilj določbe 5(1) okvirnega spora- določen čas ne preprečujejo državi članici, ki nastopa kot delodajalec, da v času med potekom roka za prenos Direktive 1999/70 in njenim dejanskim prenosom v nacionalno pravo obnovi posamične pogodbe o zaposlitvi za določen čas za razmeroma dolga omejena časovna obdobja.
Accordingly, such a prohibition of abuse in individual cases cannot be inferred from the Framework Agreement by reference to the prohibition on frustrating the object- ive of a directive or the domestic authorities’ obligation to cooperate (Article 10 EC in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC) either.
Zato take individualne prepovedi zlorabe za posamične primere tudi ni mogoče izpeljati iz okvirnega sporazuma s sklicevanjem na prepoved sprejemanja vseh ukrepov, ki bi lahko ogrozili doseganje ciljev direktive, ali na dolžnost sodelovanja nacionalnih organov (člen 10 ES v povezavi s členom 249(3) ES).
D — Question 4: Interpretation of national legislation in conformity with directives
D – Četrto vprašanje: razlaga nacionalnih predpisov, ki je v skladu z Direktivo
If, in the period before Direct- ive 1999/70 was properly transposed into national law, each individual renewal of an existing fixedterm employment relationship in the public sector had to be examined as to whether it amounted to abuse, that would effectively result in the direct application of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, the requirements for which — as shown above 80 — have not, however, been fulfilled.
Če bi hoteli pred pravilnim prenosom Direktive 1999/70 v nacionalno pravo v vsakem posamičnem primeru preveriti obnovitve obstoječih delovnih razmerij za določen čas v javnem sektorju glede obstoja morebitne zlorabe, bi to dejansko pomenilo neposredno uporabo določbe 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma, za kar pa – kot je bilo prikazano 80 – niso izpolnjeni pogoji.
By its fourth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether a national court is required, on the basis of its obligation to interpret domestic law in conformity with directives, to interpret national legislation transposing a directive (where such legislation has been brought into force out of time) as having retroactive effect to the date by which that directive should have been transposed.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s svojim četrtim vpra�anjem v bistvu izvedeti, ali mora nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi svoje dolžnosti, da nacionalno pravo razlaga v skladu z Direktivo, razlagati prepozno sprejeti nacionalni zakon o prenosu Direktive tako, da učinkuje za nazaj od dneva poteka roka za prenos te direktive.
To summarise, therefore:
Skupno zato velja:
Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, in conjunction with Clause
Člen 10 ES in člen 249(3) ES v povezavi z določbo 5(1) okvirnega sporazuma o delu za
79 — In Adeneler (cited in footnote 3), paragraphs 65, 68, 82, 92 and 101, the Court emphasises that the Member States are required to guarantee the result imposed by Community law and to prevent in an effective manner the misuse of successive fixedterm employment relationships.
79 – Sodi�če v sodbi Adeneler (navedena v opombi 3, točke 65, 68, 82, 92 in 101) poudarja, da morajo države članice zagotoviti rezultat, ki ga določa pravo Skupnosti, in dejansko preprečevati zlorabe, ki izhajajo iz veriženja delovnih razmerij za določen čas.
Further, it is apparent from the reasoning in the order for reference that the referring court is concerned solely with any retroactive effect of section 6 of the 2003 Act, which transposes the principle of nondiscrimination against fixedterm workers into Irish law.
Poleg tega iz obrazložitve predložitvenega sklepa izhaja, da predložitveno sodi�če zanima le morebitna retroaktivna veljava člena 6 zakona iz leta 2003, ki v irsko pravo prena�a načelo nediskriminacije delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas.
80 — See points 105 to 119 of this Opinion.
80 – Glej točke od 105 do 119 teh sklepnih predlogov.
83To do so they must use in full the discretion that is given to them under national law. 84
83Za to morajo v celoti izkoristiti diskre- cijsko pravico, ki jim jo priznava nacionalno pravo. 84
As I am proposing that not only Question 1 but also Question 2 should be answered in the affirmative, at least in so far as they concern the principle of nondiscrimination (Question 2(a)), 81Question 4 does not have to be considered.
Ker predlagam, naj se ne pritrdi le prvemu vpra�anju, ampak tudi drugemu, vsaj kolikor zadeva načelo nediskriminacije (vpra�anje 2(a)), 81četrtega vpra�anja ni treba obravnavati.
Accordingly, the following remarks are made merely for the sake of completeness.
Zato naslednje ugotovitve navajam le podredno.
However, the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with a directive is limited by general principles of law — particularly those of legal certainty and nonretroactivity — and cannot serve as the basis for an interpretation of national law contra legem. 85
Obveznost razlage v skladu z direktivo pa je omejena s splo�nimi pravnimi načeli, zlasti z načelom pravne varnosti in s prepovedjo retroaktivnosti; ne more tudi biti podlaga za razlago nacionalnega prava contra legem. 85
According to settled caselaw, national courts are obliged, when applying domestic law, to interpret it, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of a directive in order to achieve the result sought by that directive and thus to satisfy the third paragraph of Article 249 EC. 82
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je nacionalno sodi�če pri uporabi notranjega prava dolžno to, kolikor je mogoče, razlagati v luči besedila in namena zadevne direktive, da bi se dosegla v njej določen rezultat in skladnost s členom 249(3) ES. 82